SuperAntMD said:
Just because you say a fact is irrelevant doesn't make it so, especially if it is not inherently false as you love to point out. The Fact that Israel became a nation state way back when is not irrelevant as they made Jerusalem back then. Just because this is uncomfortable for you by no means makes it irrelevant.
I called three things Irrelevant :
The fact that Israel was a Jewish kingdom before the rise of Islam, The direction in which people pray, and the circumstances under which arabs first left the area that is now Israel in 1948.
I still stand by all three of these statements. The first is irrelevant because this is a thing of ancestry, and the palestinian muslims are descendent from people that have been living there for centuries (they were Christians until the time of the crusades, when most converted to Islam from Christianity).
The second is irrelevant because there are Palestinian Jews and Christians too, and they also deserve to live in a place with full citizenship and rights and to live in a state that does not discriminate against them unjustly.
As to the third, so what? If I go on holiday does that mean you can take my house while I'm gone? If I believe that a meteorite is going to destroy the suburb, what then? What if I believe some angry boeremag people are going to sweep through the area and kill all the black people? Do any of these things justify you not letting me return to my house afterwards? If not, why should the conditions under which the arabs left matter one little bit regarding their right of return?
Sarcasm is not really debate but anyway: No. Because you don't see Israelis (you do realise there is a difference between jews and Israelis right?) whining about it, they are using it to explain why they need to defend themselves from murderers.
Sarcasm is a perfectly valid debating tool to show why something is ridiculous or should not be considered 'good'. And I don't really believe that the Jews who speak about the arabs chasing them into the sea are arabs either. Point is, its false to claim that they don't 'moan'.
(Side note : the claims of the Israelis needing to defend themselves from the arab hordes has some rather disturbing similarities to the whites in apartheid claiming they needed to defend themselves from blacks.)
Are you serious? If you make a statement it must be backed up when challenged. Halicons statements if untrue could be disproved with a simple google search, which none of you seem to be able to do. One can not show the absence of alleged racist laws or anything else. How do you prove the absence of something? Would you like a complete copy of the Israeli constitution?
Yes, it's impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand it should be quite easy, if the arabs moved into the area after the rise of islam, to find sources in history which point to this. Unfortunately I didn't find any, so I assume the opposite.
At no time did he agree with you. The issue at hand is should Israel give up Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The answer is no, which is then backed up by proving how much more of a historical, and religious claim there is for Israelis and Jews everywhere to Jerusalem then there is for palestinians.
I see nothing that marks this specifically as a Jerusalem issue. Care to point out where I missed this vital fact?
Again completely unsubstantiated trollop which you refuse to find sources for?
He made a claim, I told him he was wrong, he asked for sources. If I'm going to have to hunt for sources to prove him wrong, then he's bloody well going to first find a source worth proving wrong instead of quoting from a piece of propaganda BS or I'm just going to dismiss it on account of being ipse dixit.
halicon said:
have you even considered asking why the state of Israel was made where it was? Some random finger pointing exercise? Or do you think their is some history in that piece of land which was and now Israel? And then the cherry on top is calling me arrogant? Seriously, enlighten yourself it will do wonders in understanding the stupidity in your above statement and perhaps give you a deeper insight into this very contentious issue.
Of course there's history regarding the land. But you're trying to dismiss the half which doesn't suit you and then throwing your toys out of the cot when we contradict you. It seems if you don't like the sources we post then you just ignore them. What's rich is that you then claim
we are the ones who can't debate.
It is obvious that no one here is willing to actually do their own research, instead they will resort to name calling, emotional outbursts and uninformed oppinions. Clearly you have chosen a side and you will stick to it with the same fanatacism your average Islamic terrorist has.
I've done research. You apparently chose to ignore it.
You on the other hand...
So I hereby declare you a fanatic, because you ignore everything that's inconvenient (see all the points I made which you didn't respond to).