Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on May 23, 2011 By Dr Guy In Politics

I heard about Obama's Israel speech, but had not listened to it (do not worry, I rarely listen to speeches by either party).  But one thing bugged me when I heard the sound bites.  I heard the word "contiguous".  But no one was talking about it (right or left).  I finally read an article quoting that part of the speech:

The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

For the uninformed, or just plain ignorant of geography, that sounds like a good thing "Yea, Yea, That's the ticket!".  However to anyone who has even done a modicum of reading on the whole Mid-East issue, that should have sounded alarm bells.  For simply put, Gaza is on the opposite side of Israel.  Ensuring a "contiguous" Palestinian nation would effectively ensure that Israel would not be contiguous!  It would split it in 2.

With the level of world geographic education in the US being what it is, I can understand most not picking up on that problem.  Even for most of the Mainstream Media (since copy writing does not require much of an education and copying DNC talking points is all they do).  But for the "Smartest" man in the world to make such a bone head blunder?  He is either very stupid - or he wants to split Israel in 2. 

And this was the clown that was against interfering in the internal affairs (Iraq) of other nations?


Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on May 27, 2011

Leauki
Who cares what anybody wants?

I thought the whole purpose of this exercise (Obama's pronouncement) was all about what EVERYONE wanted.

on May 27, 2011

myfist0 - the first give away on the absurdity of the piece was the presenter.

I am only surprised they did not give Rather the "Accuracy in Reporting" award for the national guard hit piece.

on May 27, 2011

Sorry for going off topic but it irks me when things are taken out of context. Last post on this subject.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB3BE5whlmI

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WK9Xzhilw&feature=related

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9xpWNSzKec&feature=related

Why does Mike keep needing to inject what President Ahmadinejad says when Ahmadinejad is sitting right there?

C-SPAN programming VP Terry Murphy says “we agreed with CBS News that airing this interview in its entirety is very much in the public interest and fits with C-SPAN’s style of airing events as they happened and without commercials. This is also a unique opportunity for viewers to see for themselves the editorial process at a major network news organization, and find out which portions of an extended interview actually make it on air.”

20,975 videos on the C-SPAN archives, where is this unedited version? It is gone. Every Youtuber that has tried to post it under "Fair Use" has had it removed.

Why does 60 minutes allow the edited version on YouTube? Look at the dates on the YouTube links I gave, Nov 2007. 

It's typical to attack any information supplied that's not from the MSM but that video CLEARLY SHOWS how the MSM edits videos to support the position of the Government. This is not news, it is indoctrination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5MEyeqYEBk Daily show segment posted by a YouTuber

 

Sorry about the map. If you can post a link to a more accurate map of the Israeli timeline I will be happy to amend my post.  IMO calling people racists for showing information you don't agree with just hurts your position. I am a Canadian with no position on either side other than peace.

on May 27, 2011
May 27, 2011 4:33:00 PM

[video]http://www.forumsci.co.il/favicon.ico[/video]

on May 28, 2011

Sorry about the map. If you can post a link to a more accurate map of the Israeli timeline I will be happy to amend my post.  IMO calling people racists for showing information you don't agree with just hurts your position. I am a Canadian with no position on either side other than peace.

I didn't call anyone a racist for showing information I don't agree with. I said it is racism to treat Jews and Arabs differently by assuming that Arabs have priority over land that is owned by neither Arab nor Jew. That would still be racism even if I agreed with it.

Whether you are a Canadian or not makes no difference to me. But you are hardly neutral when you decide to post fake maps. You should have noticed that the source of the map was a pro-Palestinian side. A simple fact check would have shown you that the JNF had already owned more land than is shown on the map as "Jewish" in 1946. And you should have known, because it's the same in Canada and every state in the word, that not all land is privately owned and that hence any map showing land ownership would contain large areas of publicly owned land or land owned by no-one or the state.

I myself am most decidedly not neutral and nor do I claim to be. But I also don't post fake information to convince people that I am right. I also think it's impossible to both report the facts and be neutral. One is either pro-truth or pro-lie, but not "neutral" between the two.

Did you never wonder why a map allegedly showing 1946 differentiates between "Jewish" and "Palestinian" at a time when the only "Palestine" that existed was a British territory in which both Jews and Arabs lived? Did you not wonder why the map showed large amounts of land as "Palestinian land" between 1949 and 1967 when no "Palestine" existed at all?

And worst of all, did you not wonder why Jerusalem is marked consistently as "Palestinian land" despite the fact that it was a majority Jewish city and was assigned as an international zone (together with Bethlehem) in the partition plan?

What on earth compels an allegedly neutral observer to learn about history from an Arab propaganda site? Is it so difficult to use Wikipedia instead? Do you really know so little about history and the basic makeup of land ownership that you actually believed a map that ignores a large Jewish population and knows no public lands?

So, yes, I am upset. Because those maps you posted are part of the antisemitic campaign to deny Jews property rights, to deny Jewish history and to steal Jewish-owned land in the name of "neutrality".

 

on May 28, 2011

Heck, 4000 square miles of mostly uninhabited desert is claimed as "Palestinian land" by the map. What exactly makes uninhabited land "Palestinian"? Maybe such land is "Jewish"? Who knows?

on May 28, 2011

All that yammering and no link to a "proper" map. 

I will admit all I did was use google images to find what I was looking for so ya I guess using google makes ma an anti-semite. ROFL 

 POSTED 2007 Wikapedia and still does not show me a time line.

 

Now I looked up who uploaded and got this message

float You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

Please discus any changes to the maps you are trying to edit on the talk page. Simply uploading map with false information is unacceptable --Justass (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Also the uploader has been BLOCKED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bambuway

 

Thanks for telling me to check the sources, maybe you should do the same. 

on May 28, 2011

File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).png

HERE IS YOUR WIKIPEDIA MAP. This is 4 years old now. Wonder what would look like now.

 

Israeli-occupied territories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

 

The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.[75][76][77]

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."[78]

In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding[79] opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.[71]

Israel denies that the Israeli settlements are in breach of any international laws.[80] The Israeli Supreme Court has yet to rule decisively on settlement legality under the Geneva Convention.[81]

 

 oohhhh my. did Wikipedia in which you pointed to me to check just use the term WAR CRIMES? Ouch.

All I wanted to do was show an example of "contiguous" but thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia. Lots of great info.

 

 

Leauki
Heck, 4000 square miles of mostly uninhabited desert is claimed as "Palestinian land" by the map. What exactly makes uninhabited land "Palestinian"? Maybe such land is "Jewish"? Who knows?

YouTube knows 

Probably not 100% accurate but it makes a good point.

 

on May 28, 2011

Well, there are always two sides ... and then there is humor, hehehe. Plenty of fault for everyone here ... but of course only one can be true ... huh

 

 

 

on May 28, 2011

ROFL another great vid BT 

BTW I forgot to give credit to BT for finding that History of Empires video.

I agree its a very complicated mess.

on May 28, 2011

Thanks for telling me to check the sources, maybe you should do the same.

Did you check the sources?

You did quote somebody's views as facts. Wikipedia doesn't say that Israeli settlements constitute a breach of the Geneva Convention, Wikipedia quoted somebody else saying that.

Of course, it has never before been a violation of the Geneva Convention when people moved into occupied territory. It happened when the US occupied and annexed Hawaii (it is still happening), it happened when North-Vietnam annexed South-Vietnam, when Poland and Russia occupied parts of Germany and when Jordan annexed the West-Bank.

I generally don't accept as valid "international law" that only applies to Israel.

You will not be surprised to learn that the settlements are illegal according to Palestinian Authority law. Turns out selling land to Jews is illegal there and the death penalty waits for the seller.

What is illegal per the Geneva Convention is the forceful moving of population from one area into another, but the Jews in the West-Bank were not forced by Israel to move there.

 

I will admit all I did was use google images to find what I was looking for so ya I guess using google makes ma an anti-semite.

You do have a knack for finding antisemitic lies and thinking that they are facts. I'll give you that.

It's not difficult to find antisemitic materials via Google. What is difficult is to think for oneself.

I gave you a few hints. Why didn't the map show public lands? Why did they choose 1946? I want you to THINK, not look for images and funny videos. Thinking is the important part, not the ability to repeat what others say.

And as for the subject of this discussion: it's very easy to create contiguous states unless one insists that territories on two sides of one state must be the same state for no other reason than that the British once drew a line on a map.

 

on May 28, 2011

I wonder if there is a single violation of "international law" Israel has committed that was not based on a decision by Israel's opponents at the UN after the fact.

The UN didn't consider people moving into occupied territory a crime before Israel did it, despite the fact that many, many countries did it (and are still doing it). The UN also didn't consider it a crime when Vietnam did it. Only when Israel does it is it a crime. Odd, that. Must be pure coincidence.

The UN didn't consider annexation of land in a defensive war illegal until Israel did it and only in Israel's case. (In the case of North-Vietnam they didn't even consider it illegal in an aggressive war.)

What kind of law is this that doesn't apply to everyone and changes whenever Israel does something?

 

on May 28, 2011

Show me your sources, links, pictures or books I can find at the library. I don't just babel mindless facts without showing where I got the information except for that map for which I have apologized and twice I asked YOU TO SUPPLY a better one. Comics don't count.

on May 28, 2011

Leauki
It's not difficult to find anti-Semitic materials via Google. What is difficult is to think for oneself.
... Seems like proving what one says ... also falls under the category of ...  those difficult things to do.

 

 

 

... I see what you mean ...

on May 28, 2011
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last