NYT's Anti-Israel Reporter Blames 'Right-Wing' U.S. for Palestinian Woes
New York Times Middle East reporter Neil MacFarquhar brought his usual anti-Israel slant to his Monday New York Times story on the Palestinians seeking United Nations membership: “Palestinians Turn To U.N., Where Partition Began.”
The Palestinians see the membership application as a last-ditch attempt to preserve the two-state solution in the face of ever-encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as a desperate move to shake up the negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American oversight. The question is whether trying to bring the intractable problem back to its international roots will somehow provide the needed jolt to get negotiations moving again.
....
Palestinians believe that their position has gradually eroded over the past 20 years, when the United States began monopolizing the negotiations with the 1991 Madrid peace conference. They remain under occupation, the number of Jewish settlers has tripled to around 600,000, and they have far less freedom of movement in the territories ostensibly meant to become their state.
MacFarquhar skimmed over the anti-Israel hatred emanating from the United Nations:
Lopsided votes against Israel are not new to the United Nations. But this time the Palestinians are hoping they can muster enough weighty support from Europe to overcome right-wing domestic constraints in the United States and Israel that have helped stall negotiations for at least 18 months. So far the Europeans remain divided among themselves, however.
MacFarquhar often portrays events in the Middle East from an anti-Israel perspective.
In August 2006 he celebrated the “Disney touch” of a leader of the anti-Israel terrorist group Hezbollah. He notoriously ranted about “Bush’s bombs” going to help Israel on the July 31, 2006 edition of the talk show Charlie Rose:
You know, it just -- you saw those heart-rendering pictures in Qana yesterday after the Israeli air strike. And every one of the reports on the Arab satellite channels were saying, you know, this is American bombs that killed these children. And you know, I have lived in this region for a really long time, since I was a little boy, really. And if you talk to people my age, I'm in my mid-40s and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Check out this history lesson.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:18pm.
A Bit of History
Very good
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:30pm.
Some body should show this to Carter, and the UN assembly
Do you really
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:42pm.
think Carter cares or would believe it? He is a Jew Hater along with all his other fine traits.
That's a little extreme a
Submitted by G L on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 5:51pm.
That's a little extreme a statement for the position Carter has staked out over the years. I mean, yeah, Carter is certainly a schmuck for a lot of reasons, but "Jew Hater?" Seriously? Have you actually read anything he's written on the subject? Or maybe it's me, and I've just missed the times when he's actually said he hates Jews. Geez, nothing like a little hyperbole to convince people, right?
Have you listened to anything Carter---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 6:00pm.
has had to say since Obama took office?
Carter was a terrible president, and his inept performance as prez is only overshadowed by his idiocy today.
And, of course, the ineptness of the fool who now carries the title as "The (WORST) One".
MD
Hate? well ok
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 6:44pm.
But if Israel followed his advice they probably would not exist right now.
Maybe you can enlighten us, how Israel would be so much better if they only took Carters advice?
What does that have to do
Submitted by G L on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 7:02am.
What does that have to do with whether or not Carter is a "Jew Hater" or whether "Jew Hater" is a bit hyperbolic?
nope, not extreme
Submitted by michiganruth on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:00pm.
is Carter a Jew hater? you betcha.
Maybe you can provide us with
Submitted by G L on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 6:52am.
Maybe you can provide us with those quotes, then, where he's said so. What do you say, ruth?
Great synopsis of the "quest"
Submitted by jdhawk on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 6:38pm.
Great synopsis of the "quest" of the Palenstinian people. They lie is that they want a state to call their own. The truth is they want to wipe the jews off the face of the earth.
By the way, giving up of the land that is the pre 1967 border is untenable from a military standpoint. That is, if the Golan Heights were back in Arab hands and given the advancements of weaponry, in a surprise attack, Tel Aviv would be in ashes before the Israeli defense forces could respond. As it was, in 1967, the Israelis fought to within a hare's breath of their own defeat on the Golan. Having taken Arab lands in this fight would prove crucial 6 years later in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
An interesting anecdote is that there was an Israeli spy in Syria that convinced the army commanders to plant trees by the Syrian emplacements to shade the troops. During the war, the Israelis used them as markers to guide in ordance on the Syrian positions!
Thank you.
Gadsden Purchase, Quit building there, right now.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:37pm.
Just give it back, It will stop the border war, (at it's present location).
After all it was stolen and purchased with slave conflict money.
You Didn't Build That.
Our good friends in Sweden recommended just that.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:46pm.
Kinda backfired, though.
Hmm. The Gadsden Purchase
Submitted by G L on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 5:59pm.
Hmm. The Gadsden Purchase isn't really a reasonable comparison.
The reason why is that the US actually annexed that territory. Israel has pointedly not annexed the West Bank. Instead, they've played a game with human lives that they calculate will come out in their favor. And it probably will.
The Arabs only have
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:48pm.
The Arabs only have themselves to blame, that and their mindless hatred.
Do those Palestinian woes
Submitted by Order270 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 3:01pm.
involve raining rockets and mortar shells on Israeli school children on an almost daily basis?
UN used what was called Trans-Jordan in 1947
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 3:27pm.
All people living in the region had automatic citizenship. They only lost their right to come back when they vacated their homes so that the arab states could "wipe Israel off the map". When Israel kicked butt and won decisevely, they told all the people who left that they could not come back.
That is when they started calling themselves "Palestinians". There is no Palestine nor is there anyone who can call themselves "Palestinian". It's a big lie.Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo and was Egyptian.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
you're right
Submitted by michiganruth on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:04pm.
in fact the "Palestinian Arab" doesn't even go back as far as Partition. I think it was in the 1960s that they adapted that name. but you're absolutely right...there is no "Palestinian" heritage, culture, or race separate from other Arabs. this idea that Jews stole someone's land is ridiculous.
I just find it interesting...
Submitted by G L on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 5:48pm.
I just find it interesting that anyone who, during the last couple of days, isn't known for taking the Israel propaganda line is automatically labeled anti-Israel, or Jew hater.
People automatically assume that any conflict between two parties must have a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes, though, that isn't true. Sometimes, both of them are bad guys.
If the reporter in question really is anti-Israel - and I wouldn't know because I've never heard of him - there doesn't seem to be anything in the quotes provided that proves it. Hmm, should we just believe it because it's in the title?
Thank you for your inspiring thoughts, GL.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 6:44pm.
But, the only conflicts I can recally that had two "bad guys" were the Iran-Iraq war, and the Sino-Soviet border clashes.
But, thanks for throwing that liberal talking point out there. What's next, an Israeli flag with the swastika super-imposed on it? Cuz, that's usually where the libs go next, if they don't just start with that equivalency.
does GL stand for good liberal?
Submitted by michiganruth on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:06pm.
because the moral equivalency you show is typical of the liberal left, which doesn't really believe in evil.
yes, GL, there is a good guy and a bad guy. that doesn't mean the bad guy shouldn't have its own state (I think it should), but it does mean the bad guy needs to stop shooting up schoolbuses and pizza parlors first.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
(laughing) Not one, but two
Submitted by G L on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 6:49am.
(laughing) Not one, but two posts accusing me of being a liberal just because I implied there might not be a good guy in this dispute. Maybe one of you can explain to us all how being a conservative requires always seeing Israel as a good guy, because frankly, I'm not seeing the connection.
Love of Carter is one. Bias towards Israel is another.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:37pm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8RbxByD4OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDKw0f95k7Q&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjX_Hae8ctQ&feature=related
Israel is the only place in shariastan that is a Democracy. Democracy is GOOD!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EJ6WlceQCA
Tell me how does one compromise with a person/tribe that want's you DEAD?
You Didn't Build That.
(laughing again) That's
Submitted by G L on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 7:18pm.
(laughing again)
That's pretty good. So how does questioning the ridiculously hyperbolic statement that Carter is a "Jew Hater," while also, at the same time saying he, "is certainly a schmuck for a lot of reasons," count as "loving Carter?" That kind of silliness on your part doesn't even make sense.
As for Israel being a Democracy, ok, sure. But let's not forget that there are 4 million Palestinians who would be living within the borders of Israel today and aren't if not for the fact that Israel didn't want them voting there. So your position has an element that tempers it almost into insignificance. Are most of the Arab countries surrounding Israel crazy dictatorships filled with whack extremists? Oh sure. But talking about Israel as a "democracy" has it's problems too. Which takes us back to the point that sometimes there isn't a good guy.
How does one "compromise with a person/tribe that want's you DEAD?" Well let me ask you another question first: how does one resolve differences and develop compromises if one refuses to sit down at the table with one's opponents? Isn't the whole point of sitting down at a table with your opponents to resolve differences?
Edit: you'll have to excuse me for not watching your vids. Takes too much time. That and it's hard to take much more than about 15 seconds of Alan Dershowitz blathering on, again, hyperbolically.
G L, So you on dial-up, I'll link some html's, sad story there.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 7:50pm.
Isn't the whole point of sitting down at a table with your opponents to resolve differences?
That whole moslem infidel thing just sailed right over your head...They are the bad guys.
With a vote on statehood about to come before the United Nations' General Assembly in September, it is incumbent on those who will consider this proposal to examine several facts. A recent report by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik makes the following points:
It pays to be a terrorist: these monthly stipends are more than the average salary for a P.A. civil servant or military officer.
Despite all of the gamesmanship at the U.N., despite President Obama's assurance about adjoining states living in peace, the P.A. and its Hamas partner cannot and will not repudiate their goal of destruction, and they cannot and will not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state, lest they be called ":traitors" by their Arab neighbors.
To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion. Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!
You Didn't Build That.
upcountry---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 8:16pm.
Excellent rebuttal to GL's question about sitting down at a table with one's opponents.
GL may not be a liberal, but using the word 'opponent' rather than "enemies" is a liberal sensitivity ploy that reflects naivete.
MD
I'm not really following your
Submitted by G L on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 2:25pm.
I'm not really following your position, matthew. How does that post rebut a statement that it's difficult to resolve a conflict without sitting down at the table?
(Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether the word "enemy" is used instead of "opponent" since I wasn't making a conscious choice of one word over another)
What, the Palestinians are terrorists? Is that news to anyone? And even if they are, so what? They're still the group with which Israel clams it wants peace, right? (and frankly, Israel shouldn't be that sensitive about terrorists, since they elected at least one to be Prime Minister)
Look, there are basically three ways to resolve a conflict like this one: 1) kill them, 2) beat them into submission and, 3) negotiate with them. Israel has always rather vehemently claimed it wasn't pursuing 1 and 2, so that leave 3. If it wants 3, the only way to have 3 is to do it, not just talk about wanting it or whine about wanting a precondition before doing it.
Neither do I follow your position, GL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:23pm.
as Israel's past attempts at "negotiating" with Palestine have been a mortal waste of time.
Israel having "always rather vehemently claimed it wasn't pursuing 1 and 2", does not necessarily mean that 3 is the only option left to Israel.
Maybe the Israelis are biding their time for a more commodious occasion to engage in either 1 or 2.
Regardless, history is replete with failed negotiations, or "peace talks".
Negotiations are not even required if number 1 is accomplished; and satisfactory negotiations come about only as a result of being successful at number 2. Even then there are no guarantees reference longevity. It only took Germany fifteen years after Armistice Day to rebel against the terms agreed to in November of 1918, and an additional six years to start WW II in Europe.
Palestinian Yasser Arafat cancels out your slam at Israel for having elected 'at least one' PM who was a terrorist; and that was against Great Britain, not Palestine.
MD
I thought my point was clear:
Submitted by G L on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 4:15am.
I thought my point was clear: sometimes, in a dispute between two parties, there isn't a good guy. The author of the original piece said some things that aren't substantiated in the text of his article. It's as if we're all just supposed to infer things now just because it's Israel and we're all supposed to agree that they're the good guy.
Everything else later was just incidental responses to the often rambling posts others have provided.
Regarding your comments about the three options I brought up: if Israel is going to pursue #1, it'd be nice if they'd just get to it. It's been sixty years, after all.
Terrorist attacks by Irgun and Lehi were certainly not just against the British.
Menachem Begin, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:51pm.
the sixth Prime Minister of Israel, was at one time the head of Irgun, and he targeted the British.
Or did you have a different PM in mind as being a former terrorist who was elected as Prime Minister?
MD
The sixth is one example.
Submitted by G L on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:25am.
The sixth is one example. Let's go with it.
Here's a wikipedia list of Irgun attacks. Perhaps it will add to your view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
Hard to dispute that there are lots of terrorist acts in that list, even for someone trying to avoid what Irgun was by suggesting that it was attacking the British. Let's not forget, after all, that the British were not enemies of the Zionist movement, nor did they oppose Israeli statehood. So attacks against them were terrorism too, especially attacks that were cavalier about bystanders and civilians.
As a reminder, the point of this line of discussion is to suggest the hypocrisy of Israel objecting to negotiating with terrorists. This is just a nonsensical excuse to avoid sitting down at a table and resolving differences with enemies through negotiation. It appears Israel feels it has a path to a resolution it desires, and negotiation doesn't figure into that path.
Poor interpretation on your part, G L,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 4:13am.
as my statement about Begin, as the head of Irgun, targeting the Brits, in no way suggests that the British were the only recipients of violence.
As the pommies were not enemies of the Zionist movement, and did not oppose Israeli statehood, were they attacked because the Israelis didn't care for their British accents?
Describe for me if you would, a terrorist attack that is NOT cavalier about bystanders and civilians.
As a reminder to you, in just a few short posts we have managed to come full circle from our starting point; me saying that 'sitting down at a table and resolving differences with enemies through negotiations" will not work - a point the Israelis are manifestly aware of because of past dealings with Palestine; and you saying that not only is Israel wrong for not pulling up a chair to that table, but intimating that the Israelis are duplicitous in their actions because there were terrorist actions by Israelis some sixty years in the past.
The reason "negotiation doesn't figure into that path" for Israel is because they have learned through experience that it is a waste of their time.
What you label 'hypocrisy' because of events that took place over half a century ago; the Israelis call surviving in today's world.
MD
.
So if you agreed with my
Submitted by G L on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 1:56pm.
So if you agreed with my implication that Israel's excuse of not sitting down with terrorists is simply a ruse, then why have you been belaboring the point?
And do I really need to point out that, while some of those terrorists' acts were sixty years ago, the election of those terrorists to PM was a whole lot more recent than sixty years ago?
But back to the actual point of this little sub-thread - so far, upcountrywater is the only poster who's come close to responding to my initial observation, and his point was to show that the Palestinians are bad guys, a point which was never in dispute. So who's supposed to be the good guy in this dispute? And if there is one, why are they the good guy?
G L, Democracy is GOOD. sharia law is BAD.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:36pm.
Again How does one compromise with someone who wants to KILL you?
Israel is the Good guy, I just wanted to clear that up.
The birth of defiance
Much of the human race perpetually teeters on the edge of a brutal abyss, thousands of years deep, its bottom thick with the blood and bone of slaves.
You Didn't Build That.
I already commented elsewhere
Submitted by G L on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:25pm.
I already commented elsewhere on the thin claim to democracy by Israel. Didn't the Palestinians get their leadership through election too, though?
Let me answer your question with another question: how does one solve a sixty year old problem by doing nothing?
At least the Democracy point told us *why* you think Israel is the good guy.
And in case you haven't been reading this thread, matthew thinks Israel wants to kill the Palestinians too, they're just waiting for the right moment. So everybody wants to kill everybody else. Who's the good guy again?
G L
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:29pm.
What part of ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM ...... do you not grasp? A very big part, apparently.
- shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I'm sorry, but where have I
Submitted by G L on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 4:52pm.
I'm sorry, but where have I defended Islam here? Islam is a cesspool that fosters large numbers of terrorists and lunatics. It is completely incompatible with western, and especially, US values. Does that make you feel better?
You either misinterpret, G L, or ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 9:38pm.
misunderstand what I consider Israel's stance to be - that of doing whatever is necessary to survive.
Palestinians WANT to kill Israelis.
Israelis WILL kill Palestinians if pushed to do so; if that is what is required to protect Israel, it's Jewish inhabitants and society.
MD
I think I understand you
Submitted by G L on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 5:06pm.
I think I understand you pretty clearly. Israelis want to live in their homes and neighborhoods in peace and without the worry of having to look over their shoulders for mad bombers, lunatics, or bombs dropping from the skies. As they should. That is their right, of course.
Seems to me, though, the the source of the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians want the very same thing.
You said that Israelis WILL kill Palestinians if pushed to do so. Clearly, the Palestinians already feel they've been pushed to do so. So that suggests we're just talking degrees and semantics - both of them are on the same footing, only we're supposed to believe that one is the good guy and one is the bad guy.
G L---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 4:54am.
Your initial take was, if I remember correctly, that Israel should sit down and negotiate with the Palestinians.
In 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state on territory equal (after land swaps) too 100 per cent of the West bank and Gaza, with free passage between the two plus a capital in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas turned down the Israeli offer, and he has refused ever since even to engage in negotiations.*
The Arabs of Palestine have consistently said no when presented the chance to build a state of their own. They said no in 1937, when the British government, which then ruled Palestine, proposed to divide the land into separate Arab and Jewish states.*
Arab leaders said no again in 1947, choosing to go to war rather than accept the UN's decision to partition Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations.*
When Israel in 1967 offered to relinquish the land it had acquired in exchange for peace with its neighbors, the Arab world's response, issued at a summit in Khartoum, was not one no, but three: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel".*
At Camp David in 2000, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and returned to launch the deadly terror war known as the Second Intifada.*
Edward Said stated in 1999 that "Palestinian nationalism is based on driving all Israelis out".*
The Palestinian movement appears to be less about establishing a sovereign Palestinian homeland, but rather the complete negation of a sovereign Jewish homeland.
How, exactly, would you propose that Israel go about negotiating with that mind set and under those circumstances?
MD
* - Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe)
MD, After going into all of that G L bails....
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:29pm.
The Ol' NB slip N' slide...
You Didn't Build That.
upcountry---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:41pm.
I'm just as glad he bailed; his 'I'm smarter than you and even if I wasn't, you don't know how to debate' BS got old fast.
MD
Again, you poor baby. Ever
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:28am.
Again, you poor baby. Ever since you realized I wasn't going to just roll over and play dead every time you pulled one of your fact-twisting games, you've been making one personal attack after another. Pity, you aren't smart enough or confident enough about your position to actually argue your points instead.
Pee Wee
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:48am.
Herman said it best concerning G L. G l's schtic line( from reading the WHOLE line of posts) is, "I know you are but what am I!!" Re-read your comments and you will see the whole nanny-nanny-boo-boo thing. Sorry, I take that back......you won't
g
Dude, this isn't a message
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:23am.
Dude, this isn't a message board, it's the comment section to an article. Your expectations are misplaced. We're out of room now, anyway, so maybe it's time to stop, don't you think?
First of all, Olmert didn't
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:20am.
First of all, Olmert didn't simply up and make an offer to Abbas that Abbas turned down. Instead, what you're describing involved negotiations between Abbas and Olmert from 2006 to 2009, during which both sides met over thirty times.
The process ended in 2009 for two principle reasons, 1) Omert faced continual corruption charges and announced in July 2008 that he wouldn't be seeking reelection, thereby making him an unreliable partner to trust when signing an agreement that wasn't finished yet and 2) The US, which both Abbas and Olmert were counting on to make bridging proposals, is a boneheaded and incompetent mess in State Department matters since Barry became President.
Abbas, ever since the end of discussions, has expressed an interest in seeing them continue, even in interviews with the NYT earlier this year.
So your depiction of the failure of these talks doesn't match anything I've read. Maybe you can point us all to your sources that imply it was Abbas who ended everything or who, as you suggest, turned down Olmert's offer.
As for Barak's proposal in 2000, all anyone would have to do is see a map of the "state" being offered to know it was a complete joke. It was three non-contiguous enclaves representing only a small part of the west bank, with borders and travel between them controlled entirely by Israel.
Frankly, I think it's unfortunate the Abbas-Olmert negotiations weren't successful. Israel took huge steps in making concessions that went against 73 years of Israeli policy and that would potentially have finally reached a negotiated resolution to Palestinian grievances. As to why Netanyahu hasn't picked up the ball after Olmert left, maybe it has something to do with Netanyahu being a conservative and that same 73 years of policy.
The Palestinians already have a homeland, you racist puke
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:38am.
It's called Jordan.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
"It's called Jordan." Why,
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:30am.
"It's called Jordan."
Why, because *you* think they should get out and go there?
It's like me saying you already have a homeland, it's called Lichtenstein. Doesn't really have any meaning to you, does it?
"You racist puke"
Seriously? (Laughing)
More dishonesty from the G L troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:48am.
Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history.
The people to the east of Israel - Arabs.
The people to the south of Israel - Arabs.
The people to the north of Israel - Arabs.
The people to the west of Israel - Mermaids.
The troll lies again.
You are an uneducated moron of the first order
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:48am.
Your precious "Palestinians" were run out of Jordan at gun-point some time ago, as they had become nothing more than moochers, leeches and ticks - to the point where even the Jordanian government couldn't take it anymore.
They were much like the huge collection of confused people who once followed the Dead around year after year.
The only difference was, most of the Palestinians didn't have parents with ten bedroom homes, a pool, and four car garages.
Read your history, you government-educated dumbass.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Really? I blame Palistine for
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 10:13am.
Really? I blame Palistine for Palistinian woes. You are what you make yourself.
There is no
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:35am.
such thing as Palistine, so ..........................there can't be any Palistinians. My spell check doesn't even recognize, how 'bout that. Show me the country/state and then maybe there can be a discussion. Btw, why don't these pseudo-"palististians" go over to Egypt/Syria/Jordan, etc. and demand some of their land to squat on?? Just a thought.
g
All the land west of the Jordan is legally Israeli land.
Submitted by Ray Mark on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 11:36am.
Jews and Arab Christians have always lived west of the Jordan.
Muslims did not move to the area until the 1700s.
The League of Nations set aside the land west of the Jordan for the Jews.
The UN charter guaranteed the land west of the Jordan for the Jews.
All nations when joining the UN guaranteed the land west of the Jordan for the Jews.
A UN resolution to split Israeli land between Jews and Arabs was conditioned on acceptance by both. Israel accepted it, but because “Palestinians” rejected it, the resolution is null and void.
Syria, Jordan and Egypt invaded Israel in 1948 and occupied Israeli land until 1967.
Syria, Jordan and Egypt administering Occupied Israeli land and did not allow “Palestinians” to govern it.
Arab countries expelled Jews without compensation.
After Egypt started the war on Israel in 1967, Israel won back all of its land.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132671
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
You have a fundamental
Submitted by G L on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 7:42pm.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what was agreed to by the League of nations and the UN. You should go back and review before saying anything else as fundamentally inaccurate as the positions you've staked out here.
GL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 8:35pm.
What an argument you have there. You're basically saying, nothing.
Fail.
Was that confusing for you,
Submitted by G L on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 2:05pm.
Was that confusing for you, Radical? Ray Mark made a statement that "All the land west of the Jordan is legally Israeli land," and used the League and the UN as the supporting evidence for it.
That statement is false, with the big problem in it being the word "all."
I invite either you or Ray to go ahead and point us to the specific wording from either the League or the UN committing *all* of the land west of the Jordan to the future state of Israel. Pointing us to it would be a clear and simple way of convincing us that Ray's position is accurate.
Worse, though, is the second paragraph, where Ray starts with "Syria, Jordan and Egypt invaded Israel..." This is just a bunch of kitchen sink statements, that don't really mean anything. Israel's statehood, and the position of the Palestinians aren't, necessarily, mutually exclusive.
Finally, I'll just add to Ray that if Israel won back all "its" land in 1967, how come it hasn't annexed its land? Heck, that land didn't even need to have been "its" land for it to have annexed the land after its 1967 victory.
So, GL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:33pm.
clear up those "kitchen sink" statements.
Who invaded whom?
If Israeli statehood and the position of the Palestinians aren't, necessarily, mutually exclusive; why then the dichotomy of views apparent in the inability of the factions to agree?
Are they arguing over water rights?
MD
They're kitchen sink
Submitted by G L on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 4:33am.
They're kitchen sink statements, Matthew, because they're irrelevant to his central claim.
None of your statements contribute to a discussion having to do with his point about the land west of the Jordan, either.
(Who invaded whom? Well, Matthew, the Palestinians didn't invade anyone, and it is, after all, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that is the subject of this whole topic, isn't it?)
Apparently, G L ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:42pm.
The only statements that you consider applicable to your discussion are ones that either slam Israel or side with the Palestinians.
That would not constitute a discussion, but rather more of a diatribe against the evil Israelis.
MD
What nonsense. Quit being a
Submitted by G L on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:57am.
What nonsense. Quit being a baby.
What diatribe? Ray Mark made a statement about the land west of the Jordan and I simply pointed out that it was inaccurate. I invited him and anyone else to point us to the actual text in the documents he referred to that supports his position. Hey, if I'm wrong, I';m happy to be educated.
Now you're actually offended because you're being pressured to keep to the topic? Geez. Poor you.
Off the mark, there, G L,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 3:35am.
as I don't get offended in the least by normal back and forth between posters; healthy debate is always interesting and has the added benefit of maybe learning something new.
While I would initially extend no courtesies whatsoever to a liberal troll working it's way through a thread with lib talking points, anyone else I will treat with based both upon their posts and the tenor of same.
I got the impression not only of a note of hostility towards Israel, but that you favor Palestine by laying all the fault possible on the Israelis; either through their actions or their lack of action.
Your apparent indignation regarding the charge of you maybe voicing a diatribe against Israel seems to have hit a sore spot.
Whether you are reacting with righteous indignation, or feigned, is something I have no way of knowing.
I do know that if my interpretation is out of line, the ball is now in your court reference convincing me I was mistaken; as it was you who chose the phrasing and typed out the words in your posts.
MD
I see you still haven't found
Submitted by G L on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:51pm.
I see you still haven't found the point of Mark May's post, or my response. Look, if you don't really want to talk about the issue (it has to do with the land west of the Jordan), it's ok if you don't post. You don't have to talk about everything and nothing else just to seem like you're participating.
The only point I see you making, G L,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 9:52pm.
is that of painting the Israelis as duplicitous with a sidebar of sympathy for the Palestinians.
I have no specific interest in participating in a prolonged debate where you simply engage in Israeli bashing but attempt to deflect any charges to that effect by laying out your lame BS referencing Mark May's post and the land west of the Jordan.
You are another of those who consider yourself the ne plus ultra in and of debate, but cannot function unless the rules laid down by you are followed explicitly.
You may revel in your brilliance, but I am not that impressed.
MD
Need I point out that you
Submitted by G L on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 4:47pm.
Need I point out that you yourself painted the Israeli's as duplicitous, matthew?
As for the rest of your post, the only points I've made in this thread are that there isn't necessarily a good guy in this dispute, and the original writer of the article makes claims that he doesn't support in the body of his article.
All the rest of my posts have been made in order to deal with inaccuracies from other posters.
The problem you seem to have, matthew, is that you can't seem to operate within the most important confine of any debate - telling the truth. I'd like to stick to the truth, and resolve untrue claims before moving on. You don't want to do that. That's OK, but let's at least call it what it is.
How can you have a discussion, though, without progressing from the basis of mutually agreed upon positions? The answer is you can't. Instead, what you're left with is not a discussion, what you're left with is just demagoguing or spreading propaganda. Is that what you're trying to do matthew?
Feel free to respond any time with those quotes from the League or the UN granting *all* the land west of the Jordan to the Zionists/the future state of Israel. As I said, if I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to concede the point, but every post in which you assiduously avoid the point leaves me a little more confident that what I recollect having read is correct.
Couple of points, there, G L ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 5:43am.
I used the word duplicitous on one occasion in each of two separate posts reference Israel, and in neither instance did I refer to the Israelis as BEING duplicitous. Either you misread, are disingenuous, or are doing exactly what you accused me of doing, which is not telling the truth.
You are a real piece of work.
Ray Mark brought up the "League or the UN granting *all* the land west of the Jordan to the Zionists/the future state of Israel", not I, and he provided links.
Did you not read them?
Or can you just not *recollect*?
I noted your cute little asterisks around 'all', and while words do have meaning, it would appear you are preparing to pick nits, generally conceded to be bourgeois when used as a tactic by someone as impressed with their debating skills as you and so full of knowledge as you think you are.
We're not having a "discussion"; I am pointing out that all you have done so far is bad mouth Israel while giving Palestine a pass; regardless of your attempt to now say that "there isn't necessarily a good guy in this dispute".
Which means, in conjunction with all your other posts on this subject, that unless you have changed your thought process entirely, you were either lying then or you're lying now.
MD
So you find the word
Submitted by G L on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:45pm.
So you find the word "duplicitous" uncomfortable, do you? You yourself suggested:
"Israel having 'always rather vehemently claimed it wasn't pursuing 1 and 2', does not necessarily mean that 3 is the only option left to Israel.
"Maybe the Israelis are biding their time for a more commodious occasion to engage in either 1 or 2."
Currently, Israel is claiming it wants peace. Yet you're suggesting they might be just waiting for the right occasion to kill all the Palestinians (#1) or beat them into submission (#2), neither of which, I respectfully submit, is at all peaceful. Maybe you can come up with another word to describe that behavior that makes you feel better?
As for Mark May, I did read the links. Did you? They don't support his position at all. No, what Mark May was doing, and you know it, if you're at all familiar with this issue, is starting us down the path of a rather senseless argument, standard in the Israel apologist arsenal, that permits the Israelis to engage in population transfer. The starting point for that argument is simply untrue, as you have been emphatically avoiding admitting.
As for asterisks, asterisks around a word is standard internet practice for emphasizing a word. It serves as an underline when an underline isn't available. It's contextually highly relevant for the discussion we were having, since the work "all" is simply wrong.
Finally, your statement about giving the Palestinians a pass is as silly as most of the rest of what you've written here. Let me remind you that the start of this sub-thread came about when I suggested, "Sometimes, both of them are bad guys." So, in you rather creative mind, calling the Palestinians bad guys, but not calling Israel a good guy, is the equivalent of giving the Palestinians a pass? That's pretty funny. Only a fairly extreme relativist could see it that way. Let me repeat too, that the only reason we've been fairly confined to issues having to do with Israel, is that there are no Palestinian apologists here trying to float similar nonsense about their side in the dispute.
You, G L ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:52pm.
interpret what is said by stating it means what you want it to mean.
To pointedly ignore the offers Israel has made and continue to paint them as equally "bad" shows most obviously that there is indeed a Palestinian apologist on this thread.
The fact you disagree with what I have to say merely makes it abundantly clear that you choose to come down argumentatively in favor of the Palestinians; and being duplicitous describes precisely your now ham handed attempt to prove your neutrality by falling back on having said at one point that "Sometimes, both of them are bad guys."
You are highly impressed with yourself; of that there is no doubt, as you have repeatedly slammed the Israelis throughout this thread and now would have "all" believe that you are neutral on the subject of where the blame is to be centered.
You blow more smoke than a volcano.
MD
Sorry to interrupt Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:24am.
But I wish to add a little clarification. Even this "Palestinian apologist" may not wish to divulge. The Palestinians are fighting Israel and will always do so pretty much for the same reasons as those Occupy WallStreet Idiots.
The Palestinian culture is best described as being a "Welfare State". But there are almost 4 million of them in other middle eastern countries and are not welcome. They are numerous guarded compounds or camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the refugees are NOT welcomed. They are forced to live poorly, hungry, and in isolation in these camps. There are armed guards surrounding these camps to keep the Palestinians INSIDE the compounds and not mingle with the other Arab cultures. Dont ask me why, I dont care. The authorities in these countries bicker with the UN, the IMF, and charitable organizations trying to help these people because they are not wanted in these countries.
They would rather "steal" Israeli territory to enlarge their "settlement' and bring all the refugees home. They dont have the land, the incentives nor the money to take care of their own. What money they receive from the UN and dozens of other countries including the US, goes for food and weapons. They have little or no industry, productivity or jobs. Nor do they seem to want to change their "culture" from nanny state to self sufficient. THAT is why they have been denied statehood.
Like the OWS idiots, they want all their demands met, debts erased, and more land to spread out and continue languishing away as a culture. The Israelis took a piece of desert and toiled for generations and have a beautiful and productive society sufficient to care for their own people and opportunity for success. Imagine all those poop heads in the park finding new accommodations inside the white house and what it would look like after 3 or 4 weeks. THAT is what would happen if the Palestinians took over Israel.
Oh, the argument that they're
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:33am.
Oh, the argument that they're a lower form of humanity. Now *that's* a racist viewpoint. Thank you for sharing.
Lies from the G L troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:41am.
cajun said no such thing. Nothing like an ass for a hat troll putting up straw man arguments instead of backing up his continued lies.
Let's hear it troll. Where did cajun make the argument the Palestinians are a lower form of humanity?
Really GL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:38pm.
I said nothing in my post that would be racist. However, you just did. Tell me why, for hundreds of years, the Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon have pushed the Palestinians out of their countries until they finally settled in a wasteland?
When you study the history of the Palestinians and how they have been treated by the rest of the Arab world, it presents a really good argument that the Arabs are the racist and have put the Palestinians as "lower form of humanity".
I stated in my post, that I did not know why they are treated this way and I dont care. This is not a problem for the US as far as I am concerned. My point was that the Palestinian leadership for decades has concentrated on blaming their problems on others, in particular Israel, so they do not have to look for real solutions to their societal problems. They have created a "nanny state". That is politics, not about race. It has shown to be a total failure, hence the poverty and the struggles for generations of Palestinians.
Since I am a retired social worker, the inner societal workings and failures are of interest to me. How the Palestinian leadership can be so concerned about provoking hatred for another group of people yet totally ignore the glaring problems of their own people.? To me those in leadership and those who post comments like yours are the RACIST, take time to read your own posts. That's where my argument originated. Get the picture?
ADD: Thank you Vet. Always first to understand my posts....LOL
Ah, and you think the only
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:53am.
Ah, and you think the only thing that defines one party or the other as good or bad is engaging or not engaging in discussions? Seriously? You pick a tiny aspect of the entire spectrum of a relationship that's been going on for a hundred plus years and that's the criterion you have for picking good and bad? Well maybe that's why we disagree, then, we're approaching our evaluation using different criteria.
You're awfully obsessed with convincing people I'm "impressed with" myself. Tell me, matthew, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about? Isn't it just more of your deflecting from the discussion? At least you've shown us one thing in this post, matthew. You've shown us that you do indeed believe that saying Palestinians are bad and failing to say Israel is good means, to you, that someone is giving a pass to the Palestinians. I mean, wow. Logic and sense have never even been as close as the same room as you, have they?
And, other than saying that Israel might be a bad guy here too, what exactly have I said that slams Israel? That they should negotiate instead of making excuses? They're the power in the region, the onus is on them. But hardly what I'd call a "slam."
Shut up troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:03am.
I have sourced and shown you to be the lying little snit you are.
It is time for you to put your moniker where your mouth is and prove I was wrong with any one single link and not by putting out more tripe from an anonymous moniker. Find someone smarter, with an actual reputation to defend in meatspace that is saying the same bull you are. I found peole that backed up my points..
Otherwise you are just another lying sissy troll in a long line of lying sissy trolls.
Now, act like you have actually interacted with others on the internet and back it up.
Like I said, Grand Liar---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:54am.
you are most impressed with yourself, since no one on these threads, other than you of course, is on the right track when it comes to discussing what Israel should, or should not do.
You composed the posts denigrating Israel, and now ask "what exactly have I said that slams Israel?"
You're kidding, right?
Besides, dork, it was YOU that brought up the negotiations angle, and then harped on it.
MD
Oh good. Another dishonest troll - G L
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:10am.
Ray Mark: The League of Nations set aside the land west of the Jordan for the Jews.
G L: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what was agreed to by the League of nations...
G L: That statement is false, with the big problem in it being the word "all." I invite either you or Ray to go ahead and point us to the specific wording from either the League or the UN committing *all* of the land west of the Jordan to the future state of Israel.
The League of Nations [Belgium, Britian, France, Greece, Italy, and Japan] divided the territory [formerly under Ottoman rule] into new entities, called mandates. The mandates would be administered like trusts by the British and French, under supervision of the Leauge, until such time as the inhabitants were believed by League members to be ready for independence and self-government...
The mandate territories were Syria and Lebanon, awarded to France; Iraq, awarded to Britain; and a new entity called Palestine, which was also placed under British control. Palestine, as defined for the first time in modern history at San Remo, included the land on both sides of the Jordan River and encompassed the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan. However, boundary changes were soon made...The British decided...to carve out of the Palestine mandate a new entity east of the Jordan River [Transjordan]... In July 1922, the League of Nations ratified the mandate arrangements, including the changes that had been made since 1920."
What? Did someone set a demarcation being the River Jordan? So Transjordan was EAST of the Jordan River? So what was west then?
In 1921, the British divided this region in two: east of the Jordan River became the Emirate of Transjordan, to be ruled by Faysal's brother 'Abdullah, and west of the Jordan River became the Palestine Mandate. This was the first time in modern history that Palestine became a unified political entity.
Palestine Mandate? Wha....?
...however, in 1917, Great Britain, then at war with Turkey, issued the Balfour Declaration (see Balfour, Arthur James), which promised to help establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Great Britain was given a mandate of Palestine in 1920 by the League of Nations, in part to implement the Balfour Declaration.
Oh troll, any time you want to apologize for saying Ray Mark made a false statement, when in fact the man was largely correct, we will be here waiting.
Nothing like a troll beclowning himself in front of the entire planet. You go troll. Wear that ass of yours for a hat proudly.
Vet
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:23am.
as I said last night, keep the slapdowns coming with the docs. Best laugh after a long hard day of work. Kudos
G
Troll? How so? I'm not
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:56am.
Troll? How so? I'm not doing anything simply to make people angry. I'm just discussing an issue. And what have I said that you consider dishonest? Your first post in this corner and this is the best you can come up with?
"What? Did someone set a demarcation being the River Jordan? So Transjordan was EAST of the Jordan River? So what was west then?"
You make the assumption that just because there had been a settlement on what to do with the part of the British Mandate east of the Jordan, that there had also been, at the same time, a similar settlement on what to do with the part west of the Jordan. That is an incorrect assumption.
In fact, you'll find in the same set of Wikipedia articles somewhere that Ben Gurion and the Zionists had already agreed to the partition of Palestine (that unresolved area west of the Jordan) in 1937, favoring a *Jewish* state in the area over a state with Jews in it.
What the Balfour agreement and the mandate and everything else that went on all those years talked about was a Jewish state *in* Palestine, not a Jewish state made up of all of Palestine. The actual borders were never resolved, but one thing is clear: the people discussing it and in control of the area were concerned with the rights and disposition of *both* the Jewish and the Arab populations in the region. Creating a Jewish state never, ever meant the population transfer of any indigenous Arab population.
You are an anti-Semitic racist who wishes for the destruction
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:06am.
...of the nation of Israel.
Your support for a Palistinian state (never mind that they already have one) is proof of that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
(Laughing) Of course I am,
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:19am.
(Laughing) Of course I am, Dave. Here's a pretty flower for you to play with....
Instead of posting your racist bullsh*t here at NB...
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:38am.
...that is supporting the creation of a Palestinian "homeland" (from which we all know - including you - they will do nothing but fire weapons into Israel), why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and work to convince the Jordanians (who ran the Palistinians out at gun point) to take them back?
Hmm?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:20am.
I've been trading posts with G L mushmouth for a while now, and the very reason I engaged him initially was because his posts carried the odor of anti Semitism.
After a short while, the odor became a stench.
Best he could do in weaseling out was to backhand the Israelis with a "well, maybe they're not the only bad guys", and the time worn platitude along the lines of "they should be able to live without fear."
Wonder who might stand in the way of that?
MD
md,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:24am.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I just love how these anti-Semites try to weasel out of their racism.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Really, Dave? I wish for the
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:58am.
Really, Dave? I wish for the destruction of Israel? I'm anti-semitic? I support a Palestinian state?
Where have I said any of that, Dave?
Funny how this comment section was moribund for more than two weeks and now, suddenly, we have four posters with pretty much the same tone and agenda who've all found the comment section at exactly the same time - dave, the vet, cajun2 and boudin.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Don't you, Dave?
Coincidence, NO. Convenience, YES.
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:18am.
There's this really helpful little spot on the main page that shows "Recent Comments". You should look into it before you get all paranoid. All those you listed are on their first account. What number are you on?
G L---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:26am.
username initials stand for Grandiose Liar, eh?
Your posts are there for all to see, and now you choose to become righteously indignant?
You wavered there recently with your Israeli condemnations - why is that?
Did you reread your posts and realize your slip was showing?
You are a fool.
MD
Yes, really, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:32am.
You know as well as me what allowing these Islamic "refugees" establishing a home base in that region will mean for the residents of Israel.
Your professed ignorance in this regard is transparent BS.
And if it is sincere, you are profoundly stupid.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The G L troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 4:14am.
...who've all found the comment section at exactly the same time - dave, the vet, cajun2 and boudin .
Whoops. Not a lie. Just a stupid. I got here by looking at the RECENT COMMENTS section on the front page of NewsBusters. As well as my other posters if they had not already posted here before.
Dang, is that ass for a hat you are wearing sparkling now? Did you dip it in sprinkles or something?
Now the troll lies.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:10am.
I assumed nothing troll. I posted and linked to outside sources. Don't sit there and lie at me. I did not link to Wikipedia. Don't sit there an lie at me.
...the Balfour agreement and the mandate and everything else that went on all those years talked about was a Jewish state *in* Palestine, not a Jewish state made up of all of Palestine.
Back it up. You see me pulling crap out of my ass? I sourced EVERY SINGLE THING I SAID. Back it up you milquetoast little sissy.
The actual borders were never resolved... Don't sit there an lie at me. Back it up.
Creating a Jewish state never, ever meant the population transfer of any indigenous Arab population. Who said it did? Did I say it did? Don't sit there and lie at me.
You may have sourced what
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:16am.
You may have sourced what you've said, vet, but nothing you've sourced actually supports your viewpoint. Not one thing. Where in any of that does it say that all of Palestine, or the part of the British Mandate west of the Jordan, was to become the Jewish state? Nowhere, that's where.
In fact, your source isn't even sure what Palestine was:
"The British decided...to carve out of the Palestine mandate a new entity east of the Jordan River"
"and west of the Jordan River became the Palestine Mandate"
Which is it vet? East or West? They can't both be right.
Even the Balfour declaration doesn't support your view. It's very short. Only one sentence. Have you ever read it? Here's the text:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Notice how the last part of that sentence supports what I've been saying? Notice the use of "in Palestine," not "of Palestine?" And, of course, if you know anything about the history, the British and the UN both were continually proposing boarders for a state within Palestine that did not include all of Palestine.
Up yours with your troll gaimes.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:37am.
"The British decided...to carve out of the Palestine mandate a new entity east of the Jordan River"
"and west of the Jordan River became the Palestine Mandate"
Which is it vet? East or West? They can't both be right.
What, are you stupid as well as a liar?
The British, charged with the entire area after World War I after the defeat of the Ottoman empire, created TransJordan EAST of the Jordan river. and the Palestine Mandate to the WEST of the Jordan river.
TWO SEPARATE AREAS.
Frelling stupid troll. Up yours with your troll games.
In 1921, the British divided this region in two: east of the Jordan River became the Emirate of Transjordan, to be ruled by Faysal's brother 'Abdullah, and west of the Jordan River became the Palestine Mandate.
Is it now clear to someone as dense as you?
Oh and the Balfour document confuses you as well --
the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
National home=country. FOR Jewish people=Jewish people
will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object
As in THEY WILL GET 'ER DONE.
No troll is this stupid. You are deliberately lying now.
...the use of "in Palestine," not "of Palestine?"
What? Who has the Idiot to English translator?
...British and the UN...
Oh stupid, we were talking about the Palestine Mandate right after WWI. There was no U.N.
Remember this troll?
Ray Mark: The League of Nations set aside the land west of the Jordan for the Jews.
G L: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what was agreed to by the League of nations...
G L: That statement is false, with the big problem in it being the word "all." I invite either you or Ray to go ahead and point us to the specific wording from either the League or the UN committing *all* of the land west of the Jordan to the future state of Israel.
Might as well buff that ass for a hat you wear. Make it shiny. You are so proud of it.
You are doing it again, Grand Liar---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:37am.
taking information from a reply post and trying to make it fit your version of how the story goes.
You are indeed a typical troll; either deny, lie, twist, or ignore.
You started in initially accusing me of being untruthful, but that merely underlines the fact that you are not only a troll, but a liberal one as well.
Accuse others of what you, in actuality, are doing.
As you reek of being an anti Semite, here's to you, PUTZ !
MD
So matthew, you've never
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:47am.
So matthew, you've never actually addressed the issue here, have you? Never bothered to show where it says "all?"
I'd like to say I find this tack interesting but, well, it's not. At least Dave is funny. You don't even have that.
And you are deliberately lying.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:50am.
See below.
G L---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 4:03am.
You've got a mind like a steel trap.
Always closed.
What are you seizing on 'all' for?
Or is it your mind that has seized up?
The only ISSUE, here, is that you come across as an anti Semite.
The Vet may be onto something; you do argue like troglodyt did.
MD
Yes. He is deliberately lying.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:51am.
He took this statement ---
"The British decided...to carve out of the Palestine mandate a new entity east of the Jordan River"
and deliberately distorted it to make it appear to be something else. Let's look at the entire portion of the paragraph (from my link above---
...and a new entity called Palestine, which was also placed under British control. Palestine, as defined for the first time in modern history at San Remo, included the land on both sides of the Jordan River and encompassed the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan. However, boundary changes were soon made...The British decided...to carve out of the Palestine mandate a new entity east of the Jordan River [Transjordan]...
The entire area was initially called Palestine. It included the land on both sides. The British THEN carved out Transjordan and what was left kept the name of Palestine.
Pack sand troglodyt.
More dishonesty from the G L troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:47am.
G L: Well, Matthew, the Palestinians didn't invade anyone...
In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted.
Wait. If neighboring countries were helping, then that means the Palestinian Arabs were.... Oh my.
Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq sent troops to join with Jordanian forces in order to defend their brethren, the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.
Now just a sec... That is Jordan history there. Jordan sent its forces to defend the brethren. But that would mean the brethren were already doing something that needed defending, right? Before Jordan sent in troops. Whoopies. Even Jordan propaganda admits it.
In the First Phase (29 November 1947 - 1 April 1948), it was the Palestinian Arabs who took the offensive, with the help of volunteers from neighboring countries; the yishuv had little success in limiting the war - it suffered severe casualties and disruption of passage along most of the major highways.
In the Second Phase (1 April - 15 May) the Haganah took the initiative, and in six weeks was able to turn the tables - capturing, inter alia, the Arab sections of Tiberias, Haifa and later also Safed and Acre, temporarily opening the road to Jerusalem and gaining control of much of the territory alotted to the Jewish State under the UN Resolution.
The Third Phase (15 May - 19 July), considered the critical one, opened with the simultaneous, coordinated assault on the fledgling state by five regular Arab armies from neighboring countries, with an overwhelming superiority of heavy equipment - armor, artillery and air force
Oh G L, do you wear that ass for a hat to bed as well?
Well I dont understand
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:07am.
This site is so,,,, well?
Your first source is
Submitted by G L on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 3:41am.
Your first source is certainly an interesting take on the situation. Where's that from?
Let's see, it's a site called jewishvirtuallibrary.org, written by a guy named Mitchell G. Bard. Who's Mitchell G. Bard? Why he's the Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. And what does the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise do? Here's what wikipedia describes as their purpose in being created: "to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance."
You first source is an Israel lobbyist. Alrighty then.
Yeah, G L ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 4:06am.
Everyone knows you must quote a source that favors Palestinian views when discussing Israel.
Did you attend a special school to become this stupid?
MD
The G L troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 4:09am.
You first source is an Israel lobbyist.
And troll? Your ZERO source has been NOTHING as you have yet to source anything at all.
Where does the word lobbyist mean liar? Troll.
Only an idiot lying troll calls a lobbyist a liar and thinks he can dismiss a source with an ad hominem argument.
Lobbying is one of your constitutional rights. Or did you not know that troll?
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So using the trolls logic, the first amendment gives us the right to lie now.
Yeah troll, constant ad hominem attacks on my sources will make all your lies come true.
Yet more dishonesty from the G L troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:17am.
G L: ...standard in the Israel apologist arsenal, that permits the Israelis to engage in population transfer.
What? Anyone know what that means? Clarify please. I have shown here on this page that Palestinian Arabs were at war with Israel PRIOR to the invasion of the Arab countries. And they were still invading AFTER the war had finished.
Palestinian fedayun (suicide troops) infiltrated across the long and ill-protected border - and it should be recalled that no place in Israel was far from the border: infiltrations for the purpose of stealing farm equipment were followed by the laying of mines, the killing of individuals, and wholesale massacres. The fedayun were trained, equipped and paid for by Egyptian Intelligence, although they operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed.
Is the G L troll suggesting Israel, in the middle of a war with nearly all its surrounding neighbors transferred people to the very neighbors it was at war with?
Is the G L troll actually going to sit there and tell us that with a straight face?
Or did he mean something else?
***update***
Whoops. The troll did mean that.
G L: Creating a Jewish state never, ever meant the population transfer of any indigenous Arab population.
Yes little lying troll. The Jooz transferred all the Arabs to the countries it was a war with. Just walked 'em right in amidst all the bullets and mortars and whatnot going on. Just popped 'em up on some tanks and drove them right into those countries.
My, you sure are getting comfortable with that ass for a hat.
Still more more more dishonesty from the lying troll G L
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 7:51am.
G L: You make the assumption that just because there had been a settlement on what to do with the part of the British Mandate east of the Jordan, that there had also been, at the same time, a similar settlement on what to do with the part west of the Jordan. That is an incorrect assumption.
Trolls love to think we a just assuming when we give HARD LINKS TO THE TRUTH.
Whoopies. Here is that hard truth, troll. The San Remo Conference ---
"The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.
Oh my, something like that might actually settle suntin'.
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...
Now hold on here. why is that date, November 2nd, 1917 look so familiar? Oh wait, it's the BALFOUR DECLARATION. The Balfour Declaration November 2, 1917 Ok, back to the San Remo Conference ---
Article 25. In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined...
Now wait a dang minute, that is the territories EAST of the Jordan. What about WEST where Israel lies? Sorry boys and girls, never trust a troll. It was the territories EAST that was the problem. The WEST territory had already been settled by then. Kinda easy to mark a territory that borders the sea. And the southern border of Israel was already established with the British Turkish agreement in 1906. A. Franco-British Boundary Convention signed in Paris on December 23, 1920 (United Kingdom, Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 4, Cmd. 1195 (1921); 22 LNTS 353)
The convention delimited the frontier between Palestine and the Lebanon and Syria from the Mediterranean to the banks of the Yarmuk near El Hamme. The line is slightly to the north of the Sykes-Picot boundary determined earlier in the war. The delimited boundary was followed, with only very minor deviations instituted by the demarcation commission of 1922:
Blah Blah Blah. Legal mumbo jumbo. But what does that look like on a map boys and girls?
The southern border - established 1906 Page 10.
The northern border - established 1916 to 1923 Page 11.
The British Mandate prior to the separation 1920 page 12
The Partition after 1922 page 13
Notice boys and girls. It was exactly as Ray Mark described it.
EXACTLY. That makes this an all other statements to the contrary from G L an OUTRIGHT LIE ---
G L: You make the assumption that just because there had been a settlement on what to do with the part of the British Mandate east of the Jordan, that there had also been, at the same time, a similar settlement on what to do with the part west of the Jordan. That is an incorrect assumption.
And as always boys and girls, I don't do this for the trolls, they are dedicated to lying. I do it for you boys and girls.