A member of parliament from UK is apologizing, after criticizing Israel over the clashes in Gaza

X Factor · May 21, 2018

oneworld2 said:
The continuing occupation is real and as such their right to resist it is also real.

There's an easy acid test .

Agree with the world to create a viable Palestinian state. Not a state that is not a state , like you prefer and roll with that

They do have a right to resist. It's that universal a right, to question it is just pathetic in itself

I have said on numerous occasions that there is legitimate resistance ( attacks against the occupying military forced and the military support structures )

That's funny. You say attacks on Israeli military will always be justified and acceptable to you but I bet you don't feel the same way when the military responds. Actually, I don't have to bet, I see it from you all the time.

and there is illegitimate forms of violence such as terrorist attack. That the former is routinely referred to as terrorism by most " pro Israeli " outlets is evidently false as is your parroting of that in the above when you claim " every act is a war crime " . There are Jews that shoot and or stab Palestinians in the occupied territories and Israel.

The only systematic use of Palestinians being used as human shields has been conducted by the IDF. They said the same thing about Hazbollah in 2006 but the groups on the ground and subsequent reports rubbished the claims

So the above contains some truths that terrorism has played a part , albeit illegally , in that resistsance and some lies about what is considered to be legitimate resistance. That's what makes up propaganda , some truths , some fabrications and some omitions

Maybe that's because I don't agree with your thesis that everything they do is a crime , same as I don't think everything the IDF does is a crime .

This is a clear lie. You've done nothing but vilify the IDF, probably because they're so effective. You've already let your wish known that Palestinians had access to better weapons.

Some of what they do is a crime and some of what you do is a crime

Case by case is best imo rather than the racist broad strokes you appear to support

And case by case in every single instance since I've started reading these threads, again, you have always come down as being against anything Israel. There's no mystery to you.

Serenity · May 21, 2018

Fledermaus said:
I wonder why that is....

Even the Egyptians won't let Hamas out...

Actually following el-Sisi’s rise to power in 2014, Egypt has kept the Rafah crossing closed for the most part to all Palestinians, which obviously included the sick and injured, humanitarian workers and much needed supplies. Closing the crossing has become the normal rule, and opening it has become the exception.

That being said, Sisi has said that he will keep the Rafah crossing with Gaza open for the entire month of Ramadan.

oneworld2 · May 21, 2018

CJ 2.0 said:
And that’s enough to dismiss the propaganda. Sorry. And no, switching to norman finkelstein doesn’t help.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two huge pillars of moral fortitude imo. They have been exposing the frauds of this conflict for decades with stunning precision and wonderful insightfulness

That you are hostile to them is actually fully understandable and is a testimony to their work

oneworld2 · May 21, 2018

Infinite Chaos said:
OK, you've neatly sidestepped what I was talking about originally and led me into a discussion of whether I see eye to eye with Noam Chomsky?

I never sidestepped anything .

You claimed that the Israelis had offered the Palestinians fair deals about the Palestinian state and I stated that I thought they were poor deals

Rather than try to explain why they were bad deals with what would have involved huge numerous posts with everyone else butting in I directed you to a youtube link in which Chomsky breaks them down and shows what a crock they were. Call me lazy or whatever but I thought it was the easiest way for you to become more aware of the deals themselves

Did you even watch it ?

We could get back to basics and start from where my position is: Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. I don't agree with a right to return to pre 1948 lands but I believe a separate Palestinian state could have been established decades ago.

Fully agree

To add, looking at the resulting gradual expansion of Israel in 1948 from the UN offered 45% of land (to the Palestinians) to what it is now shows that resistance and a continued refusal by various Palestinian leaderships to accept offered land has not worked out and Israel is - through a range of processes - some deliberate and some through occupying buffer zones, a larger area of land. Yes the fundamentalists on the Jewish side would have protested too - that's the nature of the beast that is the ME.

I'm sure had the Palestinians had a crystal ball in 1947 things and attitudes would have been different , they didn't and we have to deal with what presents itself to us today.

The key imo is to demand that Israel is forced to return to the 67 borders , mutual and agreed border adjustments aside , and a viable Palestinian state created in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with genuine autonomy. Not some state lite that was offered by Israel.

oneworld2 · May 21, 2018

X Factor said:
That's funny. You say attacks on Israeli military will always be justified and acceptable to you but I bet you don't feel the same way when the military responds. Actually, I don't have to bet, I see it from you all the time.

There's a difference between legitimate resistance and terrorism.

What I see all of the time is that every violent act by the Palestinians against the occupying power it is classed as terrorism . That's evidently wrong because people have a right to resist a foreign occupation and/or domination. .

And just as there are legitimate forms of resistance and illegitimate ones they're also legitimate acts of defence and illegitimate ones . When I think the IDF has acted illegitimately then I call it , when i think they haven't I call it too

This is a clear lie. You've done nothing but vilify the IDF, probably because they're so effective. You've already let your wish known that Palestinians had access to better weapons.

Watch your mouth if you want anything like an ongoing discussion. This is strike 2 in the one post with one at the end making 3. There will not be a 4th that gets a reply. It's up to you

When the IDF has shot Palestinians that are just about to commit or committing acts of terrorism or have attacked IDF personnel leading to legitimate acts of self defence by them you haven't seen me " vilify " them for it.

My view on weapons is that if it were anywhere near a fair fight between the sides I don't think the Palestinians would resort to terrorism as much as they do now

And case by case in every single instance since I've started reading these threads, again, you have always come down as being against anything Israel. There's no mystery to you.

When they shoot unarmed protesters , protesting in their own territory , that cannot possibly pose an imminent and mortal threat to them then don't expect me to support it. That's what I think you are referring to. If not then give examples

Infinite Chaos · May 22, 2018

oneworld2 said:
I never sidestepped anything

LOL. I've been through tactics like this before - post hour long+ videos as a response in discussions. Another poster in these boards used to do this frequently. Anyhow, yeah I'd say it was a sidestep.

You claimed that the Israelis had offered the Palestinians fair deals about the Palestinian state and I stated that I thought they were poor deals[/quote]

I think you over egg what I said and anyhow, the UN has also been involved in offering deals that would have established a Palestinian state. You forget too that for a long while, the PLO or proto-PLO was run by Egypt for Nasser's own schemes rather than establish a homeland. The actual people on the ground have been stooges for others for decades.

oneworld2 said:
Did you even watch it ?

I'm watching it - interesting to see if it says anything different from the last time I watched it in 2010 (another source)

oneworld2 said:
~ I'm sure had the Palestinians had a crystal ball in 1947 things and attitudes would have been different , they didn't and we have to deal with what presents itself to us today.

The thing is to look at history and learn from it. From being part of the Ottoman empire and on to the present day - there have been better chances to create a state than there are available now.

oneworld2 said:
~ The key imo is to demand that Israel is forced to return to the 67 borders , mutual and agreed border adjustments aside , and a viable Palestinian state created in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with genuine autonomy. Not some state lite that was offered by Israel.

The 67 borders have to be a starting point but they cannot be a red line. Israel is still surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbours including within Gaza where Hamas want to remove the state of Israel off the map. Security has to be the red line - not '67 borders. Work from a position of guaranteeing security for both Israel and any state of Palestine and you'd have my agreement.

Israel shouldn't have to be the guarantor of its own security in such a scenario - if the first thing that happens is military convoys and batteries of surface to surface missiles start being positioned near Israel's borders (remember one thing that triggered the '67 war was a convoy from Iraq on the way) then all this is folly.

oneworld2 · May 22, 2018

Infinite Chaos said:
LOL. I've been through tactics like this before - post hour long+ videos as a response in discussions. Another poster in these boards used to do this frequently. Anyhow, yeah I'd say it was a sidestep.

The only side stepping has been done by yourself

I think you over egg what I said and anyhow, the UN has also been involved in offering deals that would have established a Palestinian state. You forget too that for a long while, the PLO or proto-PLO was run by Egypt for Nasser's own schemes rather than establish a homeland. The actual people on the ground have been stooges for others for decades.

You inferred that Israelis had done all of the work towards a resolution to the conflict and had offered " huge concessions " and that Palestinian rejectionism was to blame for the conflict carrying on. How can you not read that and think that the Palestinians were mugs for not accepting these " huge concessions " and wishing to carry on with the conflict ?

What you have fallen for ,imo , is the old lie that these " huge concessions " are actually huge concessions in the first place. I'll give you an example. Settlements................ all of them are illegal , all of them.

The " huge concession " is that Israel removes some of them but hangs on to all the big ones that it wants , the ones that encircle East Jerusalem for instance amongst others.

Seeing as all of them are illegal , how is that a " huge concession " ?

Departures from the Israeli wish lists are not true concessions , let alone " huge concessions "

I'm watching it - interesting to see if it says anything different from the last time I watched it in 2010 (another source)

How strange , that you have been aware of this demolition of the , allegedly , good deals the Palestinians have or 8 years but still make the claim you made earlier. In doing so you disagree with Chomskys' assessment , obviously . Why didn't you just say that and why are you bothering to " watch it again " ?

Your mind is made up , Israelis are the peaceniks for offering " huge concessions ( albeit from a wish list to which they often times have not a jot of entitlement to ) and the idiotic Palestinians are to blame for rejecting deals that would lock in , forever , some of the worst aspects of the occupation they are suffering under with the world walking away from it all seeing that" justice has been served ". What a crock

The thing is to look at history and learn from it. From being part of the Ottoman empire and on to the present day - there have been better chances to create a state than there are available now.

Decisions made at the time might appear stupid with the advantage of hindsight but to not factor in all aspects of why those decisions were made at the time is to ignore the context of the times themselves

The Partition Plan was an UNGA recommendation and thus not legally binding on the people of Palestine. We might think that the Arabs thought it might not be forced upon them, naive a view now for sure but part of why they made the decisions they made at the time

The 67 borders have to be a starting point but they cannot be a red line. Israel is still surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbours including within Gaza where Hamas want to remove the state of Israel off the map. Security has to be the red line - not '67 borders. Work from a position of guaranteeing security for both Israel and any state of Palestine and you'd have my agreement.

I said including " mutually agreed border adjustments "

What shouldn't happen is that the Palestinians be forced to look down the barrel of a gun and forfeit all of their rights in accommodation of the Israeli wish list in order to achieve their legal right to self determination. A state that is nothing like a state is destined to failure

Kudos for at least acknowledging that the Palestinian state should also be given its right to security

Israel shouldn't have to be the guarantor of its own security in such a scenario - if the first thing that happens is military convoys and batteries of surface to surface missiles start being positioned near Israel's borders (remember one thing that triggered the '67 war was a convoy from Iraq on the way) then all this is folly.

It can be a demilitarized state with UN forces making sure the Israelis don't abuse the Palestinian security situation

The 67 war was a war of expansion dressed as a war of defence. Worth bearing in mind with regards to the sentence above

Infinite Chaos · May 23, 2018

oneworld2 said:
~ The only side stepping has been done by yourself

If you say so champ. If I wasn’t struggling to stay awake through watching a Chomsky lecture for the second time I’d ask for how I sidestepped anything.

oneworld2 said:
~ You inferred that Israelis had done all of the work towards a resolution to the conflict and had offered " huge concessions "

Did I not just explain and you ignored that? Why? Are you here to troll or discuss? Why are you ignoring what I said in Post 100? Also, where did I infer all the offers came from Israel?

oneworld2 said:
~ and that Palestinian rejectionism was to blame for the conflict carrying on. How can you not read that and think that the Palestinians were mugs for not accepting these " huge concessions " and wishing to carry on with the conflict ?

What you have fallen for ,imo , is the old lie that these " huge concessions " are actually huge concessions in the first place.

OK, let’s do this by the numbers – I’ll start with 1917 – 18. The British take over Palestine from the Ottoman Empire or whatever was left of it, what is the response to British proposals for homelands for Jews and Non-Jews?

oneworld2 said:
~ I'll give you an example. Settlements................ all of them are illegal , all of them.

How far back in history are you going with “all of them?”

oneworld2 said:
~ why are you bothering to " watch it again " ?

His delivery helps me catch up on lost sleep.

oneworld2 said:
~ Your mind is made up , Israelis are the peaceniks for offering " huge concessions

That’s a childish response in light of my previous posts.

oneworld2 said:
~ Decisions made at the time might appear stupid with the advantage of hindsight but to not factor in all aspects of why those decisions were made at the time is to ignore the context of the times themselves.

OK, this is better, the context for me, is the origins going back to 1917 and then Balfour – and existing Arab and Jewish settlements in the ME of that time. The two communities of the time lived under Ottoman control and then when that control was removed there was the chance to build something new for both communities. I suppose it comes down to basically whether either side was willing to work with the concept of separate countries or communities along religious background and whether that meant acceptance that those with a different religion would have their own. This boils down to a basic view of whether the Arabs wanted the whole thing for themselves or whether the Jews did and whether that meant a separate homeland for others who did not share their cultural / religious background. Same question could be framed around how the Jews reacted but the question I am addressing is refusal to compromise and the reaction in 1918 – to me – is evidence of what was to follow.

~ The Partition Plan was an UNGA recommendation and thus not legally binding on the people of Palestine. We might think that the Arabs thought it might not be forced upon them, naive a view now for sure but part of why they made the decisions they made at the time.

And the times before that? i.e. Balfour?

~ I said including " mutually agreed border adjustments "

What shouldn't happen is that the Palestinians be forced to

Funny, you started off with Israel should be forced to…

oneworld2 said:
~ Kudos for at least acknowledging that the Palestinian state should also be given its right to security

This is childish, at no time in my years on this forum have I ever said the opposite. At heart, Israel / Palestine is not a black and white thing. I’m sure that in this thread or elsewhere I already stated that making better economic opportunity available to both peoples will change things in the way it worked in Northern Ireland where two sides were murdering each other in far more vicious manner.

oneworld2 said:
~ It can be a demilitarized state with UN forces making sure the Israelis don't abuse the Palestinian security situation

Granted it’s hard to find neutral voices on the last 79-80 years of history in what we now call Israel but you could at least try and pretend the Israel hasn’t been a continuous aggressor.

oneworld2 said:
~The 67 war was a war of expansion dressed as a war of defence. Worth bearing in mind with regards to the sentence above ~

Ah, so it was all and only down to Israel? Nothing to do with Nasser’s blockade of Israel’s access to the Red Sea or removal of the UN buffer zone troops? No provocation in the encirclement of Israel by Jordan signing over command of her troops to Egyptian command?

oneworld2 · May 23, 2018

Infinite Chaos said:
If you say so champ. If I wasn’t struggling to stay awake through watching a Chomsky lecture for the second time I’d ask for how I sidestepped anything.

Did I not just explain and you ignored that? Why? Are you here to troll or discuss? Why are you ignoring what I said in Post 100? Also, where did I infer all the offers came from Israel?

OK, let’s do this by the numbers – I’ll start with 1917 – 18. The British take over Palestine from the Ottoman Empire or whatever was left of it, what is the response to British proposals for homelands for Jews and Non-Jews?

How far back in history are you going with “all of them?”

His delivery helps me catch up on lost sleep.

That’s a childish response in light of my previous posts.

OK, this is better, the context for me, is the origins going back to 1917 and then Balfour – and existing Arab and Jewish settlements in the ME of that time. The two communities of the time lived under Ottoman control and then when that control was removed there was the chance to build something new for both communities. I suppose it comes down to basically whether either side was willing to work with the concept of separate countries or communities along religious background and whether that meant acceptance that those with a different religion would have their own. This boils down to a basic view of whether the Arabs wanted the whole thing for themselves or whether the Jews did and whether that meant a separate homeland for others who did not share their cultural / religious background. Same question could be framed around how the Jews reacted but the question I am addressing is refusal to compromise and the reaction in 1918 – to me – is evidence of what was to follow.

And the times before that? i.e. Balfour?

Funny, you started off with Israel should be forced to…

This is childish, at no time in my years on this forum have I ever said the opposite. At heart, Israel / Palestine is not a black and white thing. I’m sure that in this thread or elsewhere I already stated that making better economic opportunity available to both peoples will change things in the way it worked in Northern Ireland where two sides were murdering each other in far more vicious manner.

Granted it’s hard to find neutral voices on the last 79-80 years of history in what we now call Israel but you could at least try and pretend the Israel hasn’t been a continuous aggressor.

Ah, so it was all and only down to Israel? Nothing to do with Nasser’s blockade of Israel’s access to the Red Sea or removal of the UN buffer zone troops? No provocation in the encirclement of Israel by Jordan signing over command of her troops to Egyptian command?

So much to reply to on so many different aspects of the conflict it would take days to reply to in any depth . Couple that with selective out of context quoting and denials of your claims it's probably best to start again so..................... here's you original comment

Infinite Chaos said:
Have you honestly have no idea how many times Israel has tried to offer constructive solutions including a separate state? Do you honestly have no idea how many times the Palestinian leadership has turned down peace offers and solutions?

How can anyone read the above and not conclude that what you are saying is that the problem has been Palestinian rejectionism in the face of Israeli peace initiatives ?

You then go on to talk about the " huge concessions " Israelis have made without having referenced even one of them.

Now you want to talk about Balfour etc etc :roll:

I'm happy to discuss ant aspect you care to mention but first let's just put the above to bed

Infinite Chaos · May 23, 2018

oneworld2 said:
~ first let's just put the above to bed

OK.

So who said this and when?

"We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."

Or this

"The main theme behind the spontaneous celebrations we are witnessing today is our community's desire to seek peace and its determination to achieve fruitful cooperation with the Arabs..."

oneworld2 · May 24, 2018

Infinite Chaos said:
OK.

So who said this and when?

"We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."

Or this

"The main theme behind the spontaneous celebrations we are witnessing today is our community's desire to seek peace and its determination to achieve fruitful cooperation with the Arabs..."

This isn't The Chase.

I could quote you many Jewish leaders of the time referred to above and prior to it outlining that acceptance of the partition was something of a stepping stone to proposed/intended territorial expansion. So what would follow would be one quote contradicting another. What's the point of that ?

So............... you might want to back up part of the claim you made in the original posts I replied to

What " huge concessions " have Israeli leaders made that you are referring to ?

Infinite Chaos · May 24, 2018

oneworld2 said:
This isn't The Chase.

I could quote you many Jewish leaders of the time referred to above and prior to it outlining that acceptance of the partition was something of a stepping stone to proposed/intended territorial expansion. So what would follow would be one quote contradicting another. What's the point of that ?

So............... you might want to back up part of the claim you made in the original posts I replied to

What " huge concessions " have Israeli leaders made that you are referring to ?

Is there a point in answering if any offers I show you are negated by claims from "many Jewish leaders of the time referred to above and prior to it outlining that acceptance of the partition was something of a stepping stone to proposed/intended territorial expansion?"

Even now, while many Jewish soldiers and people fight to protect their country, other ultra orthodox Jews like the Neutral Karta argue that Israel should not exist as the Jewish messiah has not created it as predicted in their version of the religion. In that light, should I answer any question about Israel if the Neutral Karta would be used to contradict what I say?

oneworld2 · May 24, 2018

Infinite Chaos said:
Is there a point in answering if any offers I show you are negated by claims from "many Jewish leaders of the time referred to above and prior to it outlining that acceptance of the partition was something of a stepping stone to proposed/intended territorial expansion?"

Even now, while many Jewish soldiers and people fight to protect their country, other ultra orthodox Jews like the Neutral Karta argue that Israel should not exist as the Jewish messiah has not created it as predicted in their version of the religion. In that light, should I answer any question about Israel if the Neutral Karta would be used to contradict what I say?

Each to their own but I don't go in for religious mumbo jumbo myself

Again, what " huge concessions " have the Israeli leadership given to the Palestinians as per your claims ?

Infinite Chaos · May 24, 2018

oneworld2 said:
Each to their own but I don't go in for religious mumbo jumbo myself

Again, what " huge concessions " have the Israeli leadership given to the Palestinians as per your claims ?

I looked back and can't find myself saying "huge concessions." I see YOU attribute those words to me several times?

I may be mistaken but what I remember saying what about Olmert's "huge offer" in 2008 which Abbas turned down. It could be said he was outgoing and made an empty offer but Palestinian rejectionism wasn't about to suddenly be reversed was it even if Olmert stayed in power. Before him, Arafat simply said no to every offer made to him at Camp David.

Going further back, the partition plan which Abbas now states the Palestinians should have accepted. To me, a state of your own is generous - the only reason to not see it that way is to sit in the camp that wishes to see Israel wiped off the map.

oneworld2 · May 24, 2018

Infinite Chaos said:
I looked back and can't find myself saying "huge concessions." I see YOU attribute those words to me several times?

I'm sorry , I stand corrected it wasn't you that made the huge concessions claim it was RetiredUSnavy with whom I am having more or less the same debate in another thread. Your's is definitely the " huge offer " by Olmert. Please accept my apologies

I may be mistaken but what I remember saying what about Olmert's "huge offer" in 2008 which Abbas turned down. It could be said he was outgoing and made an empty offer but Palestinian rejectionism wasn't about to suddenly be reversed was it even if Olmert stayed in power. Before him, Arafat simply said no to every offer made to him at Camp David.

From what I recall Olmert showed him a map of what was on offer but never actually gave him a copy unless he agreed to signing it there and then( weird in itself imo ) I recall also that Abbas tried to remember what he had been shown and put it down on a scrap of paper.

As you say Olmert was on his way out and probably off to court at that time

Given the circumstances outlined in the above are you claiming that this was a believable/serious offer ? i would have thought if it had been Abbas wouldn't have been forced to scribble down what he remembered of " the map ", don't you think ?

As for Arafats decision , if you had stayed awake during the Chomsky vid I linked you might also see that what was on offer fell way short of a viable Palestinian state with self determination for the Palestinians

Going further back, the partition plan which Abbas now states the Palestinians should have accepted. To me, a state of your own is generous - the only reason to not see it that way is to sit in the camp that wishes to see Israel wiped off the map.

Let's give some context here

The partition gave around 55% of the territory to 33% of the population of whom the vast majority were recent European immigrants and 45% to 66% of the population. I wonder how many here would accept foreign powers/colonial powers dividing their territory up in such a way.

The partition was a proposal only without the legal clout usually given by endorsement via the UNSC and the Arabs didn't believe it could be forced on them. Naive ? Yep , but part of the reason for the decision

The Zionists accepted partition as a stepping stone , if you are to believe what their leaders stated , prior to partition. A minority of Jews also rejected partition

If they had a crystal ball I'm sure they would have accepted the 45% offered in 1947 but hindsight is of little use now

Last word for this post concerning rejectionism..................... they have been voting on a two state solution in the UN for around 4 decades. There are two guaranteed no votes , Israel and the US. Could that not be illustrative of Israeli rejectionism spanning many decades ?

A member of parliament from UK is apologizing, after criticizing Israel over the clashes in Gaza

X Factor

Anti-Socialist

Serenity

Stay Human

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Infinite Chaos

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Infinite Chaos

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Infinite Chaos

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Infinite Chaos

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Infinite Chaos

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull