Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And that mentality is thriving in Saudi Arabia. What's worse than the Saud regime? Bin Laden's ilk in charge instead of being on the periphery. That is a virtual certainty if the Saud regime falls.

And yet the population of Palestinians continues to rise - not fall.

 

Why mentality is thriving, because they now allow women drive!!!!!? Why there is no one with a brain cell to take over in Arabia that it has to be the fanatics? Somehow I agree with you!!.

Because they try to have many babies to drive Israelis out. Having babies is legal but In return what Israelis do is both illegal and immoral (driving the Palestinians out via illegal settlements ).

Edited December 29, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Why mentality is thriving, because they now allow women drive!!!!!? Why there is no one with a brain cell to take over in Arabia that it has to be the fanatics? Somehow I agree with you!!.

Because they try to have many babies to drive Israelis out. Having babies is legal but In return was Israelis do is both illegal and immoral (driving the Palestinians out via illegal settlements ).

You have no evidence the Israelis have driven or even attempted to drive any sizeable group of Palestinians out of Palestine.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have no evidence the Israelis have driven or even attempted to drive any sizeable group of Palestinians out of Palestine.

What planet have you been living on!!!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements/israels-settlement-drive-is-becoming-irreversible-diplomats-fear-idUSKCN0YM1MY

https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21577111-jewish-settlements-expand-palestinians-are-being-driven-away-squeeze-them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence

And what is your definition of "sizeable" that you added it there to excuse your grossly false statement? 

Edited December 29, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

You have no evidence the Israelis have driven or even attempted to drive any sizeable group of Palestinians out of Palestine.

What part of illegal Isreali settlements in the occupied territories don't you understand? That map does not lie. Unless the map itself is anti-semetic.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

What part of illegal Isreali settlements in the occupied territories don't you understand? That map does not lie. Unless the map itself is anti-semetic.

What part of this topic do you not understand. I note you and your anti Israel pissantes use this thread to avoid the actual topic of Jerusalem and use it to raise other political issues just as this pack and you can't debate the origins and history of Jerusalem on this thread but moved it to the other thread mixing it with the above issue to avoid discussing the actual historic origins of Israel.

That makes you, Omni, Hudson Jones. Marcus, in my opinion very blatant and clear in how you avoid any topic you can't debate and switch the topic to avoid illustrating your complete and utter lack of understanding of the topic.

Here's a hint, Jerusalem is the topic on this thread.

[Rue]

16 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

What planet have you been living on!!!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements/israels-settlement-drive-is-becoming-irreversible-diplomats-fear-idUSKCN0YM1MY

https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21577111-jewish-settlements-expand-palestinians-are-being-driven-away-squeeze-them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence

And what is your definition of "sizeable" that you added it there to excuse your grossly false statement? 

What planet do you live on where you think these three quotes are the beginning and end of your reality as to the West Bank?

Do you think you can pass off what is going on, on the West Bank as simply the above three references and your subjective inferences from the,?

Is that it Citizen? Reality begins and ends with your subjective interpretations and inferences of these three articles?

Can you get real.

Living on the internet is not reality. You need to travel to the West Bank poser of expertise on it. You have no clue how many millions of so called Palestinins are on the West  Bank. You need to find out how many of those so called Palestinians are not and moved there from other Arab countries in the last 60 years and squat on and they never owned and in fact took it away from other Palestinian Muslims so much so, Arafat to hide that reality blew up the land titles office on the West Bank to hide this fact.

You need to look at the population growth of Palestinians on the West Bank and where they live and stop relying on the internet and articles you think tell you the beginning and end of a reality you have no clue on.

The no. one issue on the West Bank are Muslims who moved there taking land from other Muslims. You have zero clue about that just as you ave zero clue 250,000 Ultra Orthodox Jews who live in he Hebron region were never Israeli and do not believe in an Israeli state and yet the PA and Hamas have stated they will kill them all if they do not leave the West Bank when its declared a state. That Palestinian state will also include Israel and Jordan not just the West Bank. Can you please go read the charters of the PA and Hamas. At least find out what their agenda is.

Also if your entire knowledge of the West bank is based on three articles, let me make it clear as an be, you are being ridiculous. You are another arm chair expert who thinks the internet gives you omnipotence. Get real.

[GostHacked]

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

What part of this topic do you not understand. I note you and your anti Israel pissantes use this thread to avoid the actual topic of Jerusalem and use it to raise other political issues just as this pack and you can't debate the origins and history of Jerusalem on this thread but moved it to the other thread mixing it with the above issue to avoid discussing the actual historic origins of Israel.

That makes you, Omni, Hudson Jones. Marcus, in my opinion very blatant and clear in how you avoid any topic you can't debate and switch the topic to avoid illustrating your complete and utter lack of understanding of the topic.

Here's a hint, Jerusalem is the topic on this thread.

It's an organic discussion, I don't see you raking Argus over the coals for continuing the 'derailment'. Nope, that is reserved for just me.  Don't lump me in with Omni, Jones, and Marcus.  I can ask for that, but I am not sure if you would actually honor it.

And yes you are right Jerusalem IS the topic. But really we are only talking about WEST Jerusalem. , so not even the title of this thread is accurate. But again, it's an organic discussion and Argus and I have been talking about a few things that is really not part of this specific topic. But please feel free to single me out.

[Queenmandy85]

While I believe that placing Israel in the Middle East was ill-concieved, the fact is, this issue has been around for the entire history of Jerusalem. My mom kept newspapers every Christmas and conflict in Palestine / Israel was in every one of them. It is at least 3500 years old and I doubt the fight over the city will ever be solved. They could make it an international city and they would still fight over it.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

What planet have you been living on!!!!!!

Not one of your cites mentioned Palestinians leaving Palestinian territory because of the settlements.

 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

What part of illegal Isreali settlements in the occupied territories don't you understand? That map does not lie. Unless the map itself is anti-semetic.

Are masses of Palestinians fleeing with their meagre possessions into Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon? Nope.

[GostHacked]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Are masses of Palestinians fleeing with their meagre possessions into Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon? Nope.

Why should they?

[kactus]

This rabbi has a different perspective on calling Jerusalem as the capital city of the “jewish people”.

 

 

IMHO bold political statements by evangelical extremists taken out of context from the bible by thinking that ‘the return of messiah’ to the holy land shapes the mindset of certain people. In reality, this is the driving force for this political agenda and the root cause of the problem and it serves no purpose for judaism...

The rabbi in the video has a valid argument.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Why should they?

So they're not. So then, I guess you can't say the Jews are driving them out then.

[Rue]

23 hours ago, GostHacked said:

It's an organic discussion, I don't see you raking Argus over the coals for continuing the 'derailment'. Nope, that is reserved for just me.  Don't lump me in with Omni, Jones, and Marcus.  I can ask for that, but I am not sure if you would actually honor it.

And yes you are right Jerusalem IS the topic. But really we are only talking about WEST Jerusalem. , so not even the title of this thread is accurate. But again, it's an organic discussion and Argus and I have been talking about a few things that is really not part of this specific topic. But please feel free to single me out.

Organic? Lol.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

So they're not. So then, I guess you can't say the Jews are driving them out then.

Would you prefer it if all the Palestinians simply packed up and left?  Why?

[Argus]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

Would you prefer it if all the Palestinians simply packed up and left?  Why?

That would seem likely to make things much more peaceful. 

But we aren't talking about my preferences. We're talking about the contention Israel is driving the Palestinians out. Clearly they are not.

 

[GostHacked]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

That would seem likely to make things much more peaceful. 

But we aren't talking about my preferences. We're talking about the contention Israel is driving the Palestinians out. Clearly they are not.

 

Why don't the Jews simply leave?  And the illegal settlements PROVE that Israel is systematically taking over the occupied territories. There is absolutely no disputing this. Mark my words, in a couple decades Israel will claim all of that land as Israel proper.

Also, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria ect are not good options either considering how the West AND the East have both fucked the entire region for decades.

Also this shows the stance of Israel supporters,  (ok some) , I will say you and Rue and a few others do not support a two state solution, and the claiming of Jerusalem as the capital is another step that proves Israel does not support a two state solution.

I don't expect any apologies from anyone when my notions prove to come true over the next 20 yeas.

Edited December 30, 2017 by GostHacked

[Rue]

6 hours ago, kactus said:

This rabbi has a different perspective on calling Jerusalem as the capital city of the “jewish people”.

 

 

IMHO bold political statements by evangelical extremists taken out of context from the bible by thinking that ‘the return of messiah’ to the holy land shapes the mindset of certain people. In reality, this is the driving force for this political agenda and the root cause of the problem and it serves no purpose for judaism...

The rabbi in the video has a valid argument.

Why is it necessary when discussing the Jerusalem issue to use this Rabbiah? Why? How is his Rabbiah relevant to the opinion? Does it make the opinion any more valid than if he was a Rabbiah expressing the exact opposite opinion? Is Kactus suggesting a Rabbiah is only valid and important when he expresses the same view as Kactus? Is Kactus suggesting any Jew or any Rabbiah with an opposite view of the above must be wrong because this guy is a Jew let alone a Rabbiah? Does his being a Rabiah automatically make his opinion more valid? Is it any more valid than if I placed a Mullah's or Catholic Priest's opinion on Jerusalem belong to Jews on this thread?

Bottom line, I call out Hudson Jones for repeatedly using the good Jew bad Jew tactic, and he comes back using the name Kactus and does it again. Its transparent, its blatant, and its been done so many times on this forum its a joke. Go bad and look for yourself the no. of times the name Kactus and Hudson Jones have been inter-posed in the same thread and responses to make it appear as if there is more than one person debating me.

This person's being Jewish and Rabbiah is essential for Kactus-Hudson Jones because by pointing out they are a Jew and a Rabbiah, its supposed to immediately mean it is acceptable to be anti semitic. By using this individual as a mouthpiece with what is supposed to be the same opinion, that opinion is now no longer anti-Semitic.

The fact is the above individual's opinion is not made any more or less valid by the fact he is Jewish or a Rabbiah anymore than it would be if he was a Christian or Muslim.

The fact is the religion or clergy status of the individual will not determine the validity of their comment.

The fact is there is no right or wrong subjective opinion, just a subjective opinion. Any opinion on Jerusalem's ownership is necessarily subjective and will have biases.

What determines whether content stated is anti semitic or anti Muslim, etc., is its content and purpose.

In this case the opinion stated is just that. The person's Jewish identity and Rabbinical stature however are deliberately used by Kactus-Hudson Jones.

A good Jew is one who agrees with kactus-Hudson Jones, a bad one disagrees with them.

You will note when I have challenged Hudson Jones on why its necessary to point out the religion or clergy status of the individual he refuses to comment but repeats the same tactic again.

You will note when I challenge this tactic, Hudson Jones, Kactus, Omni, Ghost, whatever, they all remain silent as to the reason its being used.

As I stated and what makes this attempt to use Jews on this thread as spokespersons fr Hudson Jones or Kactus is that I do not believe Israel should keep settlements on the West Bank. It doesn' make me a good Jew or a bad one. Of course not. Its just an opinion. No more valid or less valid than any other human being Jewish or not.

However on this forum. the anti Israelis never fail to turn it into an attack about Jews and what Jews should  think and not think.

Its vile bigotry.

I could come on this forum playing good Muslim bad Muslim and present a litany of Muslims who agree with me on all my views. It does not make them good or bad Muslims, it doesn't make their opinions any more valid than a non Muslim's.

What Kactus-Hudson Jones et al want you to believe is that when a Jew agrees with them, that somehow cleanses them of what their actal agenda is on this board and what they have stated.

Does anyone think the Rabbiah quoted believes Zionism is a cancer needing to be wiped out and Hamas is justified in engaging in terrorism against Israel?

Ask yourself, have you ever read one word, one sentence from Kactus-Hudson Jones-Marcus-Ghost et al, that states, Israel has the right to exist as a JEWISH state free of terrorist attacks against it? Well?

It will never happen. Their agenda is to deny the right of Israel to be a Jewish state and use tactics to denigrate the concept of a Jewish state or any Jew having the right to express his Jewishness as a political national collective identity.

They can quote all the Jews they want including me, but the fact I agree with them that settlements on the West Bank are an impediment to peace, does not mean I am a good Jew or condone their actual agendas on this forum.

I quote from this CHRISTIAN, Daniel Greenfield:   not that his religion makes a difference or should make a difference:

"Like most bullies, the liberal bigot is self-righteously angry at the thought of his victim daring to offer any kind of defense. The combination of ideology and bigotry work to reinforce a sense of rightness in playing the old game of "Beat the Jew". Being liberals, they do make a point of trotting out Jews to do at least some of the beating. This makes it look less like bigotry, and more like infighting.

Of course this isn't exactly an original gimmick. The man who presided over the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Spain in the 15th century was himself Jewish. In the early days of the USSR, the Communist Party employed the Yevsektsiya (the Jewish Section) to shut down synagogues, terrorized Jews and helped the NKVD murder Rabbis and Zionists. And even Pharaoh had his Jewish taskmasters and the Nazis their Kapos.

As liberals themselves are so fond of pointing out when challenging the feminist bona fides of a Sarah Palin or the legitimacy of black conservatives, it is not genetics or biology, but the willingness to fight for the interests of a group that gives one claim to be a legitimate representative of that group. There is no conceivable argument for the likes of M.J. Rosenberg or Glenn Greenwald meeting such a test. Not now. Not ever.

As I have written in the past, liberal anti-Zionism is actually poorly camouflaged anti-Semitism. It is based on the denial of Jewish national rights, which itself has roots in a Voltairesque disdain for the Bible and the Jews by association with it. The socialist approach has been that Jews ought to dissolve into the mass of humanity and cease to exist.

Israel was based on a rejection of that approach. And that alone has won it an incredible amount of enmity. A continuing Jewish identity represents an implicit rejection of the secular messianism that has defined left wing movements since the French Revolution. The destruction of the Jews continues to be associated with the destruction of the old order. But where liberals once believed that removing the ghettos and legal barriers to civic participation would do the job for them, Israel has come to represent an obstacle to their agenda.

While the Muslims wield the battering ram, their liberal advocates demand that Israel raise the gates to let them in. When the terrorists open fire, the left demands that Israel not shoot back. When Jews are murdered, the left shrugs. It has nothing to say about dead Jews. Only about the inconvenience of still having living ones around and cluttering up the place. While they are not prepared to make active war against Israel. they instead work to characterize any self-defense by Israel as illegitimate. Whatever Israel does, it is indicted for excessively defending itself. An excessive defense in their eyes being any defense at all."

 

source: http://www.rapturenotes.com/liberal-bigots.html

This article directly responds to the bigotry of Hudson Jones Kactus et al using the good Jew bad Jew tactic over and over on any thread dealing with Israel:

https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/stop-the-war-coalition-how-to-be-a-good-jew-2/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Wow, Rue.

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Why is it necessary when discussing the Jerusalem issue to use this Rabbiah? Why? How is his Rabbiah relevant to the opinion? Does it make the opinion any more valid than if he was a Rabbiah expressing the exact opposite opinion? Is Kactus suggesting a Rabbiah is only valid and important when he expresses the same view as Kactus? Is Kactus suggesting any Jew or any Rabbiah with an opposite view of the above must be wrong because this guy is a Jew let alone a Rabbiah? Does his being a Rabiah automatically make his opinion more valid? Is it any more valid than if I placed a Mullah's or Catholic Priest's opinion on Jerusalem belong to Jews on this thread?

Interesting to see you simply throw out what this Jewish rabbi is saying while you throw your typical rhetoric around trying to make Kactus look like an idiot. That's a big fail there buddy!

 

[Rue]

21 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

, I will say you and Rue and a few others do not support a two state solution, and the claiming of Jerusalem as the capital is another step that proves Israel does not support a two state solution.

I don't expect any apologies from anyone when my notions prove to come true over the next 20 yeas.

I would say you deliberately lie and misrepresent my repeated support of a two state solution.

As for your posing as Nostradamus good for you. I don't doubt you have visions.

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Wow, Rue.

Interesting to see you simply throw out what this Jewish rabbi is saying while you throw your typical rhetoric around trying to make Kactus look like an idiot. That's a big fail there buddy!

 

I didn't throw out what the Rabbiah stated. You again lie. Nothing in what I stated rejected that Rabbiah's opinion.

[GostHacked]

Just now, Rue said:

I would say you deliberately lie and misrepresent my repeated support of a two state solution.

As for your posing as Nostradamus good for you. I don't doubt you have visions.

You are right, I do not have visions, but there was a time in the early 1900s where Israel did not exist. And now it simply is taking over more and more as it grows.  That's a vision based on SOLID proof and recent modern history. Undeniable.

But am I wrong saying you do not support a two state solution? Try to keep the rhetoric to a minimum, I can't be here all day.

[GostHacked]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

I didn't throw out what the Rabbiah stated. You again lie. Nothing in what I stated rejected that Rabbiah's opinion.

Well, you seem to have a problem with Jews that have a differing opinion than you.

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

Why is it necessary when discussing the Jerusalem issue to use this Rabbiah? Why? How is his Rabbiah relevant to the opinion?

How do you manage to constantly contradict yourself?

[Rue]

19 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Well, you seem to have a problem with Jews that have a differing opinion than you.

How do you manage to constantly contradict yourself?

I did not question his actual  opinion  but the relevancy of his being Jewish and a Rabbiah.  I stated:

"Why is it necessary when discussing the Jerusalem issue to use this Rabbiah? Why? How is his Rabbiah relevant to the opinion? Does it make the opinion any more valid than if he was a Rabbiah expressing the exact opposite opinion? Is Kactus suggesting a Rabbiah is only valid and important when he expresses the same view as Kactus? Is Kactus suggesting any Jew or any Rabbiah with an opposite view of the above must be wrong because this guy is a Jew let alone a Rabbiah? Does his being a Rabiah automatically make his opinion more valid? Is it any more valid than if I placed a Mullah's or Catholic Priest's opinion on Jerusalem belong to Jews on this thread? "

I also stated:

"This person's being Jewish and Rabbiah is essential for Kactus-Hudson Jones because by pointing out they are a Jew and a Rabbiah, its supposed to immediately mean it is acceptable to be anti semitic. By using this individual as a mouthpiece with what is supposed to be the same opinion, that opinion is now no longer anti-Semitic.

The fact is the above individual's opinion is not made any more or less valid by the fact he is Jewish or a Rabbiah anymore than it would be if he was a Christian or Muslim.

The fact is the religion or clergy status of the individual will not determine the validity of their comment.

The fact is there is no right or wrong subjective opinion, just a subjective opinion. Any opinion on Jerusalem's ownership is necessarily subjective and will have biases."

Absolutely NOTHING in my words challenged the actual opinion of this Rabbiah being right or wrong. I could not have made it any more clear that the issue I was challenging was not his actual opinion but the use of his Jewish rabbinical status.

You can misrepresent all you want Ghost but it fails. Your attempt to avoid the good Jew bad Jew tactic being used speaks loudly.

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

21 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

You are right, I do not have visions, but there was a time in the early 1900s where Israel did not exist. And now it simply is taking over more and more as it grows.  That's a vision based on SOLID proof and recent modern history. Undeniable.

But am I wrong saying you do not support a two state solution? Try to keep the rhetoric to a minimum, I can't be here all day.

Yes there was a time Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia,  Lebanon, Syria, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain did not exist yet you only select out of all the countries that did not exist in the early 1900's, Israel.

Your comment that Israel takes over more and more as it grows is of course false. It gave back the Sinai and left the Gaza which prove your comment false...but then that's not anything new.

Next yes you are wrong. You misrepresent my positions, ignore the actual issues I challenge and make false statements contradicted by historic fact.