Help with my debate against a Zionist

[Pogue]

Engaged in a real life debate with a Zionist. Need help refuting these points:

1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.
2. Hamas were around and 'causing trouble' before Israel were created.
3. (Racism, which he denies here, this isn't sometihng I need to refute because I did by saying its racist but just generally want to bring it to your attention) - The Palestinians 'caused trouble and were kicked out of' all the states they were in in the middle east. This is clearly bullshit, what is he even basing this on? I accused him of being racist and he side-stepped it.
4. Israel only banned the two Arab parties from the lection because these parties want to destory Israel.
5. The Israeli state was open to all, so the Palestinians could live there. This is one I refuted by telling him of land grabs, the shrinking area of land governed by the Palestinians, etc.
6. The Jewish people deserve a homeland (this one was easy to refute but I would like to see your responses too).
7. The IDF acts merely in defense.
8. Zionist leaders are not to blame for Israels foundation, and their foudnation was legal because the UN, made up of many naitonsof the world, sanctioned it, and it was the British who actually set up te state.
9. He denies Hamas were elected democratically. Here I'd like a source showing that the elections were proven to be free and fair by a third party please.
10. Before the state of Israel was created, Palestinians persecuted/abused the Jewish population of that region.
11. Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room.
12. Why should there not be a Jewish state? There are states which are focused around Christianity, other peoples have states etc. I refuted this one too but I need more tips. I basically mentioned how you never have the right to push people off of their land.
13.He says the IDF is merely defending Israeli people from extremism.

More will come up as we continue the debate. I'm pretty much winning here but he uses stupid distrotion, lies and side-stepping to maniuplate the truth because he is thoroughly indoctrinated. He says all my evidence (i.e. pictures of the 'shrinking of Palestine' are from pro-Palestinian sources so cannot be trusted). He says the Jews have a right to a homeland, etc. I did get him to achknowledge that more and more land has progressively been stolen form the Palestinian people. He says a One state solution with a nation for everyone sharing land is what Israel is already, he says the Palestinians just don't use or accept this.

He says Israel is an immoral state but all states are immoral and unjust so Israel is no badder than anyone else. I just need general tips on this. I have alot of knowledge of the conflict myself having been very active in the Free Palestine movement, but all help is appreciated.

Cue Bob Kindles and Sam B, please :D

[Post-Something]

This is such shit. I mean, Hamas were founded in 1987. Also, of course they were democratically elected, the UN supervised it, and even representatives of the G8 were there. This shouldn't be too hard comrade, just search around, and you'll expose his fallacies.

[danyboy27]

Engaged in a real life debate with a Zionist. Need help refuting these points:

1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.
2. Hamas were around and 'causing trouble' before Israel were created.
3. (Racism, which he denies here, this isn't sometihng I need to refute because I did by saying its racist but just generally want to bring it to your attention) - The Palestinians 'caused trouble and were kicked out of' all the states they were in in the middle east. This is clearly bullshit, what is he even basing this on? I accused him of being racist and he side-stepped it.
4. Israel only banned the two Arab parties from the lection because these parties want to destory Israel.
5. The Israeli state was open to all, so the Palestinians could live there. This is one I refuted by telling him of land grabs, the shrinking area of land governed by the Palestinians, etc.
6. The Jewish people deserve a homeland (this one was easy to refute but I would like to see your responses too).
7. The IDF acts merely in defense.
8. Zionist leaders are not to blame for Israels foundation, and their foudnation was legal because the UN, made up of many naitonsof the world, sanctioned it, and it was the British who actually set up te state.
9. He denies Hamas were elected democratically. Here I'd like a source showing that the elections were proven to be free and fair by a third party please.
10. Before the state of Israel was created, Palestinians persecuted/abused the Jewish population of that region.
11. Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room.
12. Why should there not be a Jewish state? There are states which are focused around Christianity, other peoples have states etc. I refuted this one too but I need more tips. I basically mentioned how you never have the right to push people off of their land.
13.He says the IDF is merely defending Israeli people from extremism.

More will come up as we continue the debate. I'm pretty much winning here but he uses stupid distrotion, lies and side-stepping to maniuplate the truth because he is thoroughly indoctrinated. He says all my evidence (i.e. pictures of the 'shrinking of Palestine' are from pro-Palestinian sources so cannot be trusted). He says the Jews have a right to a homeland, etc. I did get him to achknowledge that more and more land has progressively been stolen form the Palestinian people. He says a One state solution with a nation for everyone sharing land is what Israel is already, he says the Palestinians just don't use or accept this.

He says Israel is an immoral state but all states are immoral and unjust so Israel is no badder than anyone else. I just need general tips on this. I have alot of knowledge of the conflict myself having been very active in the Free Palestine movement, but all help is appreciated.

Cue Bob Kindles and Sam B, please :D
1.kinda true
2.not really true, but palestinian voilence toward israelite happened before hamas ever existed, maybe he confuse that
3.israel apply a swgregation politics: isaeli only road, israeli license plates give them acces to special road palestinian cant use etc.
4.dont know about that.
5.palestinian could live there IF they pass the test and denies their palestinian nationility to replace it by israeli citizenship.
6.they had choice back then after ww2 of far better place to set their homeland,and all they found was a sandpit surrounded by agressive arabic state? go figure.
7.4000 house destroyed, 50 000 displaced, 1300 dead, all that to destroy one of the weakest militant group of the middle east in term of training and equipement,, you gotta be kidding me.

8. the brittish did helped the israeli to take root in the middle east, in order to be able to unfluence the region, they got fucked up at the end of the deal, the israeli started doing their own stuff and the brittish get fucked.
has i pointed out, they had verry interesting place proposed to set up their place, i think sweden was one of their choice.
9. i did hear he was democraticly elected, cant quote it, they did kicked fatah ass out tho.
10. yea...basicly they felt threatened by jewish colonization and started to loot and attack israelite, isralite got mad and fucked them up with their homemade milita, they won.

11. if he refer to cijordania, he right, but mainly beccause this zone is controlled by fatah, and fatah dont throw rocket at israel, actually fatah is armed by israel these day.
12. religious state always end up bad, israeli is a quote jewish quote state. women can go naked on the beachm, that not what i call a jewish value.
hardcore jews in the settlement are covering their women like the muslim do.
at the end, its a jewish state when its convenient to them.
13. if its the case, they should think it over, even the american dont fuck up people that bad, i seriously mean it 4000 house. this mean every time they came under fire they called airstrike, call it fucking paranoia.

[BobKKKindle$]

Sorry, HLVS, didn't see this. I'll just adress what seem to be the most important issues:


1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.On the 13th of this month Israel banned two Arab parties, United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad, from running in the parliamentary elections which are due to take place next month, thereby effectively disenfranchising the Arabs who currently live inside Israel and hold Israeli citizenship. How can any country possibly be a democracy, even a democracy within the framework of capitalism, if an ethnic group living within that country's borders has been deprived of the right to participate in the national political process and draw attention to its grievances? In addition, even if we assume for a moment that Israel's internal political system is a democracy, Israel has shown that it is willing to disregard the right of other states to make their own political choices and election governments which reflect the interests of the citizenry as a whole, as Israel imposed a blocade on Gaza immediately after Hamas was elected to power, and prior to the collapse of Apartheid, Israel was also a major diplomatic and military partner of South Africa.


2. Hamas were around and 'causing trouble' before Israel were created.Hamas was only created in the late 1980s, and was initially given covert support by Israel in order to a create a religious counterbalance to the PLO, which has historically been dominated by secular and left-nationalist forces such as Fatah and the PFLP.


The Palestinians 'caused trouble and were kicked out of' all the states they were in in the middle eastNeighboring countries have rarely respected the rights of Palestinian refugees - Jordan, for example, is the only country which has given refugees citizenship, thereby allowing them to work, despite the fact that the Jordanian monarchy also supported attacks carried out against Palestinian militants using Jordan as a base in 1970, in which would later become known as "Black September". Israel, however, is by far the biggest criminal when it comes to the forced expulsion of Palestinians - during the Naqba, 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee to Arab countries by the armed forces of the embryonic Israel state, which declared independence unilaterally in defiance of the UN partition plan, and even today these refugees are denied the right to return to the land which has been stolen from them and placed in the hands of illegitimate Israeli settlers, and consequently continue to live in overcrowded refugee camps which have frequently come under attack from extremist groups with the tacit support of the IDF, such as the Lebanese Phalange following the Israeli invasion in 1982 - more information on the massacres at Shatila and Sabra camps. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2255902.stm)


The Israeli state was open to all, so the Palestinians could live thereThe exact reverse is true - Israel is currently constructing a security wall in the West Bank, against the ruling of the International Criminal Court, in order to prevent Palestinians from traveling to Israel in order to work or obtain residency rights. Information on the wall. (http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/apartheidwall.shtml)


The IDF acts merely in defense."Defence" is a totally ambiguous term, and it is not useful to base our understanding of conflicts and power relations between global actors solely on the basis of who fired the first shot - it could be argued that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was also defensive on the grounds that the US had imposed an oil embargo on Japan a few days before the attack took place. The IDF exists to maintain Israel's position as an imperialist power within the Middle East and to defeat the progressive struggles of the Palestinian people.


Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room."Poverty and the global rise in food prices have taken a heavy toll on Palestinian living conditions. The consumer price index for food rose by 28% in Gaza and 21.4% in the West Bank between June 2007 and June 2008. Despite the large inflows of aid, a recent WFP survey found that food insecurity continues to rise in WBG, and is estimated to have increased from 34% in 2006 to 38% in 2007. Food insecurity is even more pronounced in Gaza reaching 56% of households. Almost 66% of income earned in Gaza is spent on food while in the West Bank the figure is 56%"

West Bank & Gaza - Country Brief, World Bank (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/WESTBANKGAZAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20149751%7EmenuPK:294370%7EpagePK:14 97618%7EpiPK:217854%7EtheSitePK:294365,00.html)

Why should there not be a Jewish stateThe basic concept of a "Jewish state" denotes that Israel is a state which exists to protect the interests of Jewish people at the expense of all other ethic groups living in the region - this necessarily involves the rights of people who are not Jewish being violated, especially when Israel pursues expansionist policies such as the ongoing construction of settlements in the West Bank. There is no other state in the entire world which openly seeks to represent just one ethnic group. The UN partition plan was entirely illegitimate as it sought to create two separate states when the only way to secure a durable and just peace in the region is a unitary state which allows both Muslims and Jews to access religious sites located in historic Palestine and live alongside each other. In addition, despite the fact that Jewish people accounted for less than half of the total population in 1947, prior to Israel's creation, and owned less than 20 percent of all land, Israel was allocated more than half of the land area under the UN plan.

[Zurdito]

This is such shit. I mean, Hamas were founded in 1987.

true, though the Moslem Brotherhood, their parent organisations which their ofunding constitution declares them loyal to, has existed since 1928.

just so he does not get caught out.

[Post-Something]

true, though the Moslem Brotherhood, their parent organisations which their ofunding constitution declares them loyal to, has existed since 1928.

just so he does not get caught out.

Yeah, that's right. And they set up the Palestinian section in 1936, so it was before the creation of Israel.

But to be honest, I fail to see how this helps the zionist argument? I mean, so what if that happened?

[Comrade B]

Remember- Hamas isn't the only organization in opposition to Israel. We cannot really defend Hamas because they are just as crazy as their opposition, we can defend Palestinian independence though. People often use the actions of Hamas as reason for Israel's need to bomb Palestine, but they are also fighting other independence groups at the same time. If your opposition isn't very smart, you can make them look a bit stupid by showing that they can't identify the other groups for Palestinian independence.


1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.
I am pretty sure Pakistan also holds elections, but I am not too up to date with the stuff going on over there.

So sure, we can say that "Israel" is democratic, but what is Israel? It is like having the leaders of every country elected by a vote done by the entire world population, the largest countries will have more power, and though they are not an over all majority, they will still be a more united majority than the other countries.

How can Israel claim to be democratic when there IS a Palestinian resistance. Wouldn't these people have representation if they were in a real democracy? Why would they need to fight for autonomy if they were treated as equals.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Engaged in a real life debate with a Zionist. Need help refuting these points:

I meant to post this earlier, but it got timed out and I automatically signed out. Oh well. Most of this has probably already been said.


1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.

Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocratic Apartheid state. Besides banning two Arab parties while allowing the existence of the "National Union", which has a party program that calls for the "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians to Jordan prior to full Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
There are neighbourhoods in Israel where only Jewish people are allowed to live.


2. Hamas were around and 'causing trouble' before Israel were created.

Absolutely false. Even some of the most anti-Muslim sites state that Hamas was founded in 1987. This is not to say that there was no resistance to Israeli aggression in the years prior, but it's important to recognize that Hamas is the inevitable result of Israeli aggression


3. (Racism, which he denies here, this isn't sometihng I need to refute because I did by saying its racist but just generally want to bring it to your attention) - The Palestinians 'caused trouble and were kicked out of' all the states they were in in the middle east. This is clearly bullshit, what is he even basing this on? I accused him of being racist and he side-stepped it.

4. Israel only banned the two Arab parties from the election because these parties want to destory Israel.

The ban of those two parties was proposed by the aforementioned racist National Union party. That should show exactly how seriously the claims that such parties are dangerous should be taken.


5. The Israeli state was open to all, so the Palestinians could live there. This is one I refuted by telling him of land grabs, the shrinking area of land governed by the Palestinians, etc.

Besides the aforementioned Apartheid, maybe this Zionist didn't notice the WALL.


6. The Jewish people deserve a homeland (this one was easy to refute but I would like to see your responses too).

Everybody deserves a decent home. Zionists are not so special that they deserve to live in those neighbourhoods more than former Palestinians residents, now refugees, do. This kind of thinking dangerously echoes the neo-Nazi sentiment of "white separatism". Cohesion on religious or ethnic grounds only intensifies conflict by discouraging cooperation and encouraging feelings of supremacy.


7. The IDF acts merely in defense.

Israeli forces, at least initially, killed more Israelis than Hamas did, through friendly fire. While in one instance, 120 rockets killed two Israelis. Israel responded by attacking a hospital. Also, Israel cannot claim defense as a reasom for attacking a U.N.-run school. Israel has since admitted that no rockets were being fired from that school. After years of illegal occupations, and even in this case the se of chemical weapons, Israel has crossed the line from "defense" to genocide.


8. Zionist leaders are not to blame for Israels foundation, and their foudnation was legal because the UN, made up of many naitons of the world, sanctioned it, and it was the British who actually set up te state.

Regardless of who sanctioned it, it was wrong to create a "Jewish state" at the expense of the people who already lived there. America and Canada also turned away a substantial number of Jewish refugees, who were later killed in the Holocaust. Were it not for the prejudices of the Western world, perhaps many Jewish people would have been more likely to seek refuge elsewhere, and much of this problem could have been avoided.


9. He denies Hamas were elected democratically. Here I'd like a source showing that the elections were proven to be free and fair by a third party please.

I will try to find the best third-party source that I can for you. Otherwise, it's been said already, but the elections were internationally monitored. Despite this, countries such as Canada and the United States' reacted bitterly to the election of Hamas.


10. Before the state of Israel was created, Palestinians persecuted/abused the Jewish population of that region.

I had heard that there was relative peace in Palestine before Israel was created. Ill find something to verify this. Regardless, does bombing a hospital, school, and homes, and using chemical weapons, not count as some sort of abuse, and are Arab Israelis not constantly bing persecuted? The answer is clearly "no".


11. Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room.

If someone bombed his home, and he ran to what was supposed to be a shelter offered in a school by an international organization only to see that it was under fire, and if even the local hospital was in ruins, would he be saying "conditions are not that bad"? In addition, it took international pressure for Israel to finally allow some international humanitarian aid into Gaza.


12. Why should there not be a Jewish state? There are states which are focused around Christianity, other peoples have states etc. I refuted this one too but I need more tips. I basically mentioned how you never have the right to push people off of their land.

That and the existence of theocracies does not justify the existence of new theocracies. Theocracy is dangerous, for reasons noted above where I referred to "white separatism".

13.He says the IDF is merely defending Israeli people from extremism.[/quote]

See above. Israel is a nuclear state backed by the United States with access to chemical weapons. It is therefore up to Israel to take the initiative for peace, as they are in a far better position to do so.


More will come up as we continue the debate. I'm pretty much winning here but he uses stupid distrotion, lies and side-stepping to maniuplate the truth because he is thoroughly indoctrinated. He says all my evidence (i.e. pictures of the 'shrinking of Palestine' are from pro-Palestinian sources so cannot be trusted).

That's nothing. I must have suffered brain damage earlier because I tried debating a Scientologist.


He says the Jews have a right to a homeland, etc.

See above. That only causes religious/ethnic tensions, and Zionists do not deserve the land more than the Palestianians.


I did get him to acknowledge that more and more land has progressively been stolen form the Palestinian people. He says a One state solution with a nation for everyone sharing land is what Israel is already, he says the Palestinians just don't use or accept this.

1. They can't use it. Has he not noticed the WALL? I agree in principle that a one-state solution is ideal, but for those in the West Bank & Gaza who wish to continue living there, they have every reason to be wary of the consequences of being annexed into one "Jewish state" of Israel.


He says Israel is an immoral state but all states are immoral and unjust so Israel is no badder than anyone else.

Complete and utter nonsense. Was the state of Nazi Germany not less moral than the state of, say, Belgium?
Or for a more modern example, is the modern state of Sweden equally moral to, for example, the modern state of the United States?


I just need general tips on this. I have alot of knowledge of the conflict myself having been very active in the Free Palestine movement, but all help is appreciated.

Cue Bob Kindles and Sam B, please :D

I'm not Bob Kindles or Sam B, and I was bit later and just maybe a bit less clear than I meant to be at first, but I hope I was of some help.

[RGacky3]

He says the Jews have a right to a homeland, etc.


I love this argument, to refute it simply replace the word Jews with "white," and see if there still on board.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I love this argument, to refute it simply replace the word Jews with "white," and see if there still on board.

My point exactly.

[Demogorgon]

This has been pretty thoroughly dealt with so I will only add a few extra thoughts

4. Israel only banned the two Arab parties from the lection because these parties want to destory Israel.They oppose te existence of the Israeli state as it exists. However let's put that ic context. In the United Kingdom, The Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour Party all oppose the existence of Britain in one form or another, yet legally compete in and win seats in British elections. The same goes for Separatist Parties in Spain, Belgium, Canada and so on. Unless the person you are arguing with here wants to ban all these parties, he or she does not have a leg to stand on.


6. The Jewish people deserve a homeland (this one was easy to refute but I would like to see your responses too).Whether they do or not doesn't justify taking somebody else's land.

7. The IDF acts merely in defense.One has to wonder what the UN buildings they bombed were doing to threaten them.

8. Zionist leaders are not to blame for Israels foundation, and their foudnation was legal because the UN, made up of many naitonsof the world, sanctioned it, and it was the British who actually set up te state.Well sure, but what on earth this has to do with the debate is beyond me. The zionist leaders got what they wanted and they got it by force and terrorism.

Even beyond that Israel took a hell of a lot more land than even the UN and Britain gave them.

9. He denies Hamas were elected democratically. Here I'd like a source showing that the elections were proven to be free and fair by a third party please.There is an argument here that can be made. The elections were held under a system where half the seats were allocated by Bloc Vote and half by Proportional Representation. Hamas used strategic nomination to do very well in the Bloc Vote part of the election event hough they didn't get much more votes than Fatah. In the Proportional Representation segment they only got one more seat than Fatah. If all sats were to be allocated by Proportional Representation (as they will be in the next Palestinian election) a coalition of Fatah, smaller Christian parties and possibly the Communists would likely have formed the Government. It could be argued that as Bloc Vote is an unfair electoral system, then Hamas couldn't be considered Democratic winners. They were elected legally though and did not rig the elections (and weren't in any position to do so). Whether or not tyhey should be thought of as a legitimate Government or not, they were elected in full compliance with electoral rules.


11. Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room.Would he or she like to live there?

He says a One state solution with a nation for everyone sharing land is what Israel is already, he says the Palestinians just don't use or accept this.
That is a bit like saying that the solution to South African Apartheid would have been to re-integrate the Bantustans into fully South African territory without removing any Apartheid laws or granting blacks the right to vote (or full Suffrage to Indians and Coloureds).

Palestinians are forced to live under Israeli control and are taxed by Israel, even in areas that Israel does not formally control, but are not given citizenship or allowed to vote in Israeli elections. Does your opponent accept this?

[Invader Zim]

You may want to note that Hamas was actually funded by Israel when it was first created. The Tel Aviv thought that promoting Hamas would cause division within Palestine and result in Fatah losing influence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

[Dean]

1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.
2. Hamas were around and 'causing trouble' before Israel were created.
3. (Racism, which he denies here, this isn't sometihng I need to refute because I did by saying its racist but just generally want to bring it to your attention) - The Palestinians 'caused trouble and were kicked out of' all the states they were in in the middle east. This is clearly bullshit, what is he even basing this on? I accused him of being racist and he side-stepped it.
4. Israel only banned the two Arab parties from the lection because these parties want to destory Israel.
5. The Israeli state was open to all, so the Palestinians could live there. This is one I refuted by telling him of land grabs, the shrinking area of land governed by the Palestinians, etc.
6. The Jewish people deserve a homeland (this one was easy to refute but I would like to see your responses too).
7. The IDF acts merely in defense.
8. Zionist leaders are not to blame for Israels foundation, and their foudnation was legal because the UN, made up of many naitonsof the world, sanctioned it, and it was the British who actually set up te state.
9. He denies Hamas were elected democratically. Here I'd like a source showing that the elections were proven to be free and fair by a third party please.
10. Before the state of Israel was created, Palestinians persecuted/abused the Jewish population of that region.
11. Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room.
12. Why should there not be a Jewish state? There are states which are focused around Christianity, other peoples have states etc. I refuted this one too but I need more tips. I basically mentioned how you never have the right to push people off of their land.
13.He says the IDF is merely defending Israeli people from extremism.

1. Firstly, they have a minority-ruling party. Israel killed most of the top members of the democratically elected Hamas government and banned Arab parties. Democratic? Kind've, but they are the leading regime in the region who try to subvert democracy - just look at Lebanon, 1982.

2. So what? This isn't true, but if it was, you don't justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine based on some specific group "causing trouble."

3. That sounds like he could only be talking about Jewish expatriots who went to Israel. Of course, that would be false, too - the Jews who migrated to Israel weren't "causing trouble" in their home land. The Palestinians weren't "causing trouble" in Palestine. They were just a hamper to Jewish Nationalism in the region.

4. They banned the group because they feared a national backlash from the ethnic cleansing, which got a lot more negative press than they expected. It's a lot easier to talk against the "Arabs" when they aren't peacefully running for office in your government.

5. Tell that to the masses of Palestinians denied work due to racist policies (long before Israel was created, too), the Palestinians forced to march to Jordan from their homes, the checkpoints where looking arab holds you up.

6. Big fucking deal. The Jewish people could have easily moved to Palestine and assimilated with the Palestinians - the region was actually quite accepting of them before the ethnic cleansing started.

7. So does Hamas, Fatah, PFLP.

8. I home the U.N. never dcides that this bloke's home is someone else's.

9. http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2006/March/March%2020/CarterCenter.htm

10. They probably did, but only as a response to the racist violence practiced by early Zionists.

11. The West Bank economy has more or less collapsed along with Gaza. Water is scarce, and emergency visits to hospital almost alwyas end in death on arrival because of the checkpoints Israel has imposed, which make a 15 minute drive take 2 hours.

12. There is no reason why a certain ethnicity deserves a state. Barring that, and the standard anti-state rhetoric, the inherenet problem with Israel is that it is built on the murder and oppression of the Palestinian people.

13. Hamas and Fatah are merely defending their people from bombings and barricades.

[Sendo]

1. No state that grants citizenship based on ethnicity can be called democratic. Nor can one that deprives and occupies people within its jurisdiction. It wasn't always the "only" "democratic" state either. Iraq was a lot different 50 years ago.
2. Nope
3. N/A
4. This clause takes all illusions of Israeli democracy. No discussion necessary.
5. The settlement, yadda yadda yadda. Besides, the area has traditionally been very come and go. Israel is the exception. Look at the Mid-East during the crusades when ruled by arabs.
6. Why the FUCK do Jews deserve a homeland? What about the Romany (far more oppressed than Jews? What about a homeland for French-Canadian-Indian-Italian-Irish-German New Yorkers (where do we draw the line?) Not to mention the homeland is really only for the Oshkenazi Jews since the Saffardics who never left get shit on (I've talked to people who have lived in Israel btw)
7. No defense force invades foreign territory, owns mines, or stocks nukes. Ever.
8. Perpetuating the crimes of your forecomers makes you just as guilty.
9. Elections were fair and UN certified.
10. Myths and revisionist history. ask for evidence proving it was nearly as significant as what goes on today. Even if it was. Is he admitting Israel is punishing via lex talionis?
11. Not if rich suburbanite Israelis keep making their golf-course sized grass lawns and using all the water. Not if there are walls and checkpoints.
12. Yeah, Europe had Christian kingdoms. Should everyone else get one? No! No one should have one. If Christians can genocide Amerindians, Moors, Jews, etc should Israelis get to genocide Muslims?
13. Using extreme measures to wipe out "extremists" should be an ironic joke.

[synthesis]

Hamas was democratically elected, which I'm sure has already been pointed out numerous times.

In any case, reducing the history of the Arab-Israeli conflicts to Muslim militancy is akin to reducing the history of antebellum America to Nat Turner's rebellion - or reducing the history of the British East India Company to the Sepoy Uprising.

[ls]

..
He says Israel is an immoral state but all states are immoral and unjust so Israel is no badder than anyone else.


Anyone else could be as broad (and fucking well is) as Nazi Germany. You should have simply said that to him imo, he's clearly not going to rationally listen to any argument you give him no matter how sound it is.

[Bud Struggle]

Isn't this where you Commies say that "ALL STATES ARE IMMORAL"

Just asking. :)

[GPDP]

Isn't this where you Commies say that "ALL STATES ARE IMMORAL"

Just asking. :)

I think that's where Leninists say "all bourgeois states are immoral", anarchists say "all states period are immoral", and others would even say "morality is a bourgeois concept".

You know better than to cast us all with the same brush. :D

[Jazzratt]

Isn't this where you Commies say that "ALL STATES ARE IMMORAL"

Just asking. :)

It should be, but for some reason a lot of "leftists" have romantic visions when innocent workers are sent into the meat grinder in the name of nationalist ambitions.

Fuck Israel. Fuck Palestine. No state solution!

[danyboy27]

Fuck Israel. Fuck Palestine. No state solution!

so what the solution?

[graffic]

I love this argument, to refute it simply replace the word Jews with "white," and see if there still on board.

Or replace it with "Armenians" and "Palestinians". The double standards of people supporting the palestinian cause is ridiculous.

[graffic]

Engaged in a real life debate with a Zionist. Need help refuting these points:


1. Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east.

Israel is not democratic because it grants citizenship to civilians based on their ethnicity. Having said that the motives behind this law are not racist, more to do with the defense of their country. Unlike nearly all Arab countries surrounding Israel which have racist laws because they are racist. Other than the racist law of citizenship Israel is by far the most liberal state in the middle East.

2. Hamas were around and 'causing trouble' before Israel were created.

I don't think so.

3. (Racism, which he denies here, this isn't sometihng I need to refute because I did by saying its racist but just generally want to bring it to your attention) - The Palestinians 'caused trouble and were kicked out of' all the states they were in in the middle east. This is clearly bullshit, what is he even basing this on? I accused him of being racist and he side-stepped it.

This is bullshit. Some rejectionist Arab countries (Iran, Syria) have no interest in helping the Palestinians because it would solve the problem and allow Israel to exist in peace.

4. Israel only banned the two Arab parties from the lection because these parties want to destory Israel.

No, it was because of the Israeli aggression in Gaza. Since the ceasefire they have been allowed back and I think they will stand in the election.

6. The Jewish people deserve a homeland (this one was easy to refute but I would like to see your responses too).

Of course they do. Just like the Palestinians do and any other people who desire self-determination.

7. The IDF acts merely in defense.

I think it does in theory however Israel probably faces the hardest enemy to fight in the world.

9. He denies Hamas were elected democratically. Here I'd like a source showing that the elections were proven to be free and fair by a third party please.

Unfortunately they were, but I think not every Palestinian had a vote.

10. Before the state of Israel was created, Palestinians persecuted/abused the Jewish population of that region.

No, I don't think the Palestinians did much. The Jews living in Israel fled from Arab countries where they were persecuted/abused.

11. Conditions in the West Bank are not that bad, there is lots of room.

I think its hard for Palestinians in the West Bank. Probably better than Gaza though.

[ls]

Fuck Israel. Fuck Palestine. No state solution!

Agreed. In the meantime however we have to accept the people that appear to consider themselves "Palestinians"' daily reality of starvation, poverty and death. What specifically do you propose (start a new thread or point to old ones) to revolutionise them?

[Bud Struggle]

Agreed. In the meantime however we have to accept the people that appear to consider themselves "Palestinians"' daily reality of starvation, poverty and death. What specifically do you propose (start a new thread or point to old ones) to revolutionise them?

Realistically, I don't think that there's better ground for a Revolution than in Gaza. Almost everyone is poor young and oppressed. They have no hope and little food.

Islam is really doing nothing for them--

[synthesis]

Internal revolution wouldn't protect the Palestinians from ethnic cleansing.

[benhur]

Trust me, from my experience, it's never easy to convince people that Israel is wrong, and Palestinians are victims. There are two reasons for this, first being that leadership like hamas gives a negative image of the Palestinians. Plus, terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists throughout the world (9/11, London attack, Spain bombing, attacks even in Muslim nations like Indonesia etc. etc.) also makes people lose even a little sympathy for Palestine, because unfortunately Islamism is associated with Palestinian struggle (since Palestinans are muslims), just like people often relate Israel with Jews, even Jews living outside Israel.

Second reason is that Israel is the most developed country in the ME, despite having no oil or any resources. This is the zionist argument, plus they also equate Jew=Israel, and point to the achievements of Jewish people throughout the world (and slyly contrast it with Islamic terrorism). Doing this, they try to convince people that Jews and Israel are developed, they've overachievers etc. etc., all the while pointing to taliban, hamas and the likes to demonize the Muslims in general, and the Palestine resistance in particular.

No wonder, it's virtually impossible to win against the zionist, because he can attack our argument from both angles, show Jews/Israel as highly advanced overachievers and in the same breath, show the Arabs/Palestinians as backward, religious bigots.

[graffic]

show the Arabs/Palestinians as backward, religious bigots.

Thats because they are to an extent. The Palestinians voted in a backward bunch of zealots.

[danyboy27]

Thats because they are to an extent. The Palestinians voted in a backward bunch of zealots.

yea, its quite embarrasing. seriously, its more easy to argues with a zionist if you concede him that hamas is a bunch of religious assoles, defending palestinian and arab extremist group is EXACTLY what they are expecting, if you can detatch yourself from muslim fundamentalism, you might be able to score some point. After that you can easily attack him on the disproportionate means employed by the israeli governement toward one of the most weak armed group in the middle east and the lack of professionalism of it army.

[synthesis]

if you can detatch yourself from muslim fundamentalism, you might be able to score some point.

Who cares about proving yourself to pro-Israelis? In "detaching oneself" from movements like Hamas, you stray into denial of the fact that their actions and motivations are derived from their material conditions - ethnic cleansing, imperialism, and apartheid - and that it is pointless to call on Hamas to practice humanitarianism when the Israeli government is committing far worse crimes on a much grander scale.

[danyboy27]

Who cares about proving yourself to pro-Israelis? In "detaching oneself" from movements like Hamas, you stray into denial of the fact that their actions and motivations are derived from their material conditions - ethnic cleansing, imperialism, and apartheid - and that it is pointless to call on Hamas to practice humanitarianism when the Israeli government is committing far worse crimes on a much grander scale.


detatching ourselves from those religious fanatics dosnt mean denies the israeli crimes of present and past. Both side are creazy at differents levels, taking for one side wont do any good, a solution is indeed needed to end the bloodshed, but it will not come out of more bloodshed for sure.

has a leftist i refuse to endorse the violent decision and action present and past of both side, i wont travesty myself has a supporter of muslim fundamentalism or has a supporter of a violent appartheid regime.

[graffic]

What do you mean 'if you can detach yourself'. Thats like saying if you can detach zionism from Israel or if you can detach anti-semitism from the Nazis. There's no propaganda playing around here its just the facts on the ground.

Which is ironic because if you look at both sides, the Palestinian argument against the state of Israel is drenched in religous fundamentalism.

Then look at the Israeli argument which, yes, around 20% of the population are heavyweight Orthodox but the rest are largely secular and have nothing against religion or race. What they have a problem with is people who want to destroy their race and desire for self-determination. Thats what its all about.

The middle East conflict in a nut shell is a bunch of racist Arab governments hating Israel for being racist. Its hypocritical and it always has been.

A lot of deluded socialists have tagged on to the campaign in recent years because the big "evil" US supports Israel and many Palestinians have been killed. Which is terrible, knowone wants this. The people who say Israel does want this, thats what I have a problem with, because its simply not true.

[danyboy27]

What do you mean 'if you can detach yourself'.

i mean not talk of hamas like if they where some kind of heroes, something a LOT of leftist are doing on a constant basis.

israeli military tactics are batshit insane, hamas military tactics are batshit insane.

see i dont take side.

[Makkede]

Your basic Problem is that you use 'zionist' as an epithet and it isn't.
Perhaps you want to define this term further before you use it such.
Be glad to help.

Zionism was/is the Secular, National movement of the Jewish people.
No less valid than 'palestinianism'. The national movement for a 23rd Arab State, and perhaps a second palestinian one, since Jordan is 70% palestinian.
Israel is 20% Fully enfranchised Arab while the New Palestine want it's state Pre-cleansed of Jews.
'Zionism' is basically supporting the Existence of the State of Israel... which probably 95+% of Jews do.
If you "Just" hate zionists...

Israel is the country where people of every Race, Religion, and Gender (male, female, gay) Vote, Worship, and walk the streets without fear..
Unlike all of it's Arab neighbors. Democracy or not.
-

[casper]

and then theres rocket attacks...

[Andy Bowden]

Thats because they are to an extent. The Palestinians voted in a backward bunch of zealots.

As opposed to the Israelis who voted for Sharon. Or those who will vote for Netanyahu next week.

[danyboy27]

this topic is full of people taking side, i am out of here.

[#FF0000]

this topic is full of people taking side, i am out of here.

Yeah bro because reviewing evidence and making a decision on something is a bad way of doing things. History, after all, is made by people who just wade in the murky waters of apathy and indecision.

[danyboy27]

Yeah bro because reviewing evidence and making a decision on something is a bad way of doing things. History, after all, is made by people who just wade in the murky waters of apathy and indecision.


what happening in the middle east is not a matter of taking a side or another, its about fixing the glitch once and for all, and beccause people take side, it will never be resolved.

for now, supporting hamas or any rogue islamist group wont get the issue fixed, AND supporting the stubborn sledgehammer attitude of israel wont do the trick either.

yes, israel is a lot to blame for all the bloodshed since the creation of israel, but blaming them for this shit wont make them change their attitude, EXCEPT if you advocating a full scale invasion of israel, bring down the leading figure and hang them to a pole nuremberg style.

btw Rorschach, what is your grand plan of fixing the whole problem without summoning Marx from the kingdom of Unicorn and bunnies, wich mean, realisticly?

[ls]

what happening in the middle east is not a matter of taking a side or another, its about fixing the glitch once and for all, and beccause people take side, it will never be resolved.

:lol: "glitch", it's because people take sides that anything gets done ever.


for now, supporting hamas or any rogue islamist group wont get the issue fixed, AND supporting the stubborn sledgehammer attitude of israel wont do the trick either.

"stubborn sledgehammer" -try genocidal maniac.


yes, israel is a lot to blame for all the bloodshed since the creation of israel, but blaming them for this shit wont make them change their attitude, EXCEPT if you advocating a full scale invasion of israel, bring down the leading figure and hang them to a pole nuremberg style.

This is a croc of shit.

Put simply, not being able to entirely fix a problem does not in any way mean you should ignore or leave it be.

[danyboy27]

:lol: "glitch", it's because people take sides that anything gets done ever.

then we have to start it over....





"stubborn sledgehammer" -try genocidal maniac.

choose a definition, i dont care.




This is a croc of shit.
Put simply, not being able to entirely fix a problem does not in any way mean you should ignore or leave it be.
never said that, we should do something, something that is actually achievable, otherwise time, money and peoples will die in vain.

throwing rocket made of used car part on israel beccause they are genocidal maniac didnt worked out verry well so far eh?
how come nobody talk about mahmoud abbas, how come nobody talk about the relative peace he been able to settle for the west bank?

[ls]

how come nobody talk about mahmoud abbas, how come nobody talk about the relative peace he been able to settle for the west bank?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/28/content_10729685.htm


RAMALLAH, Jan. 28 (Xinhua) -- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is seeking to punish Israel for the war crimes it committed in the Gaza Strip, an official report said on Wednesday. The official PNA Wafa news agency said in a report published on Wednesday that President Abbas said the PNA has called for launching an international investigation panel to punish Israel.
"We appealed to international war crimes courts and called for setting up a query to investigate these war crimes. We'll do our best to prove that Israel committed awful and disgusting crimes," said Abbas on Tuesday night.
The news agency said that Abbas made the statements in a meeting at his Ramallah headquarters with Palestinian intellectuals and politicians.
What's there to say, he's living it up probably champagne in hand with the PNA, he's apparently got it all sorted, he can piss right off in my mind.


There is no point "querying" whether Israel committed atrocities or not, he's just another useless politician.

[danyboy27]

at least he his doing something you, dont.
the only thing you do is to call israeli murderer and support hamas.

[ls]

at least he his doing something you, dont.
the only thing you do is to call israeli murderer and support hamas.

? He's just calling them both murderers, there's no direct action. :confused:

[#FF0000]

at least he his doing something you, dont.
the only thing you do is to call israeli murderer and support hamas.

I'm an anarchist. That means that almost any argument you use against me doesn't apply. And this is one of them. I don't support Hamas OR Israel.

[danyboy27]

I'm an anarchist. That means that almost any argument you use against me doesn't apply. And this is one of them. I don't support Hamas OR Israel.

there was a misunderstanding, this was dirrected at fuplu not you.

btw i am really happy that you and me agree on this.

[danyboy27]

? He's just calling them both murderers, there's no direct action. :confused:

what else could he do?

throw rocket made of car parts?

[graffic]

As opposed to the Israelis who voted for Sharon. Or those who will vote for Netanyahu next week.

If I lived in Israel I would not vote for the right-wing partys because they would inflame the conflict. However its completely unfair to compare Benjamin Netanyahu to Hamas.

Hamas rockets are aimed specifically at Jews, not Israelis. If Netanyahu was aiming missiles at Arabs and cheering when they died, then the two men would be on the same level.

Hamas loves death, Israel wants peace. Simple destinction that gets blurred because of the images on TV and the Internet.

[ls]

what else could he do?

throw rocket made of car parts?

Drop his capitalist and imperialist collusion for starters?

[danyboy27]

Drop his capitalist and imperialist collusion for starters?

in a world crowded with capitalist nation?
how are they suppose to do that without risking to get crushed by their powerfull neigboor?

[ls]

They already are.

[RGacky3]

If your grab a dog by its ears for hours and hours and pull on them, and hit the dog, as soon as you let go he's going to bite you. Who's fault is that? Its YOUR fault for pulling on the dogs ears.

Now, does that mean your justified in continuing pulling the dogs ears because if you let go he'll bite you? Thats your judgement call. I say no, that pretty much the situation in the middle east. Only instead of a dog, its a whole group of people.


Hamas rockets are aimed specifically at Jews, not Israelis. If Netanyahu was aiming missiles at Arabs and cheering when they died, then the two men would be on the same level.


Thats because Isreal is a "Jewish state" which is a racist concept to begin with, and much of the arabs in isreal are the ones being exploited and oppressed. Also, its generally the Isreali jews that are setting up settlements, and believe in Zionism.


Hamas loves death, Israel wants peace. Simple destinction that gets blurred because of the images on TV and the Internet.

Israel wants peace? You've GOT to be kidding me. Israel wants peace like America wants third world democracy, they only want it if they get their way, and their interests come first.

[danyboy27]

They already are.

not for the sector that are controlled by fatah

[ls]

The west bank is basically in the hands of Nationalist-Capitalist, imperialist colluding pigs that couldn't care less about unity, all they want is to run Gaza too, no they aren't any good and never will be.

And yes they are already crushed by the weight of their imperialist neighbours, they can't do anything drastic even though they must because we now that Israel will target them too, but that doesn't mean they can just sit there "condemning" and exploiting their own people and anyone else they think they can.

[Andy Bowden]

Hamas rockets are aimed specifically at Jews, not Israelis. If Netanyahu was aiming missiles at Arabs and cheering when they died, then the two men would be on the same level.

Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that Israel should have used the Tiananmen square massacre as an opportunity to deport Palestinians when the world's media attention was elsewhere. His party platform denies the Palestinians have any right to establish a Palestinian state "west of the Jordan river".

And unlike Hamas, if he wins the Israeli elections he has the ability to continue the occupation of Palestine.


Hamas loves death, Israel wants peace. Simple destinction that gets blurred because of the images on TV and the Internet.

Yes it's a shame that "distinction" gets blurred by the appearance of nasty facts appearing. In reality, it was Israel that violated the truce on November 4th. Even the Israeli Embassy's Hasbara Department admitted Hamas kept to its truce before Israel's raid on November 4th - conveniently the date of the US Presidential elections.

Looks like Lipni has learnt something from Netanyahu about striking when the TV cameras are pointed elsewhere?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM

[ls]

Not that I'm slating your arguments at all, but just saying that.. this is why that graffic guy is restricted. ;)

[graffic]

Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that Israel should have used the Tiananmen square massacre as an opportunity to deport Palestinians when the world's media attention was elsewhere. His party platform denies the Palestinians have any right to establish a Palestinian state "west of the Jordan river".

I'm pretty sure Netanyahu supports a two-state solution.

Lets compare that to Hamas who support a one state solution, with sharia law, with Jews kicked out and ultimately with the intention of establishing a world-wide caliphate.

One of the few things Hamas loves about Israel is that there's a large number of Jews concentrated in one land area so they are easier to kill.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm no fan of Netanyahu. Comparing him and his party to the likes of Hamas however is completely nuts.





Yes it's a shame that "distinction" gets blurred by the appearance of nasty facts appearing. In reality, it was Israel that violated the truce on November 4th.


In reality Hamas fired rockets over to Israel and broke the truce.

Sure, Israel has been strangling Gaza for a while now but when someone provokes you for so long you have to respond. Israel waited a hell of a long time before smashing its way into Gaza, they didnt want to kill Palestinians, they didnt want a war.

Hamas loved the war, they loved the casualties on both sides because it screws up Israels image in the international community. Hamas knows they can't win militarily so they rely on propaganda which gullible Liberals like yourself faithfully swallow.




Looks like Lipni has learnt something from Netanyahu about striking when the TV cameras are pointed elsewhere?

Yeah the Israeli establishment sucks, any fool knows that.

I'm not the one here defending Hamas though.

[Andy Bowden]

I'm pretty sure Netanyahu supports a two-state solution.

Your "pretty sure" of a lot of things, unfortunately it doesn't make them facts. Netanyahu is the leader of a party (Likud) whose charter explicitly opposes a two state solution.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm



Self-Rule
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.


The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

Likud opposes a two-state solution. They do not recognise the right of Palestine to exist as an independent sovereign state.



And unlike Hamas, if Likud win the Israeli elections they will not face punitive sanctions for not changing their charter.


In reality Hamas fired rockets over to Israel and broke the truce.

Reality is based on material facts - not what you like them to be. According to the Israeli govt themselves, no Hamas rockets were fired from the start of the ceasefire in June till after November 4th.

Israel launched a raid into Gaza on November 4th. They attacked first, and broke the ceasefire.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1228728273026

Even the Mossad accepted that Hamas would have supported a truce, based on extending the calm to the West Bank and ending the siege.


Hamas loved the war, they loved the casualties on both sides because it screws up Israels image in the international community. Hamas knows they can't win militarily so they rely on propaganda which gullible Liberals like yourself faithfully swallow.

I'm gullible?

Graffic you consistently and constantly make up facts as you go along. I post the position of an Israeli political party and you discount on a hunch. It's more to do with "truthiness" than facts.

[graffic]

Your "pretty sure" of a lot of things, unfortunately it doesn't make them facts. Netanyahu is the leader of a party (Likud) whose charter explicitly opposes a two state solution.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm



Likud opposes a two-state solution. They do not recognise the right of Palestine to exist as an independent sovereign state.



And unlike Hamas, if Likud win the Israeli elections they will not face punitive sanctions for not changing their charter.

Ok I will put my hands up and say I didn't know very much about the Likud party.

I don't like their stance and I hope Israelis will vote for the more peace-inclined groups.

The thing to remember is this...

Likud's motivations for their anti-Palestinian state stance are inspired by the passionate belief in strong state defence.

Of course a Palestinian state would be a huge security threat to Israel and of course the right-wing partys will be more inclined to oppose the idea because of their beliefs in small - government and strong defence.

Now, lets look at Hamas. It goes without saying that Hamas's motivations in the conflict are clearly racist and anti-semitic.

I'm not an apologist for the Israeli government, but I think you and too many socialists at this time need to sit down for a bit of a think when you put Israeli government on the same moral line as thoroughly fundamentalist Hamas.



Reality is based on material facts - not what you like them to be. According to the Israeli govt themselves, no Hamas rockets were fired from the start of the ceasefire in June till after November 4th.

Israel launched a raid into Gaza on November 4th. They attacked first, and broke the ceasefire.


In June 2008 Hamas agreed to a ceasefire, almost immediately after terroists began firing rockets into Israel again.

During the six months of the "ceasefire" 329 rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel. Israel refrained from military intervention.

The six-month deadline finished in December and Hamas began firing rockets into Israel.

Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, told reporters the years of terrorist rocket-fire on southern Israel was a “provocation.” He said, “At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas.”