ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
moono said:
You mean rather than just behaving as if they're not?
Why is everyone such an expert about Israel
- Thread starter asdf man
- Start date
You mean rather than just behaving as if they're not?
Moono: The UN succeeded the L. of Nations. Israel's formation is rooted in that earlier incarnation. Israel was not formulated in 1945 or 1946. It did not begin in a vacuum. Neither did the drive for an Arab state alongside it. This must be taken into account when discussing the communal violence and disagreements.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
CyberRose said:
no, i'm not that old.
r;
No. The League of Nations was absorbed by the UN, the UN made the rules by which Palestine was to be divided and Israel created. The UN drew up the borders and Israel's dissatisfaction with those borders produced the 1948 war. That's the truth of it, with all the colour drained.
Another propaganda victim with a bad mouth.
It's very true that the Arabs did not agree. Arab States voted against the carve-up of their locality in the UN. However, the Arabs did not begin the large-scale and organised violence which precipitated the 1948 war. To the contrary, the Israelis immediately began to expand 'their territory' by means of the ethnic cleansing of Arabs. Read the list above. These atrocities took place before the Arab League became involved. There were many more during the course of the war.
You claim it is a lie. Produce your evidence of large-scale Arab violence against Israelis prior to these atrocities , post-Resolution 181.
In other words, put your money where your bad mouth is if you want to be taken seriously. This isn't an Opinion Fest.
moono said:
Yes. And this proves that the first people to use violence after the UN Resolution were the Arabs.
What you mean by large-scale murder? How many people one have to kill to make it a large-scale murder? Ten? A hundred? A million? Was the terrorist act in London a large-scale murder or just a small-scale murder?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Serguei said:
Scale depends on context.
For example, if the London bombs were detonated as part of a guerilla campaign, then they would be viewed most accurately as "small scale", part of a low intensity morale-erosion exercise. If they were a single calculated act of politcal and religious violence then the casualty count could be seen as "large scale" because most isolated acts of violence don't tend to harvest quite so many victims.
You're just attempting to cloud the issue. A riot, under what many would call justifiable circumstances, does not equate to large-scale and organised violence, the hallmarks of Israeli actions after Res.181.
If a riot is the best you can come up with my point is proven. The Arabs did not start the war, war being defined as large-scale and organised violence. 'Riot' does not qualify and you have absolutely no justification to trumpet 'lie'.
If a riot is the best you can come up with my point is proven. The Arabs did not start the war, war being defined as large-scale and organised violence. 'Riot' does not qualify and you have absolutely no justification to trumpet 'lie'.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
moono said:
What, you mean "The Boys' Own Book of ahistorical Bollocks"?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Serguei said:
It doesn't work like that.
You contended a particular point, moono rebutted it. It's up to you to either support your contention or not, at which point moono may or may not choose to support his/her rebuttal.
Just like standard debate, you see?
ViolentPanda said:
Actually not.
Moono claimed (without providing any support to this) that "Israel's dissatisfaction with those borders produced the 1948 war". For which I rebuked him that unlike Arabs Israel agreed to UN Partition (he does not seem to disagree on this).
Instead Moono started talking about some fictional “large-scale and organised violence” by Israel after the Resolution (no prove here). I put forward the first instance of violence as the Jerusalem riots.
Moono did not argue against the fact that the first violence happened to be the Jerusalem riots but started insisting that I should provide the proof that “after the resolution the Arabs conducted violence that in no way could be viewed as smaller-scale or less organised then the Jewish one”.
As you can see Moono has been the first person to make statements without providing any prove.
I believe this page gives more or less accurate sequence of events after the Resolution. It is obvious that the violence has been started by Arabs and then continued from both sides. It is wrong to say that any side was “conducted less violence then the other”.
http://medialdea.net/historyguy80538/prewar.htm
(as you can see unlike Arab sources this does not try to say that it was only the other side that did wrong - this is why Arab sources are less believable).
But it is wrong to think that the violence started only after the Resolution. The violence started when Jewish immigrants started coming to Palestine, buy land from Arabs and work on the land. The violence then started by Arabs who so the immigration as a threat (as e.g. BNP does in England these days about Pakistani immigration).
http://medialdea.net/historyguy80538/prewar.htm
(as you can see unlike Arab sources this does not try to say that it was only the other side that did wrong - this is why Arab sources are less believable).
But it is wrong to think that the violence started only after the Resolution. The violence started when Jewish immigrants started coming to Palestine, buy land from Arabs and work on the land. The violence then started by Arabs who so the immigration as a threat (as e.g. BNP does in England these days about Pakistani immigration).
I already posted a list of 'Israeli' atrocities in post #84. That policy of ethnic cleansing, murder and expansionism was the cause of the 1948 war, not a riot in Jerusalem, the causes of and outcome of which I have already linked to.
Show me again how the Arabs were guilty of large-scale and organised violence ( war) after Resolution 181.
I'll tell you now- you can't. The reason you can't is because you can't find any evidence of it. I know. I've looked. If I'd have found any evidence I wouldn't be saying that the popular image of Israel as a beseiged victim was propaganda.
Throwing in the Jerusalem riots as an example of large-scale and organised violence is laughable. The Israelis began the war. Show me evidence to the contrary or stfu.
Show me again how the Arabs were guilty of large-scale and organised violence ( war) after Resolution 181.
I'll tell you now- you can't. The reason you can't is because you can't find any evidence of it. I know. I've looked. If I'd have found any evidence I wouldn't be saying that the popular image of Israel as a beseiged victim was propaganda.
Throwing in the Jerusalem riots as an example of large-scale and organised violence is laughable. The Israelis began the war. Show me evidence to the contrary or stfu.
moono said:
And you believe that the Palestinian source is 100% true? It does not even try to look "balanced" by mentioning anything Arabs did to Jews.
If you look at the story from any other but Arab point of view you would see that it was more tit-for-tat story then evil Jews killing innocent Arabs and that the story started long before the Resolution. It is only Hagana and Jews defending themselves that protected Jewish immigrants from anti-immigrant violence of the Arabs in the British-controlled Palestine.
We're not talking about localised skirmishes resulting in a few fatalities. We're not even talking about Jerusalem, which was designated International Territory. The point at issue is - who began the war.
The popular misconception is that massed forces of Arabs fell upon a fledgling Israel. The Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages pre-dates the involvement of the Arab League. Thus Israel was the aggressor. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages was widespread and carried out by organised military forces. The actions were actions inside designated Palestinian territory- invasion by any other name. Ergo, Israelis were the aggressors.
Riots in Jerusalem ? What a puny defense.
The popular misconception is that massed forces of Arabs fell upon a fledgling Israel. The Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages pre-dates the involvement of the Arab League. Thus Israel was the aggressor. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages was widespread and carried out by organised military forces. The actions were actions inside designated Palestinian territory- invasion by any other name. Ergo, Israelis were the aggressors.
Riots in Jerusalem ? What a puny defense.
moono said:
What cleansing do you mean? Do you have any prove?
Try read texts from the "other side" too. Do not believe everything Arab side tells.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php
The title of your link- 'Palestine Facts'- is a misnomer. It even dismisses the Deir Yassin Massacre. Read a more even-handed source;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
I'm sure that Wiki would welcome your new information in relation to the dispute. Not.
As I said, the 'Israelis' precipitated the first large-scale and organised violence.
Whilst I appreciate that certain sources are biased, the list of ethnically-cleansed villages I posted are part of the historic record, even though hosted by a Palestinian site. When attempting to decide the truth between conflicting sources ( and yours is a blatant example of bias ) the general consensus between learned sources tends toward the correct version. If you don't agree with that then you have no faith in historic journalism at all and you shouldn't be quoting from any of it.
So;
If the dominant consensus is that 'Israelis' began with the first large-scale military operation and that the Massacre at Deir Yassin featured heavily in the later involvement of the Arab League armies then I consider that I've done my part in disclosing the truth here. The 'Israelis' started the war. Yet you called me a liar.
So, in the face of the dominant consensus of opinion, back up your bad mouth or stfu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
I'm sure that Wiki would welcome your new information in relation to the dispute. Not.
As I said, the 'Israelis' precipitated the first large-scale and organised violence.
Whilst I appreciate that certain sources are biased, the list of ethnically-cleansed villages I posted are part of the historic record, even though hosted by a Palestinian site. When attempting to decide the truth between conflicting sources ( and yours is a blatant example of bias ) the general consensus between learned sources tends toward the correct version. If you don't agree with that then you have no faith in historic journalism at all and you shouldn't be quoting from any of it.
So;
If the dominant consensus is that 'Israelis' began with the first large-scale military operation and that the Massacre at Deir Yassin featured heavily in the later involvement of the Arab League armies then I consider that I've done my part in disclosing the truth here. The 'Israelis' started the war. Yet you called me a liar.
So, in the face of the dominant consensus of opinion, back up your bad mouth or stfu.
moono said:
Did you notice the text "The neutrality of this article is disputed." at the beginning of the article?
There is no such thing as neutral source on Palestine. It just does not exist. Would you agree at least on this? Would you agree that it means there is no way you can prove anything by just pointing to sources belonging to one side?
The reason Israeli sources look sometime more believable to me personally is because they at least mention Arab killed, not just Jews.
You just said it. You do not have any proof.
I can say the same about Arabs and show you Jewish sources proving it (exactly like you proving Jews to be evil with Arab sources).
Dominant consensus among whom? The Arabs and Guardian readers? I am not an Arab and I don't like reading Guardian very much, why should I care about your "consensus"?
Notice it ? I've even referenced it in line 2. Don't you read posts in depth ?
I've just taken some pains to explain that 'truth' in these matters is decided by dominant consensus. You seem to be about two posts behind the debate.
It's not my consensus, is it ? We're looking at an open-source encyclopaedia which trawls historic documents, modern information sources and even considers fact-based contributions by the surfing public. As it says, the dominant consensus of opinion is as I've stated above. I can go find a biased Islamic site, you can go find a biased Israeli site but the dominant consensus of opinion is as stated above.
Yet you called me a liar.
So, back up your bad mouth or stfu.
One of the original "Palestinian" leaders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_Al-Husseini
Anybody who is familiar with pre-II World War history of Palestine would know that the war of 1948 could not be avoided by Jews (unless of course they suddenly decided to leave Palestine and had a place to go to).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_Al-Husseini
Anybody who is familiar with pre-II World War history of Palestine would know that the war of 1948 could not be avoided by Jews (unless of course they suddenly decided to leave Palestine and had a place to go to).
Moono: Actually, I have a good timeline I will post next time around. It shows that even with the narrow window you choose to make your point with [post UN offer], the "Palestinians" were the main instigators of violence! Before Deir Yassin, the Arabs had slaughtered two Jewish villages just that year! I would only suggest yet again, that you go back and look at some non- "Palestinian" sitein order to learn the real history of the period. I hope that once I post thgis timeline, and all relevant events, that you will finally concede the truth [somehow I would not bet on it], or at least realize that isolating one small portion of a long timeline does not mean anything.
I don't select a 'narrow window' for any other reason than looking at the history between Resolution 181, an attempt at peace, and the 1948 war, a rejection of it. Within that window Israel was created . It's the most relevant time-frame because it was subject to the same set of international laws that we use today.
Sure, paste up your Arab atrocities post-181. They have to pass the 'general consensus' test though.
Sure, paste up your Arab atrocities post-181. They have to pass the 'general consensus' test though.
REsolutiom 181 did not happen in a vacuum...but I will show you that when I post my list.
Similar threads
- Poll
