Guevarista wrote:
G'day Guevarista.

Originally, this post prior to being edited stated (words to the effect of) ...

"So, does someone want to summarise the last few pages. lol"

... then you edit your post and take out of context part of my post previous to this one.

It's a struggle for me to take your post seriously and recognise what you are posting as anything other than a piss take.

You hand-waved away information that I previously posted as "disinformation" and propaganda". I have pointed out parts of the information that I posted as known facts, such as the loss of Palestinian land to Israel ...

... as well as 65 UN resolutions that Israel have not complied with ...

UN Res­o­lu­tions Against Israel, 1955 – 1992

1. Res­o­lu­tion 106: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
2. Res­o­lu­tion 111: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-​six peo­ple”
3. Res­o­lu­tion 127: “…‘rec­om­mends’ Israel sus­pend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”
4. Res­o­lu­tion 162: “…‘urges’ Israel to com­ply with UN deci­sions”
5. Res­o­lu­tion 171: “…deter­mines fla­grant vio­la­tions’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”
6. Res­o­lu­tion 228: “…‘cen­sures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jor­dan­ian con­trol”
7. Res­o­lu­tion 237: “…‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Pales­tin­ian refugees”
8. Res­o­lu­tion 248: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for its mas­sive attack on Karameh in Jor­dan”
9. Res­o­lu­tion 250: “…‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from hold­ing mil­i­tary parade in Jerusalem”
10. Res­o­lu­tion 251: “…‘deeply deplores’ Israeli mil­i­tary parade in Jerusalem in defi­ance of Res­o­lu­tion 250″
11. Res­o­lu­tion 252: “…‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jew­ish cap­i­tal”
12. Res­o­lu­tion 256: “…‘con­demns’ Israeli raids on Jor­dan as ‘fla­grant vio­la­tion”
13. Res­o­lu­tion 259: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mis­sion to probe occu­pa­tion”
14. Res­o­lu­tion 262: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for attack on Beirut air­port”
15. Res­o­lu­tion 265: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jor­dan”
16. Res­o­lu­tion 267: “…‘cen­sures’ Israel for admin­is­tra­tive acts to change the sta­tus of Jerusalem”
17. Res­o­lu­tion 270: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for air attacks on vil­lages in south­ern Lebanon”
18. Res­o­lu­tion 271: “…‘con­demns’ Israel’s fail­ure to obey UN res­o­lu­tions on Jerusalem”
19. Res­o­lu­tion 279: “…‘demands’ with­drawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”
20. Res­o­lu­tion 280: “.…‘con­demns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”
21. Res­o­lu­tion 285: “…‘demands’ imme­di­ate Israeli with­drawal form Lebanon”
22. Res­o­lu­tion 298: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s chang­ing of the sta­tus of Jerusalem”
23. Res­o­lu­tion 313: “…‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”
24. Res­o­lu­tion 316: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”
25. Res­o­lu­tion 317: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”
26. Res­o­lu­tion 332: “…‘con­demns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”
27. Res­o­lu­tion 337: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for vio­lat­ing Lebanon’s sov­er­eignty”
28. Res­o­lu­tion 347: “…‘con­demns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”
29. Res­o­lu­tion 425: “…‘calls’ on Israel to with­draw its forces from Lebanon”
30. Res­o­lu­tion 427: “…‘calls’ on Israel to com­plete its with­drawal from Lebanon’
31. Res­o­lu­tion 444: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of coop­er­a­tion with UN peace­keep­ing forces”
32. Res­o­lu­tion 446: “…‘deter­mines’ that Israeli set­tle­ments are a ‘seri­ous obstruc­tion’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Con­ven­tion”
33. Res­o­lu­tion 450: “…‘calls’ on Israel to stop attack­ing Lebanon”
34. Res­o­lu­tion 452: “…‘calls’ on Israel to cease build­ing set­tle­ments in occu­pied ter­ri­to­ries”
35. Res­o­lu­tion 465: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s set­tle­ments and asks all mem­ber states not to assist Israel’s set­tle­ments pro­gram”
36. Res­o­lu­tion 467: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in Lebanon”
37. Res­o­lu­tion 468: “…‘calls’ on Israel to rescind ille­gal expul­sions of two Pales­tin­ian may­ors and a judge and to facil­i­tate their return”
38. Res­o­lu­tion 469: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s fail­ure to observe the council’s order not to deport Pales­tini­ans”
39. Res­o­lu­tion 471: “…‘expresses deep con­cern’ at Israel’s fail­ure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Con­ven­tion”
40. Res­o­lu­tion 476: “…‘reit­er­ates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
41. Res­o­lu­tion 478: “…‘cen­sures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
42. Res­o­lu­tion 484: “…‘declares it imper­a­tive’ that Israel re-​admit two deported Pales­tin­ian may­ors”
43. Res­o­lu­tion 487: “…‘strongly con­demns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facil­ity”
44. Res­o­lu­tion 497: “…‘decides’ that Israel’s annex­a­tion of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its deci­sion forth­with”
45. Res­o­lu­tion 498: “…‘calls’ on Israel to with­draw from Lebanon”
46. Res­o­lu­tion 501: “…‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and with­draw its troops”
47. Res­o­lu­tion 509: “…‘demands’ that Israel with­draw its forces forth­with and uncon­di­tion­ally from Lebanon”
48. Res­o­lu­tion 515: “…‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food sup­plies to be brought in”
49. Res­o­lu­tion 517: “…‘cen­sures’ Israel for fail­ing to obey UN res­o­lu­tions and demands that Israel with­draw its forces from Lebanon”
50. Res­o­lu­tion 518: “…‘demands’ that Israel coop­er­ate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”
51. Res­o­lu­tion 520: “…‘con­demns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”
52. Res­o­lu­tion 573: “…‘con­demns’ Israel ‘vig­or­ously’ for bomb­ing Tunisia in attack on PLO head­quar­ters
53. Res­o­lu­tion 587: “…‘takes note’ of pre­vi­ous calls on Israel to with­draw its forces from Lebanon and urges all par­ties to with­draw”
54. Res­o­lu­tion 592: “…‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Pales­tin­ian stu­dents at Bir Zeit Uni­ver­sity by Israeli troops”
55. Res­o­lu­tion 605: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s poli­cies and prac­tices deny­ing the human rights of Pales­tini­ans
56. Res­o­lu­tion 607: “…‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Pales­tini­ans and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Con­ven­tion
57. Res­o­lu­tion 608: “…‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Pales­tin­ian civil­ians”
58. Res­o­lu­tion 636: “…‘deeply regrets’ Israeli depor­ta­tion of Pales­tin­ian civil­ians
59. Res­o­lu­tion 641: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s con­tin­u­ing depor­ta­tion of Pales­tini­ans
60. Res­o­lu­tion 672: “…‘con­demns’ Israel for vio­lence against Pales­tini­ans at the Haram al-​Sharif/​Temple Mount
61. Res­o­lu­tion 673: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to coop­er­ate with the United Nations
62. Res­o­lu­tion 681: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s resump­tion of the depor­ta­tion of Pales­tini­ans
63. Res­o­lu­tion 694: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s depor­ta­tion of Pales­tini­ans and calls on it to ensure their safe and imme­di­ate return
64. Res­o­lu­tion 726: “…‘strongly con­demns’ Israel’s depor­ta­tion of Pales­tini­ans
65. Res­o­lu­tion 799: “…‘strongly con­demns’ Israel’s depor­ta­tion of 413 Pales­tini­ans and calls for their imme­di­ate return.

... yet instead of responding to this you quote part of a post of mine out of context as if you are making some monumental point.

If this is the manner in which you are looking to 'discuss' this issue with me, then you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am going to continue doing so as I am uninterested in joining you on your merry-go-round.

Why doesn't that post mention the 1967 War, Transjordan or Pan-Arab Nationalism?
Or any other acts of aggression against Israel that led to most of that happening?
Or the Persecution of the million or so Jews in the region that led to them emigrating from Iraq and other places to Israel?

Why no critical analysis of the Western and UN motivations for being involved in the region, or influence of Islamist groups on Hamas?

Because it is propaganda, at the moment you're not discussing anything with me, just accusing me of logical fallacies and copy pasting propaganda.

Start with the map, you've done no due dilligence whatsoever, or you're a subtle and die hard British imperialist:
Who governed "Palestine" Circa 1945?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_PalestineIncumbents
High Commissioner - John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort until 5 November; Sir Alan Cunningham
Emir of Transjordan - Abdullah I bin al-Hussein
Prime Minister of Transjordan - Samir al-Rifai until 19 May; Ibrahim Hashem

Guevarista wrote:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Guevarista wrote:
Propaganda?

So correct these facts if I'm wrong then please....

1) The barrier already virtually encircles the West Bank and when finished will surround the Palestinian territory and it's population completely.

2) 415 kilometres of a planned 723 kilometres have been erected since 2002.

3) The length of the finished barrier will be over twice as long as the actual boundry of the West Bank because it snakes its way in and out of Palestinian land. The affect of this has of course been catastrophic to the farmers and everything else that's stood in its way.

4) The route the barrier takes is illegal and was deemed so by the International Court of Justice in 2004 yet Israel has ignored this.

5) Israel routinely dishes out demolition orders of schools, clinics, recreation centres etc etc just because they can and all the time unchallenged causing more and more misery to the lives of normal Palestinian people. This has NOTHING to do with Hamas!

6) Children as young as 10 are removed from their homes on a regular basis in the middle of the night to be interrogated for crimes such as throwing stones at the army and can be held for up to 8 days (in cases sometimes alot longer) with no legal intervention at all.

I could go on but you'll be getting the picture.

Is ANY of that happening on the Israeli side of the wall?

I AM ALL I AM wrote: "you’ve done no due dil­li­gence what­so­ever, or you’re a sub­tle and die hard British impe­ri­al­ist:
Who gov­erned “Pales­tine” Circa 1945?"
That was a question chief, you accuse me of taking your posts out of context then do exactly that to me

Guevarista wrote:
On that second part after the 'or', are you saying that one being against the creation of Israel and/or expanding their borders is being pro British imperialist?

No Novum, follow the thread if you want to interject, what that says is that the map in the example of anti-semitic propaganda posted by iam is incorrect, it is disingenuous to compare a modern idea of Palestine to the 1945 British Mandate that was split with Trans-Jordan and arrested migrant holocaust survivors from Europe.

Do you oppose the existence of Israel?

Guevarista wrote:
Could you ask a more patriotic question out of the blue?

Guevarista wrote:
Semetic

In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם‎, translated as "name", Arabic: ساميّ‎) was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Canaanite/Phoenician, Amorite, Eblaite, Ugaritic, Sutean, Chaldean, Mandaic, Ahlamu, Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic


The dehumanizing nature of false accusations of anti-semitism

Richard Forer

Perhaps the most dominating and confusing accusation emanating from one side of the Israel-Palestine debate is that virtually anyone who criticizes Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people hates Israel and is, ipso facto, an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew.

The libel case that Canadian immigration attorney Ed Corrigan has had to launch to defend himself against a slanderous accusation of antisemitism is a case in point.

What is it about criticism of Israel that provokes such an extreme reaction?

After all, anyone with the decency to find out what sparks the criticism would learn that the vast majority of critics, including prominent Israelis and other members of the Jewish community, are motivated not by hatred but by justice; and that their intention is not to harm the state of Israel but to prevent the state of Israel from harming Palestinians.

So where is the hatred? The hatred is in the minds of those who are afraid to ask why someone is critical of Israel. Rather than doing honest research to refute or confirm the criticism, the accuser panders to his feelings of fear, confusion and anger, all of which are animated by unexamined beliefs and images within his own mind. This mind colors his perception so that he sees the world in terms of personal victimhood versus the world’s hostility.

Because he is unconscious of this deeper thought process, the accuser can only project his perception onto the world and then assume that the world he sees proves the reality of his perception. He creates his own suffering and then scapegoats the world (in this case Palestinians and their sympathizers) for his suffering. Triggered through denial, this thought process attributes to Palestinians and their sympathizers the accuser’s own hatred.

In other words, the accuser makes the unknown “other” responsible for, or the repository of, his unresolved pain. He objectifies the other and rejects his humanity. Then he supports inhumane policies, which he justifies under the guise of Israel and the Jewish people’s security. In so doing, he brings the world’s anger down upon Israel which, in turn, reinforces and perpetuates the cycle of perceived victimhood.

The real conflict, then, is an inner one and can only be resolved through self-reflection or inquiry into the beliefs and images the accuser takes for granted that form a large part of his personal and collective identity. Without inquiring into his beliefs and images, or indoctrination, he will not be able to integrate the hard-to-believe but inescapable awareness of Israel’s treatment of non-Jews with unquestioned loyalty to the Jewish state. One consideration acknowledges Israel’s dark side. The other denies the dark side exists.

If the accuser can find the courage to commit to the truth – to the best of his ability – and take advantage of the clarifying tools of research and inquiry, he will inevitably apprehend the astonishing reality that, as regards Israel-Palestine, criticism of Israel has never been his principal concern. In fact, he has never defended Israel, at least the Israel that actually exists.

What he has always defended is an idealistic image of Israel that he unconsciously projects or superimposes upon the Israel that actually exists. This projection enables him to deny painful revelations that he would otherwise discover about Israel and about himself if only he would look at Israel and the world without the errant influence of an unexamined, or indoctrinated, mind.

The fruits of the accuser’s sincere efforts will be the transformation of fear into compassion and confusion into clarity. He will know that no behavior occurs in a vacuum and that each of us is responsible for the suffering in the world. The unnecessary and self-created boundaries of his mind will dissolve, the intelligence of his heart will awaken and he will recognize his connection to all of humankind. Finally, he will understand that peace must first manifest within his inner world before he can see its manifestation in the outer world.

Richard Forer is author of Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion –A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=1156

psketti wrote:
jews against the state of israel
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jew......1ac.1.W2jydToikdQ

G'day Psketti.

It's known of as a loaded question.

One wonders if the Jews in the video clips in the above youtube search are 'anti-semetic' for opposing the state of Israel ?

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Yes well he can point it somewhere else cuz I ain't playing the fucking games

Has nobody asked me any loaded questions in this thread then>?

And I answered every one of them and stand by my answers, cowards.

Guevarista wrote:
ok i know what you were getting at now, is why i asked as i wasnt sure.

Guevarista wrote:
I'm anything but a coward mate

Respond to the points I made in post 206 then if you'd be so kind. I'm interested to see whether you oppose them or justify them.

psketti wrote:
G'day Psketti.

Why bother ?

Firstly Guevarista has lied about answering "every" question ...

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/Todays-News/7632...t=20&start=180#78198

... and then he uses an ad hominem by calling others "cowards".

There's nothing rational in doing such.

There is nothing logical in doing such.

It's a fucking game to incite reactionary responses without actually discussing the issue(s) at hand.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Oh he'll get his reactionary responses of that I've no doubt.

I'm just curious now as to how far he wants to fucking push....

Now Shelob, take deep, slow breaths

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand relax

psketti wrote:
Until this happens ???

jhado wrote: