I can defend everything I write, since everything I write is factual, but you can't threaten to get someone banned for derailing a topic, then moan when they won't perpetuate the alleged derail. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Strontium Dog wrote:I can defend everything I write,

There's a distinct lack of evidence, again in this post.
So you either can and refuse to do so, or you can't and are therefore lying, neither being a rational, honest thing to do.

Strontium Dog wrote: since everything I write is factual,

There's that overactive imagination again.

Strontium Dog wrote: but you can't threaten to get someone banned for derailing a topic, then moan when they won't perpetuate the alleged derail. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

You also can't win the lottery when you haven't bought a ticket. Neither scenario is presented in this thread however.

So will you finally present evidence for your assertions or admit you extracted them directly from your rectum?

Strontium Dog wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:Why don't you put a few specific names to those "most biased critics"
let's see if there is a peep to be found.

I think that really would be a derail. You can all do your own forum searches to determine if the word "Crimea" appears in someone's posts, then contrast that to how often they criticise Israel. I don't have anything further to add on the subject. My point is made.

Yes, a slimy shitty point that you fabricated from thin air to derail the thread and attempt your usual round of antagonism.

And as you're rushing to totally misrepresent me (which would of course be entirely in keeping for someone who routinely derails threads, makes personalized comments and attempt to inflame), I will leave it for the mods to see just how valid your 'point' is.

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

In addition to which, Israel has not annexed the Occupied Territories. If it had, the people living there would be Israeli citizens and thus get to vote in elections, resulting in Likud looking at Hamas across the floor of Parliament.

Outright annexation is sometimes known as the "One State Solution". While it is somewhat shakier under international law (you'd need to hold some kind of referendum among the Palestinians), some feel that it is a solution with more chance of actually being implemented.

Nicko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

In addition to which, Israel has not annexed the Occupied Territories. If it had, the people living there would be Israeli citizens and thus get to vote in elections, resulting in Likud looking at Hamas across the floor of Parliament.

Outright annexation is sometimes known as the "One State Solution". While it is somewhat shakier under international law (you'd need to hold some kind of referendum among the Palestinians), some feel that it is a solution with more chance of actually being implemented.

Annexed, in fact, but without any consequent recognition as citizens of the state.

They have formally annexed Jerusalem and claim it as sovereign territory; given the past rhetoric, I doubt that's ever going to change.

Strontium Dog wrote:I can defend everything I write, since everything I write is factual, but you can't threaten to get someone banned for derailing a topic, then moan when they won't perpetuate the alleged derail. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Lol, providing evidence for you assertion would be a derail, but this post isn't.

Spearthrower wrote:Annexed, in fact, but without any consequent recognition as citizens of the state.

What I'm saying is that Israel seems to want to pick and choose the most convenient elements of annexation and occupation while avoiding the responsibilities towards the Palestinians that either option would incur.

Nicko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Annexed, in fact, but without any consequent recognition as citizens of the state.

What I'm saying is that Israel seems to want to pick and choose the most convenient elements of annexation and occupation while avoiding the responsibilities towards the Palestinians that either option would incur.

Ditto with the concept of being at war or not.

Nicko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Annexed, in fact, but without any consequent recognition as citizens of the state.

What I'm saying is that Israel seems to want to pick and choose the most convenient elements of annexation and occupation while avoiding the responsibilities towards the Palestinians that either option would incur.

Aye, I totally agree - I meant 'de facto'

angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border? It's not Israel that doesn't want peace, it's the Palestinians who flatly refuse to recognise the Jewish state.

Well, that's rather subjective.

angelo wrote:Who was it that walked away from the offer put on the table by Israel of 90% of Palestinian demands? It wasn't Barak, it was Arafat.

So that precludes them from further negotiations?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Isn't a a defining aspect of negotiation that the one or more sides refuses the terms until they don't?

angelo wrote:The Palestinian hierarchy, including the terrorist org of Hamas don't want to live next door to the Jews. They will not accept anything less than the complete genocide of every single Jew in the Middle east.

That's a rather antiquated way of thinking.

No one could imagine 100 years ago that a two state solution could work in Ireland. And it's been a long road but here we are.

I suspect your thinking may be a little short sighted. The first step is getting to the table.

angelo wrote:What, and the Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves? Every single war there has been started by the terrorist.

I agree, especially those early ones.



Don't historical facts just suck.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:plus: they didn't defend that border, they preeptively attacked. So by the 'indefensible" argument, all of it's neighbours should be given a chunk of Israel.

Yes, just like the annexing of the Golan Heights where they harried Syrian forces into attacking by basically pushing Israeli vehicles further and further across the border.

Again, history is a bitch.

Strontium Dog wrote:I was merely pointing out that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, an area four times larger than the entirety of the Palestinian territories, attracted nary a peep from Israel's most biased critics.

Ah the old "well they're doing it too" argument.

Most notably seen on school grounds around the world.

Strontium Dog wrote:We can all speculate as to the reasons why you continue to moan about Israel's temporary occupation of the Palestinian territories, yet utterly failed to condemn the permanent annexation of Crimea by Russia.

What happens if you condemn both? What do I do with myself now?

Strontium Dog wrote:Pointing out the hypocrisy of those opposed to the existence of the Jewish state isn't a derail - it gets right to the heart of why the situation in the Middle East is as it is.

You won't catch a lot of people on here opposing the existing of a Jewish State.

Now the existence of the current apartheid Jewish State, it's illegal border, and occupation of a thoroughly subjugated people on the other hand...

Strontium Dog wrote:I think that really would be a derail. You can all do your own forum searches to determine if the word "Crimea" appears in someone's posts, then contrast that to how often they criticise Israel. I don't have anything further to add on the subject. My point is made.

Duly noted. A weak, shitty point has been made.

Nicko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:States can and probably will sometimes try to annex new territory, Angelo, but the world rightly condemns it and has done so as long as you've been alive.

In addition to which, Israel has not annexed the Occupied Territories. If it had, the people living there would be Israeli citizens and thus get to vote in elections, resulting in Likud looking at Hamas across the floor of Parliament.

Outright annexation is sometimes known as the "One State Solution". While it is somewhat shakier under international law (you'd need to hold some kind of referendum among the Palestinians), some feel that it is a solution with more chance of actually being implemented.

People who will vote for a party you don't want, don't get to vote.

Not in.... "the ONLY democratic state in the region!" *rabble* *rabble* *rabble*

HughMcB wrote:

angelo wrote:What, and the Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves? Every single war there has been started by the terrorist.

I agree, especially those early ones.



Don't historical facts just suck.

If only someone had taken a strong stand against terrorism then, we wouldn't have the mess we have now.

If in 1947 someone had forced the beasts in the Haganah, Stern Gang and Irgun into jail, we wouldn't have the mess we have now.

proudfootz wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

angelo wrote:What, and the Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves? Every single war there has been started by the terrorist.

I agree, especially those early ones.



Don't historical facts just suck.

If only someone had taken a strong stand against terrorism then, we wouldn't have the mess we have now.

That's a good addition to my post here, about the Israelis ethnically cleansing the Palestinians out of Israel in 1948, what the Palestinians call The Nakba ["disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"], what all of the 'right of return' talk is about.

It's telling how this isn't ever heard in mainstream media in discussing the conflict. Another little known episode is Israels attempt to destroy one of our ships, they jammed the radios so the plan was to sink it with all hands so no one would ever know it was them/ 34 Americans were killed, but they managed to get a message out and were saved:



BBC documentary:


There's a lot of videos about this.