Apartheid in Israel

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Did I bother to check? How could I? You ask me to prove a negative again.

Not at all. I'm asking you to check that memri.org is not a reliable source.

I reiterate - I saw articles mentioned there in arab media, and saw no discrepancy.

If you claim that memri.org is not a reliable source, you should prove a discrepancy between it's reports and actual arab press.

Your view of media has turned into a religion. Only in jewish media shall ye see the truth!

Now who's twisting whose words?

If it doesn't appear in a repsected media odds are it never happened. Almost as good odds are that a real jounralist checked out teh rumor, couldn;t find any evidence, and thus didn't print it.

A non-proof is proof of nothing.

Just because CNN doesn't report religious violence towards women in the "new" Afghanistan, doesn't mean it's not there. And it's there according to the BBC which bothered to check.

But if no one had checked, it doesn't mean that it's not there.

Would it surprise you that many things happen in the world without the international media carrying reports of it?

But since it is a religion for you, you wont get it. I'm just talking out of my ass, denying the obvious truths that you know from your church...

You are talking out of your ass because you refuse to face legitimate sources, calling them illegitimate because you feel like it, and claim that nothing exists outside the scope of the international press.

In regards to Arafat, we are basically claiming to different facts. I got mine from international press and their analysts. I don't know where you got yours, but it wasn't international press.

So I'm facing the futility in trying to convince you of something against your religion again. Nothing I can say will ever faze you as long as you don't understand reality...

You're again putting up straw-men.

You seem to live in a simplistic world where only international press exists, and it obviously broadcasts absolute and full truths.

It is you who decided that local press, Isralei in particular is not a legitimate source, infact it's not a source at all.

What do I have to do to convince you that there's a whole real world outside CNN, NYT and The Economist?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Historical aspect in a nutshell: Israel is illegal. Arab attack in 1948 justified since Israel illegal. Palestinian suffering casued by ISrael, not some mythical arab armies enslaving them.

Israel was accepted in the UN, therefore legal.

You can claim that the partition is illegal, or that the territories Israel holds are illegal. Not Israel as a state.

Supporting your claims by 'facts' from arabs-are-pigs.org or whatever site you want to use doesn't cut it.

You're again so full of yourself that you talk nonsense.

memri.org is a source of translated arab press, with sometimes local analysys.

It always contains refferals to the real sources, which as I can wittness exist.

But you don't know that, because you never visited the site, and you don't really care, since you already have decided your position.

Comparing a well respected source such as memri.org, which always mentions the exact sources which are verifiable, to 'arabs-are-pigs.org' is yet again your strawman.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Sirotnikov,

Could you please present a list of ALL Arab terroristic activities and massacres in Palestine between 1939 and 1947?

I promise to check it tommorow and bring it.

A reliable source reference would be nice, though I have learnt by now not to expect much from your rather shallow academic training.

Look, I'm not writing a book here. I'm also not basing whole of my knowledge on one poor book, which I fail to understand.

I've studied the Israeli law - you didn't. You get a description of it, which you can't even understand properly, from a book, which I don't remember quoting the actual Israeli law paragraphs.

You made a mistaken claim about Israel not allowing mixed couples. I corrected you, based on my knowledge of the function of the rabinnical courts and the knowledge of existance of mixed couples.

You chose not to believe me, even though I explained thoroughly, that there is no barrier to mixed couples, but there is a barrier to the ability of a religious court, operating under religious law of marriage, to create 'mixed' couples.

I also could not quote any paragraphs such as "mixed couples are allowed" from the Israeli law, since none exist. But there's no reason for them to exist, since there are no paragraphs such as 'mixed couples are not allowed'.

Currently there are 89,000 mixed couples. My source the statistics department of the Ministry of Interior. Does that satisfy you?


I've read many different sources, and I do not keep a quote library near by. It is not me who bases his entire arguements on one book which re-interperts quotes from other sources.

You seem to want to have a book writing competition rather than debate.

And you still limit your knowledge to two main sources - one being that book, second being the neturei karta, which are a minority inside a minority inside a minority.

There are some 12% (iirC) orthodox jews, out of the jews in the world today. (source, recent statistic studies, don't remember exact source)

A small part of them, is anti-zionist.

Out of that, a small part belong to neturei-karta.

You coming here and claiming that you believe that israel is against real judaism or that real jews are only those who follow the Halacha (rabbinical law - Talmud), is ridiculous.

It's like I would decide that catholicism is the real and the only legitimate christianity, and base my entire view of christianity on it.

I hope this example helps you realise in what an ignorant fashion you've been behaving about topics relating to Judaism and Israel.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
My Israeli friends, Have you ever thought of simply returning Gaza to Egypt and most of the West Bank to Jordan, unilaterally? You already have peace treaties with these two countries.

hi ,

, so , if some group of fruitcakes decides to take Vermont state in the US , are you going to ask them to give it back to them after you took it back , ....

50 years down the road , ....

have a nice day

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Sirotnikov,

I know your reading abilities are rather poor.
I can live with it, it is not my problem.

When you would study History at a university, you would know by now -ALL students learn this during their first week- that historians are trained always to give chapter and verse. Studies without footnotes, source references and/or a bibliography can be immediately dismissed to the dustbin.

And when you would try to actually read my posts, you would notice that I have by now quoted verbatim from six different scholarly studies. I always mention my source and make it clear I am quoting by using quotation marks, which is common practice.
My quote from Neturei Karta was to show there are Orthodox Jews who are adamantly opposed to the state of Israel. As such it is an excellent example.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[CyberGnu]

Siro, you still don't get it. I know breaking out from religious programming is hard, but it can be done. It took western Europe ~1200 years to break the power of the pope... But it can be done. You can too.

While israeli media has roughly the same journalistic value as 'the Onion', that doesn't mean things that are reported there didn't happen. Conversely, however, just because they were reported didn't mean they happened either.

Now, if something isn't reported in the NYT, this doesn't mean it didn;t happen. But if it IS reported, then it most likely DID happen. The NYT journalists spends time CHECKING the facts, the MAKE SURE they actually took place before printing.

This is why Israeli media is particularly unsuitable as a source. (Or arab media, for that matter).

When it comes to memri.org, there is an additional factor called journalistic integrity. When the NYT prints an article, their integrity demands that they print the ENTIRE story.

Have you ever watched a court drama on TV? Did you ever wonder why the witness have to swear to 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'? Shouldn't just 'tell the truth' be enough? Nope. Because by taking snippets of information from a larger context, you can essentially twist ANYTHING into what you want it to be. Someone did an excellent parody of this in a thread a while ago... Basically cutting single words from a post to read 'I like to fondle small boys'. literally, that was 'truth'. The person 'quoted' actually did say those words. That they were separated by several hundred other words was just never mentioned.

Sites like memri.org operate on the same principle. The only difference between memri.org and arabs-are-pigs.org is that the memri people are slightly smarter... More insidious... And as you can testify, more successful.


As Kruose pointed out, when you quote something, you should quote verbatim, from start to end. You haven't grasped this concept yet... Well, I guess you are still in High School, and if you ever go for higher learning they will force you to learn this... Doesn't hurt to get a head start and try to learn now, though.


So, all we are asking for is ONE SINGLE respectable media that agrees with what you are saying. Just one. That's all. If it is reported in BBC but not in NYT, that is OK. If it is reported on CNN but not in the WP, that is fine. But if it is reported in Tel Aviv Hate Express and not in the LAT, that is not an acceptable source... such a simple rule, don;t you think? Or, as Kruose pointed out, a respected scholar. (I, as a natural scientist, tend to disbelieve books, as anyone can publish a book but research must be published in a peer reviewed journal, but I'm guessing that history doesn't follow the same rules.)

[Ned]

CyberGnu, the only downside I can see the such an arrangement plate from Israel's point of view would be if Jordan or Egypt immediately detached the these territories in order to form a Palestinian state, which has not exhibited, to this point in time anyway, any capability of self-government. As well, the fears expressed by the other pro Israeli posters concerning Iraqi and Iranian commandos would have to be addressed. But I do not believe that either Jordan or Egypt would permit such commandos to operate on their territory.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
When you would study History at a university, you would know by now -ALL students learn this during their first week- that historians are trained always to give chapter and verse. Studies without footnotes, source references and/or a bibliography can be immediately dismissed to the dustbin.

As I said - I'm not making a history book writing competition.

I'm not making a history book or article. If I were I would actually track down and write down the sources.

But I do not take this discussion seriously enough to do so.

I still hold the opinion I read more sources that you on the conflict and history of the region and the conflict.

I am not entering this pissing competition.

I am trying to have a conversation and a debate. If you want to write history essays for your univeristy, do so. I'm not your university.

And when you would try to actually read my posts, you would notice that I have by now quoted verbatim from six different scholarly studies. I always mention my source and make it clear I am quoting by using quotation marks, which is common practice.

...in history books.

You are reading history books to me.
I do not intend to read out history books to you.

I read the books at my free time or as part of school. I am not gathering a book, nor do I live in a library that I can or intend to quote everyhing I write.

I'm sure that if you would hold a casual conversation with, say, your history lecturer, and you would demand him to quote his source after each sentance, he'd be offended.

My quote from Neturei Karta was to show there are Orthodox Jews who are adamantly opposed to the state of Israel. As such it is an excellent example.

Yes, it's an excellent example of a very small group of people who hold their own opnion.

You however used their quote, as if it was 'the bible' or some kind of other 'ultimate judaism truth'. You used it to justify claim that Israel is not jewish and that it goes against judaism.

That is again, as I mention ludicrous, considering that Neturei Karta are probably less than 1% of world Jewry.

And being such - they have little authority over the religious and national definition of who is a Jew and who isn't.

And you have even less, even if you own "Encyclopedia of World Religions".


And again, you ignore the facts I bring you, and continue to make ludcrous claims, saying that they are supported by your text, while it is your misunderstanding of it that is evident.

You still haven't responded to my explanations about mixed marriage, nor have you responded to my evidence, the source of whichh is the Ministry of Interior.

While israeli media has roughly the same journalistic value as 'the Onion', that doesn't mean things that are reported there didn't happen. Conversely, however, just because they were reported didn't mean they happened either.

You again prove yourself as a biggot.

You claim this on the basis of your wild imagination and your whims.

You still continue to ignore memri.org even though iirc it's American based and is 'international' , even though it is pro-israeli.

You haven't entered memri.org and haven't checked it's sources while I did.

You are making these idiotic accusations on the basis of your twisted mind - no less.

Your blabbing about misquoting is inspired but idiotic, since you have no evidence about misquoting or misrepresenting.

Infact, most of the articles are full translations of the sources.

There is no reason to believe that any pro-israeli or pro-palestinian source is actually misquoting.

To make such an accusation you actually need evidence.


As for your slandering of Israeli media - it's uncalled for and baseless.

The Israeli media is as ept. in discussing matters concerning Israel as CNN or NYT are in dicussing American matters.

The Israeli media is free and protected by the Supreme Court and has proved to be free in many incidents.

You are simply applying the arab formula of state-owned press to Israel, wrongfully so.


Respectable is a subjective term. If you claim that Israeli media is not respectable, I can claim that BBC is not respectable, and I can prove my claim, by showing their biases, factual discrepancies and so on.

When I wittness an event, whether myself or though live coverage, I do not need BBC to confirm what I know.

As Kruose pointed out, when you quote something, you should quote verbatim, from start to end. You haven't grasped this concept yet... Well, I guess you are still in High School, and if you ever go for higher learning they will force you to learn this... Doesn't hurt to get a head start and try to learn now, though.

One should quote everything that relates to a matter.

If my topic is What CyberGnu says about the peace process, I will not quote parts of his speech talking about soup making.

Again, memri.org does contain full verbatim translations of stories from arab media. I have verified this by comparing it to english sites of arab newspapers.

Furthermore, going by this "verbatim, from start to end" quotes, I'm perfectly sure that neither CNN nor BBC fall under that category, as they present merely sound bits and most of the information is reworded and not quoted verbatim.

The fact that you compare Israeli media to "Tel Aviv Hate Express" only shows your biggotry and prejudicial bias.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, I don't think you understand Sharons motivation here. He doesn't care for a second about the Israelis who die. If he did he would have neded the occupation as son as he entered power.

He doesn't want to end the occupation. If he did, he would have to hand back the occupied land, and dismantle the settlements....

[CyberGnu]

Siro, Siro, Siro...

I don't trust biased media, and that makes me a bigot? I think you have misunderstood the meaning of that word...


again: I just want you to back up your claims with ONE SINGLE trustworthy source. If what you claim happened really did happen, it shouldn't be to hard, should it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned, I don't think you understand Sharons motivation here. He doesn't care for a second about the Israelis who die. If he did he would have neded the occupation as son as he entered power.

He doesn't want to end the occupation. If he did, he would have to hand back the occupied land, and dismantle the settlements....

Perhaps, CyberGnu. However, Sharon did dismantle settlements in the Sanai when peace was made with Egypt.

What we seem to agree on, CyberGnu, is that Israel and the Palestinians are unlikely to negotiate a peace agreement between themselves. Bush and Saudi Arabia will have to be involved because whatever flows out of the next round of negotiation will probably involve international guarantees from both parties.

[CyberGnu]

Yeah, agree completely with you on that one...

I remember reading something about the Egypt-Sinai thing a while ago... Arrgh, can't remember... I think it was an answer to the opposite question (i.e. 'Israel uprooted the settlements in the Sinai without problems, why can't they do the same in Palestine'), where the writer contended that the situations were vastly different. Egypt offered trade and international recognition, which is something palestine can't... I might remember it wrong, though, so don't quote me on that.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
General, what is your point exactly?

I don't think I get your point either.

If I break one law, I'm allowed to break as many as I want after that with impunity?

And how does that pertain to condemnding Israel for acting like a fascist state, unless you implicitly agree that the conflict is about Israeli greed...

The conflict mainly seems to be going on because the two sides have mutually exclusive objectives.

the creation of the 1948 Israel is based on greed, there is no question about that,

Well, the conflict surrounding it was based on Arab greed.

but israeli apologizers usually vehemently deny that the current conflict won't be resolved mainly due to israeli greed.

It has so far not been resolved because Arafat has refused to end Palestinian terrorism until the Israelis give him what he wants, and the Israelis won't give him anything until he does. Deadlock.