Bigotry: argument by numbers

fed said:
If one of the two countries has signed it, than either both are bound to it, or neither are.

You cant have 1 follow it and 1 not.
So what two countries did you have in mind?

I see only one country, and it has been violating the Geneva Conventions for treatment of people and lands under military occupation for many years now.

fed said:
And also, that only applies if the country has not had time to prepare and army and ONLY if the country respects other laws of warfare.
That is not true, and not relevant.

fed said:
So long as Palestine fires rockets into cities they forfeit their rights to protection under article six of the 3rd Geneva convention.
Depends: Israel's violations long precede and far outweigh any rocketry, even the unaimed stuff nowhere near any cities, and have been clearly the actions of official State agencies under State policy.
 
rough numbers not good enough?

As they used to say in high school: "Be sure to show your math". I don't need to do it for you; if you can't pass the test, then the point falls flat.

their is nothing to avoid your taking the historical treatment out of context plus really the jewish virtual library could you find a site more rabidly unfactual.

First: the first part of your sentence didn't actually make sense, Grammar Lad. I infer that you think I'm taking history out of context, which means you didn't or won't read the links. That's fine: but say you're not going to rather than ignoring it.

not really you can ask my why i believe that but its really my choice weather or not I divulge that info.

But the same rule applies: justify or fail the mark. Given your interpretation of the second part of this argument, you need to.
 
So what made the Jews in India leave by droves in the same way?

This post was - I'm sorry - laughable. Which way?

Perhaps Geoff could find an article showing how they were expelled by the Indians after 2000 years.

Perhaps Sam could show us how fear is the only of humanity's motivators. :shrug: Fair question. But then aren't they all.
 
Or, perhaps Geoff could invest some time reading on issues instead of arguing from ignorance and spouting the hasbara of a military occupation that massacres civilians with impunity.

e.g. Ben White says that the 850,000 Jews who left Arab countries in the years after the Nakba were not refugees, by and large, i.e., they were not forced to leave, and that many left for messianic/Zionist reasons, and did so in a somewhat orderly manner. Equating this migration with the Nakba is Zionist propaganda, he says.

http://pulsemedia.org/2009/11/11/refugees-and-zionist-propaganda/

Israeli professor Yehouda Shenhav once wrote that “any reasonable person” must acknowledge the analogy to be “unfounded”:

Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition. In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

Some prominent Israeli politicians who themselves come from Arab countries, reject the ‘refugee’ label. Former Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu once said “‘We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations’.” MK Ran Cohen, who emigrated from Iraq, made it clear: “‘I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee’.”

As well as the fact that Jews in Arab countries were actively encouraged by the Zionist movement to move to Israel, there is another big problem with the ‘swap’ theory – timescale. Dr. Philip Mendes points out how “the Jewish exodus from Iraq and other Arab countries took place over many decades, before and after the Palestinian exodus” and “there is no evidence that the Israeli leadership anticipated a so-called population exchange when they made their arguably harsh decision to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees”. Mendes also concludes his analysis by affirming that “the two exoduses…should be considered separately”.

But the ‘swap’ idea is anyway illogical. One refugee’s right – in the case of the Palestinians, a right affirmed by UN resolutions – can not be ‘cancelled out’ by another’s misfortune. Furthermore, “the Palestinians were not at all responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries” – while “the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by the Zionist refusal to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes”.

Given the historical and logical flaws, the only way this analogy can be so tempting for some is its propaganda value. The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC), for example, claim on their website that their mission is simply “to document the assets Jewish refugees lost as they fled Arab countries”. Professor Shenhav, however, describes how WOJAC “was invented as a deterrent to block claims harbored by the Palestinian national movement, particularly claims related to compensation and the right of return”.

When Jews from all over the world made and continue to make, an exodus to Palestine, occupying it to fulfil messianic aspirations, what is Geoff's aim in pretending that only Arab Jews were "different"?
 
Last edited:
And again Sam dodges a point that wasn't made in the first place. Are you some kind of sekrit super hero?
 
So what two countries did you have in mind?
Israel and Palestine
I see only one country, and it has been violating the Geneva Conventions for treatment of people and lands under military occupation for many years now.

That is not true, and not relevant.

Depends: Israel's violations long precede and far outweigh any rocketry, even the unaimed stuff nowhere near any cities, and have been clearly the actions of official State agencies under State policy.

No I seriously doubt that.
 
fed said:
So what two countries did you have in mind?
Israel and Palestine
Palestine has not been afforded the status of a "country", by its overseers. It is not even allowed boundaries of its own negotiation, let alone the undertaking of treaty obligations, etc.
fed said:
No I seriously doubt that.
Doubt what?
 
damn foreigners!
speak english!

sekrit? hasbara? nakba?


wtf? :D

bastard
early 13c., "illegitimate child," from O.Fr. bastard (11c., Mod.Fr. bâtard), "acknowledged child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife," probably from fils de bast "packsaddle son," meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling), with pejorative ending -art (see -ard). Alternative possibly is that the word is from P.Gmc. *banstiz "barn," equally suggestive of low origin. Not always regarded as a stigma; the Conqueror is referred to in state documents as "William the Bastard." Figurative sense is from 1550s; use as a vulgar term of abuse for a man is attested from 1830.

i.e. the English language :)

No I seriously doubt that.

Whats your opinion of this?

There’s no question that the conflict is at a bleak impasse. But if the PA collapses, there will be one salutary consequence: it will strip off the mask that there is anything in the territories beyond Israeli occupation. Even at its height in the ’90s, Palestinian autonomy was negligible. Now the undeniable fact of near total Israeli control, and the increasing difficulty of pretending that nearly half a century of occupation is temporary, will force some stark decisions on both peoples.

The Palestinians, quite apart from the desperate need to heal the Hamas-Fatah split and reforge a unified leadership, will have to develop a new liberation strategy. Israel, for its part, may seem to be holding all the cards at this point. But as the occupation becomes ever more deeply implanted, it will soon enough become undeniable that, for all practical purposes, there is only one nation between the Jordan and the sea, composed of roughly equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews. Then Israel will "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned when he was still in office, "and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." So Israel will have to confront its own existential dilemma: are the settlements really worth retaining if it means the eventual end of Zionism?

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/the-n...urposes-one-nation-between-river-and-sea.html
 
Last edited:
Personally, I oppose the settlements. In context of the above, I wonder if you do - you know, given your preferences.
 
Palestine has not been afforded the status of a "country", by its overseers. It is not even allowed boundaries of its own negotiation, let alone the undertaking of treaty obligations, etc.
Doubt what?

ice, as of now Palestine is a country.

Im tired of you guys saying Palestine is a soverign country in one post and say it isnt in another! You cannot change what it is to suit your own wants.

It is a soverign country or its not, you cannot call it both.

End of story, if you try that BS again I will be pissed.
 
fed said:
ice, as of now Palestine is a country.

Im tired of you guys saying Palestine is a soverign country in one post and say it isnt in another!
I have never said Palestine is a sovereign country.

Israel's prevention of Palestine becoming a sovereign country - the "two state solution" once hoped for, now blasted by Israeli intransigence and violence and oath-breaking and de facto territorial expansion- is kind of a big issue. I'm surprised you overlooked it.
 
Palestine has not been afforded the status of a "country", by its overseers. It is not even allowed boundaries of its own negotiation, let alone the undertaking of treaty obligations, etc.
Doubt what?

Are you sure about that? I think the Oslo accords was pretty clear about both its independence and borders. Why else would have President Mahmood signed on in agreement of the wall?
 
cheski said:
Are you sure about that? I think the Oslo accords was pretty clear about both its independence and borders.
It was pretty clear that it did not settle them.

wiki said:
It was anticipated that this arrangement would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were deliberately left to be decided at a later stage. Interim self-government was to be granted by Israel in phases.
 
Back
Top