Is there any chance of discussing the issues without including revisionist views.

[Boston1]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There will never be a rational, factual, objective discussion concerning this topic.

And one of the many reasons for that is due to the fact that the Israeli side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims.

A plague on both houses.

 

[The Great Goose]

No. None at all. Look what happened to me?

 

[montelatici]

There is no way to discuss the matter when all the Zionists present is decades old propaganda that has been thoroughly debunked as revisionist.

 

[Boston1]

Specifics people specifics

There is no benefit in making a baseless claim. If we could base all claims in reference or citations, yeah, that'd be great.

 

[montelatici]

There will never be a rational, factual, objective discussion concerning this topic.

And one of the many reasons for that is due to the fact that the Israeli side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims.

A plague on both houses.

Yes, that's well put.

 

[Boston1]

An interesting article

Defiance among rogue settlers as Israel accuses Jewish youth of murder

I noticed earlier someone made the unsubstantiated claim that

Quote
one of the many reasons for that is due to the fact that the Israeli side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims.
End Quote

I was wondering if there was any chance of getting an example or two to try and substantiate that claim

 

[montelatici]

Gilad Atzmon articulates many of the false Zionist claims and substantiates them.

 

[Roudy]

^^^^^^^
And he's off to the races with the false propaganda.

 

[Boston1]

Yup, and not a shred of supporting evidence or a single reference. But he is pretty funny sometimes

The rabid antisemitism is at times so over the top its just laughable

Did ya hear the one about how it was the Jooooos who started the war in 48 lol

 

[P F Tinmore]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

Interesting invitation, thank you.

One thing about this conflict is that the Israeli/Zionist narrative has been dominant all of or lives. With a little recent exception, that is still the dominant narrative. Israel can say anything it wants and, with little exception, there is nothing to counter their claims.

One example is that "everybody knows" that the five Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (plus Iraq), and Egypt lost the 1948 war. The facts tell us a different story. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war.

Ask yourself these questions:

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

 

[montelatici]

Yup, and not a shred of supporting evidence or a single reference. But he is pretty funny sometimes

The rabid antisemitism is at times so over the top its just laughable

Did ya hear the one about how it was the Jooooos who started the war in 48 lol

As the British confirmed. The Jews started the war in 1948. Zionist myth debunked by declassified British intelligence reports. Next.

Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists."

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[Boston1]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

Interesting invitation, thank you.

One thing about this conflict is that the Israeli/Zionist narrative has been dominant all of or lives. With a little recent exception, that is still the dominant narrative. Israel can say anything it wants and, with little exception, there is nothing to counter their claims.

One example is that "everybody knows" that the five Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (plus Iraq), and Egypt lost the 1948 war. The facts tell us a different story. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war.

Ask yourself these questions:

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

They lost the war they started. Their armies were decimated, their policies exposed, Their evil intentions thwarted. They failed to destroy the fledgling Israeli state. They lost.

They started every war, and they lost every war. How is this even a question

Oh and it looks like Monty's on again with the comedy. I'm not sure if the British thought there would be war, but even if they did, so what. the fact is that the Arab league declared war and Israel defended itself and very successfully I might add.

See
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then get used to seeing native peoples on their traditional homelands again, where you can either live in peace, or in anger, but if you chose anger, then you only harm yourself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

Interesting invitation, thank you.

One thing about this conflict is that the Israeli/Zionist narrative has been dominant all of or lives. With a little recent exception, that is still the dominant narrative. Israel can say anything it wants and, with little exception, there is nothing to counter their claims.

One example is that "everybody knows" that the five Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (plus Iraq), and Egypt lost the 1948 war. The facts tell us a different story. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war.

Ask yourself these questions:

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

They lost the war they started. Their armies were decimated, their policies exposed, Their evil intentions thwarted. They failed to destroy the fledgling Israeli state. They lost.

They started every war, and they lost every war. How is this even a question

Oh and it looks like Monty's on again with the comedy. I'm not sure if the British thought there would be war, but even if they did, so what. the fact is that the Arab league declared war and Israel defended itself and very successfully I might add.

See
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then get used to seeing native peoples on their traditional homelands again, where you can either live in peace, or in anger, but if you chose anger, then you only harm yourself.

I am correct. The war was called by a UN Security Council resolution.

And you ducked my questions.

 

[Boston1]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

Interesting invitation, thank you.

One thing about this conflict is that the Israeli/Zionist narrative has been dominant all of or lives. With a little recent exception, that is still the dominant narrative. Israel can say anything it wants and, with little exception, there is nothing to counter their claims.

One example is that "everybody knows" that the five Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (plus Iraq), and Egypt lost the 1948 war. The facts tell us a different story. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war.

Ask yourself these questions:

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

They lost the war they started. Their armies were decimated, their policies exposed, Their evil intentions thwarted. They failed to destroy the fledgling Israeli state. They lost.

They started every war, and they lost every war. How is this even a question

Oh and it looks like Monty's on again with the comedy. I'm not sure if the British thought there would be war, but even if they did, so what. the fact is that the Arab league declared war and Israel defended itself and very successfully I might add.

See
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then get used to seeing native peoples on their traditional homelands again, where you can either live in peace, or in anger, but if you chose anger, then you only harm yourself.

I am correct. The war was called by a UN Security Council resolution.

And you ducked my questions.

Maybe you could point out what resolution, or better yet show us any resolution of the UN which declares war ? As I recall the UN isn't able to declare war. Maybe you can enlighten us. ;--)

And I didn't duck any questions, you just didn't like the answers

 

[P F Tinmore]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

Interesting invitation, thank you.

One thing about this conflict is that the Israeli/Zionist narrative has been dominant all of or lives. With a little recent exception, that is still the dominant narrative. Israel can say anything it wants and, with little exception, there is nothing to counter their claims.

One example is that "everybody knows" that the five Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (plus Iraq), and Egypt lost the 1948 war. The facts tell us a different story. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war.

Ask yourself these questions:

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

They lost the war they started. Their armies were decimated, their policies exposed, Their evil intentions thwarted. They failed to destroy the fledgling Israeli state. They lost.

They started every war, and they lost every war. How is this even a question

Oh and it looks like Monty's on again with the comedy. I'm not sure if the British thought there would be war, but even if they did, so what. the fact is that the Arab league declared war and Israel defended itself and very successfully I might add.

See
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then get used to seeing native peoples on their traditional homelands again, where you can either live in peace, or in anger, but if you chose anger, then you only harm yourself.

I am correct. The war was called by a UN Security Council resolution.

And you ducked my questions.

Maybe you could point out what resolution, or better yet show us any resolution of the UN which declares war ? As I recall the UN isn't able to declare war. Maybe you can enlighten us. ;--)

And I didn't duck any questions, you just didn't like the answers

The UN called for an armistice to end the war.

BTW, you did not answer the questions.

 

[Boston1]

As I investigate the pro palestinian position I am struck by the propensity for revisionist history.

While I find the discussion of middle east policies most interesting, i'm continually floored that the pro palestinian side consistently depends on demonstrably false claims

I'd be happy to discuss for instance the "right of return" except for the fact that those that believe in this alleged "right" can't quote a single element of international law that actually supports it.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of refugees, except that at no point has the UN or any other international agency segregated combatants from the refugee population which leaves that population questionably ineligible for refugee status consideration or protections, given the ongoing nature of the conflict.

The list goes on ad infinitum

If any of our local pro palestinian contributors would like to engage in a factual based conversation I'd be all for it. But so far I'm rather disappointed in the quality of the opposing views argument.

I'm hoping by this we can avoid the usual posters demagoguery and encourage some of the more rational to engage on this particular topic.

Interesting invitation, thank you.

One thing about this conflict is that the Israeli/Zionist narrative has been dominant all of or lives. With a little recent exception, that is still the dominant narrative. Israel can say anything it wants and, with little exception, there is nothing to counter their claims.

One example is that "everybody knows" that the five Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (plus Iraq), and Egypt lost the 1948 war. The facts tell us a different story. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war.

Ask yourself these questions:

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

They lost the war they started. Their armies were decimated, their policies exposed, Their evil intentions thwarted. They failed to destroy the fledgling Israeli state. They lost.

They started every war, and they lost every war. How is this even a question

Oh and it looks like Monty's on again with the comedy. I'm not sure if the British thought there would be war, but even if they did, so what. the fact is that the Arab league declared war and Israel defended itself and very successfully I might add.

See
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then get used to seeing native peoples on their traditional homelands again, where you can either live in peace, or in anger, but if you chose anger, then you only harm yourself.

I am correct. The war was called by a UN Security Council resolution.

And you ducked my questions.

Maybe you could point out what resolution, or better yet show us any resolution of the UN which declares war ? As I recall the UN isn't able to declare war. Maybe you can enlighten us. ;--)

And I didn't duck any questions, you just didn't like the answers

The UN called for an armistice to end the war.

BTW, you did not answer the questions.

IE no, you cannot reference a single instance of the UN declaring war

 

[Roudy]

Did ya hear how come the Jews ended up with the Ten Commandments? God goes to the Muslims and says, "I have a commandment for you" and after describing it, the Muslims say "too hard for us", then goes up to the Christians and same result. Finally goes up to the Jews and says "I have a commandment for yo!", Jews say "How much?!" God says "It's free!" Jews say "THEN GIMME TEN". Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

Yup, and not a shred of supporting evidence or a single reference. But he is pretty funny sometimes

The rabid antisemitism is at times so over the top its just laughable

Did ya hear the one about how it was the Jooooos who started the war in 48 lol

As the British confirmed. The Jews started the war in 1948. Zionist myth debunked by declassified British intelligence reports. Next.

Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists."

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

Yeah well, maybe Muslim savages shouldn't have committed ethnic cleansing and massacred the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1926, which gave rise to groups like Irgun and Stern to protect Jews from the savages. Basically Muslims decided they wanted to finish what the Nazis started under the direction of the Mufti, a civil war erupted, and as the British predicted, they got their butts kicked. First in a long series of ass kickings by the Jews.

 

[montelatici]

Yup, and not a shred of supporting evidence or a single reference. But he is pretty funny sometimes

The rabid antisemitism is at times so over the top its just laughable

Did ya hear the one about how it was the Jooooos who started the war in 48 lol

As the British confirmed. The Jews started the war in 1948. Zionist myth debunked by declassified British intelligence reports. Next.

Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists."

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

Yeah well, maybe Muslim savages shouldn't have committed ethnic cleansing and massacred the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1926, which gave rise to groups like Irgun and Stern to protect Jews from the savages. Basically Muslims decided they wanted to finish what the Nazis started under the direction of the Mufti, a civil war erupted, and as the British predicted, they got their butts kicked. First in a long series of ass kickings by the Jews.

The Palestinians were simply defending themselves from European Jew colonization. They had every right to defend themselves.