• 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!

Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany

bub said:
He is not yet clear:

"With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state"

Likud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
bub, they speak in past terms at that sentence.
One setnence after it they clearly state that:
"In June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace"

And even so, that is still different from not accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state.

But the point was that the Likkud Charter says something that is not respected by Netanyahu (who does not exclude the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state), exactly as the Hamas charter is not respected by the leaders of the Hamas.
Click to expand...
The Likud charter is aligned with its leader's opinions, as is Hamas.
Your source says "Dwaik told Hamas website on Thursday that the report was "inaccurate". According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands."

That does not contradict mine, which says "Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel. "
Click to expand...
Actually yes it does, they say there that they do not agree with that statement.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
bub, they speak in past terms at that sentence.
One setnence after it they clearly state that:
"In June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace"

And even so, that is still different from not accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Click to expand...

:spin:

The Likud charter is aligned with its leader's opinions, as is Hamas.
Click to expand...

Then Netanyahu doesn't accept the creation of a Palestinian state since this is written in the Charter

Actually yes it does, they say there that they do not agree with that statement.
Click to expand...

Read slowly

Your source says "Dwaik told Hamas website on Thursday that the report was "inaccurate". According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands."

That does not contradict mine, which says "Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel. "



"Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands" = "would not explicitly recognise Israel"
 
bub said:
:spin:
Click to expand...
So now correcting misinformation is spinning?
I think it goes the other way, you've just taken another attempt at propagadna and were exposed.
Take your propaganda elsewhere.
Then Netanyahu doesn't accept the creation of a Palestinian state since this is written in the Charter
Click to expand...
:spin::spin::spin:

I have asked for a dated source on the Likud Charter, and you've yet to supply us with one.
Instead you've taken to propaganda and has misquoted from Wikipedia, and I've exposed your doing.
Read slowly

Your source says "Dwaik told Hamas website on Thursday that the report was "inaccurate". According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands."

That does not contradict mine, which says "Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel. "



"Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands" = "would not explicitly recognise Israel"
Click to expand...
:rofl
You're really disconnected from ME politics.
When he says that Hamas would never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands he is referring to Israel!
Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's existence, it believes all of the Israeli land should be, and is, Palestinian.
 
Apocalypse said:
So now correcting misinformation is spinning?
I think it goes the other way, you've just taken another attempt at propagadna and were exposed.
Take your propaganda elsewhere.
:spin::spin::spin:

I have asked for a dated source on the Likud Charter, and you've yet to supply us with one.
Instead you've taken to propaganda and has misquoted from Wikipedia, and I've exposed your doing.
:rofl
Click to expand...

It's from the 1999 charter, the link is from the Israeli government.

But the point was that the Likkud Charter says something that is not respected by Netanyahu (who does not exclude the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state), exactly as the Hamas charter is not respected by the leaders of the Hamas.

You're really disconnected from ME politics.
When he says that Hamas would never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands he is referring to Israel!
Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's existence, it believes all of the Israeli land should be, and is, Palestinian.
Click to expand...

Read very slowly and pay attention to every word

Your source says "Dwaik told Hamas website on Thursday that the report was "inaccurate". According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands."

That does not contradict mine, which says "Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel. "
 
Last edited:
bub said:
It's from the 1999 charter, the link is from the Israeli government.

But the point was that the Likkud Charter says something that is not respected by Netanyahu (who does not exclude the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state), exactly as the Hamas charter is not respected by the leaders of the Hamas.
Click to expand...
Well that's outright false.
At the time of the 1999 charter, when Netanyahu was the PM for the first time, he did believe those ideas as they are listed in the charter.
The 1999 is clearly outdated now that he has taken a turn in his politics and supports the two-states solution.

The charter changes directly with the opinions of the party's leadership, just as Hamas, in this false report, stated that it will accept Israel's right to exist and update its charter.
Read very slowly

Your source says "Dwaik told Hamas website on Thursday that the report was "inaccurate". According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands."

That does not contradict mine, which says "Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel. "
Click to expand...
The level of intelligence required to understand what I told you is minimal, yet you do not seem to be capable of understanding it.
"According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands" - meaning that Hamas will never recognize Israel (=The occupation on Palestinian lands).
You seem to think that when Hamas says "The occupation on Palestinian lands" he is referring to the occupation of Gaza(in the past) and the West Bank, while in truth it is referring to Israel.
It shows you are disconnected from ME politics and do not know about the terms used by Hamas.
It's like saying that Ahmedinejad simply hates the "Zionist entity" and not Israel.
Check my second source if you're still not sure about it, where it is clearly stated that Hamas denies the reports.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
Well that's outright false.
At the time of the 1999 charter, when Netanyahu was the PM for the first time, he did believe those ideas as they are listed in the charter.
The 1999 is clearly outdated now that he has taken a turn in his politics and supports the two-states solution.
Click to expand...

Then the Hamas Charter is also outdated (read again, that was my point since the begining) since Hamas said it would accept (not "recognize", "accept") the presence of Israel inside its 1967 borders



The charter changes directly with the opinions of the party's leadership, just as Hamas, in this false report, stated that it will accept Israel's right to exist and update its charter.
The level of intelligence required to understand what I told you is minimal, yet you do not seem to be capable of understanding it.
"According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands" - meaning that Hamas will never recognize Israel (=The occupation on Palestinian lands).
You seem to think that when Hamas says "The occupation on Palestinian lands" he is referring to the occupation of Gaza(in the past) and the West Bank, while in truth it is referring to Israel.
It shows you are disconnected from ME politics and do not know about the terms used by Hamas.
It's like saying that Ahmedinejad simply hates the "Zionist entity" and not Israel.
Check my second source if you're still not sure about it, where it is clearly stated that Hamas denies the reports.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between "(officially) recognizing" and "accepting (the de facto existence of Israel inside its 1967 borders)"

Do you understand that?
 
bub said:
Then the Hamas Charter is also outdated (read again, that was my point since the begining) since Hamas said it would accept (not "recognize", "accept") the presence of Israel inside its 1967 borders
Click to expand...
Hamas, as to present, does not recognize Israel's existence.
There is a difference between "(officially) recognizing" and "accepting (the de facto existence of Israel inside its 1967 borders)"

Do you understand that?
Click to expand...
I understand more than that, I understand that as long as Hamas does not recognize Israel it denies its right to exist.
Your claim before that Hamas has recognized Israel's right to exist was something that they've completely denied immediately after the report was released.
 
Apocalypse said:
Hamas, as to present, does not recognize Israel's existence.
I understand more than that, I understand that as long as Hamas does not recognize Israel it denies its right to exist.
Your claim before that Hamas has recognized Israel's right to exist was something that they've completely denied immediately after the report was released.
Click to expand...

OK so bottom line you do not understand the nuance between "officially recognizing" and "de facto accepting"
 
Yet another source:
Haniyeh denies telling W. Post Hamas would recognize Israel

Ismail Haniyeh, who is expected to head the Palestinian Authority's new Hamas-led government, yesterday denied having told The Washington Post that Hamas would recognize Israel if Israel met certain conditions.

In an interview published yesterday, the Post quoted Haniyeh as saying that Hamas would recognize Israel if Israel agreed to "recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel."

But at a press conference with Palestinian media in Gaza yesterday, Haniyeh said that he never discussed the question of recognizing Israel in the interview; he said only that if Israel fulfilled those three conditions, Hamas would consent to a long-term truce with it.

Haniyeh did not address specific quotes from the interview with Lally Weymouth.

Weymouth asked Haniyeh repeatedly whether Hamas would be willing to recognize Israel.

Initially, he responded that the real question was "which Israel should we recognize? The Israel of 1917; the Israel of 1936; the Israel of 1948; the Israel of 1956; or the Israel of 1967? Which borders and which Israel?"

Later, however, when Weymouth specifically asked whether Hamas would recognize Israel in the 1967 borders, Haniyeh responded: "If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages."

Asked what exactly this means, he said: "We will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people - what Sheikh [Ahmed] Yassin called a long-term hudna."

Toward the end of the interview, Weymouth again asked whether Hamas would be willing to recognize Israel.

This time, Haniyeh responded: "If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights, then we are ready to recognize them."

Meanwhile, a senior Russian diplomat said yesterday that Moscow expects Hamas to make a clear pledge to recognize Israel.

Alexander Kalugin, the Russian Foreign Ministry's special envoy to the Middle East, said that Hamas should outline approaches to recognition of Israel in its action plan.

"The main thing is that they should clearly speak on the issue of recognizing the state of Israel," Kalugin said, according to the Interfax news agency.

A delegation headed by Hamas leader Khaled Meshal is due to arrive in Moscow on March 3, Hamas said in a statement posted on its Web site on Friday.

Kalugin said that the Hamas delegation is expected to arrive in Moscow "at the end of the first week of March."
Click to expand...
Haniyeh denies telling W. Post Hamas would recognize Israel - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
 
Redress said:
You should read the thread. The reactions in this thread have been outside the bounds of normal partisanship. Jallman and I ended up agreeing point for point, and I got thanks from people of all spectrum in this thread. The need to make everything into a partisan political name calling fest is just silly.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, she'll get a free pass from the Liberal media. She'll still be parking her fat ass in the front row, just like always.

I think we all know what would happen if Major Garret had made a similar comment. Don't we?
 
bub said:
Well the correct answer was that charters are just charters. The Likkud does not want to establish the borders of Israel along the Jordan river and will accept the creation of a Palestinian state. Likewise, the Hamas would accept the existence of Israel along the 1967 borders
Click to expand...

No sir it would not, a) Likud will not support a totally independent Palestinians state, they have made that ubundantly clear but they have clearly stated that they wish for a permanent peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and cooperation with Palestinians living under self rule but not as an independent sovereign state because that would entitle them to all that statehood applies; such as, a large standing army importation of as many weapons as possible, freedom to produce nuclear power, etc etc and b) Hamas will never accept anything short of the extermination of Israel, sure they may accept temporary strategic cease fires and accept all things offered to them but they will not accept the existence of Israel and refuse any permanent peace agreement.


We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

According to the liar and terrorist spokesmen Jimmy Carter, why didn't Hamas leadership itself come out and say that it would accept a permanent peace agreement?

FYI Hamas explicitly refused a permanent two state solution a year later which Carter said that they had accepted:

Hamas: We won't accept two-state solution - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
 
bub said:
OK so bottom line you do not understand the nuance between "officially recognizing" and "de facto accepting"
Click to expand...

Bottom line you refuse to admit being wrong. :shrug:
 
bub said:
.



Neither does the Likkud Charter
Click to expand...

The Likud Charter accepts a permanent peace settlement with self rule for the Palestinians and cooperation with them but not a sovereign Palestinians state because statehood would entitle the Palestians to a large standing army, importation of as many weapons as they want, developing nuclear power, etc etc. The Hamas Charter, however, rejects any final peace agreement short of the extermination of Israel and calls for the complete genocide of world Jewry.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The Likud Charter accepts a permanent peace settlement with self rule for the Palestinians and cooperation with them but not a sovereign Palestinians state because statehood would entitle the Palestians to a large standing army, importation of as many weapons as they want, developing nuclear power, etc etc..
Click to expand...

So the Likkud does not recognize a Palestinian state the right to exist. That's what I said.
 
bub said:
So the Likkud does not recognize a Palestinian state the right to exist. That's what I said.[/QUOT

Don't you guys have anything better to do than waste time on tortured logic and word games.
Click to expand...
 
washunut said:
Don't you guys have anything better to do than waste time on tortured logic and word games.
Click to expand...

someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet1.jpg
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany


YouTube - Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany




Heck, given the current anti-Isreal climate of the administration, Anti-semetism is back in vogue? :ssst:
Click to expand...

That it's being spouted here is bad enough, but I don't know if you've been to Europe lately -- some of the antisemitism has gotten truly scary again.

(edit: not that I've seen any actual "anti-Israel" climate in this administration.)
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
That it's being spouted here is bad enough, but I don't know if you've been to Europe lately -- some of the antisemitism has gotten truly scary again.
Click to expand...

Like when the French have elected a half Jewish president?

Seriously, why do you say there is a "scary level of antisemitism"? Have you travelled in Europe recently?
 
bub said:
Like when the French have elected a half Jewish president?

Seriously, why do you say there is a "scary level of antisemitism"? Have you travelled in Europe recently?
Click to expand...

Would I have said that if I didn't?
 
bub said:
And what makes you say that there is a scary level of antisemitism?
Click to expand...

Glad you asked.

I'm liberal (around 60-70% of my beliefs can be called liberal) so it's not surprising that I often find myself keeping liberal company, here in the United States and with the friends I've made abroad, in particular, several European countries such as Italy, Germany, and the U.K. (yeah, I know, that's not Europe). In the U.S. any conversations that begin on the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian issue nets me, at worst, some sarcasm and contemptuous looks. When I talk to my European friends about it the hostility that came from them was such that I sometimes wondered if I was actually safe.

If one believes that Israel is the aggressor in this situation, no different than South Africa during Apartheid, then one is going to be rather open about that, and believe me the "coffee talk" in Europe runs very much along those lines, like Europe in the end of the 19th century/ beginning of the 20th century regarding the Jews.

Have to cut this short. Gotta run.
 
bub said:
It's still a basic concept that is used in every legal system.

For example, let's say that you steal underwears in a shop. Do you think it would be fair if it gave the right to the shopkeeper to behead you?
Click to expand...
You're talking about the severity of punishment, but this isn't about punishment, it's about prevention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom