Is this fair?

abi

VIP Member
Sep 19, 2017
1,976
199
65
I just want to say that I am writing about this for a history class and I have found posters here that seem to have a good grasp on what is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I also have seen some crazy, racist rants and I am not interested in those posts at all, although they do tell their own story.

Long story short, this women is on Joe Rogan's podcast. She had traveled to Israel and Palestine and stayed there for an extended time and describes a situation that seems absolutely insane. I have seen enough to know that there are serious problems there, but what she describes?

I am looking for anyone who can come on here and tell me if she is describing what is actually going on, or, if she is lying, what is she actually lying about.

Thank-you up front for any help.

 
I just want to say that I am writing about this for a history class and I have found posters here that seem to have a good grasp on what is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I also have seen some crazy, racist rants and I am not interested in those posts at all, although they do tell their own story.

Long story short, this women is on Joe Rogan's podcast. She had traveled to Israel and Palestine and stayed there for an extended time and describes a situation that seems absolutely insane. I have seen enough to know that there are serious problems there, but what she describes?

I am looking for anyone who can come on here and tell me if she is describing what is actually going on, or, if she is lying, what is she actually lying about.

Thank-you up front for any help.



She sure seems nutty to me. However I despise the Zionists for their treatment of Palestinians with their peace offerings, security fence & land concessions so they can remain captives in Israel. Face it you Zionists, no surrounding Arab country ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does to provoke them into violence. Want peace? This entire Zionist agenda has to go & Israel must learn to treat the Palestinians with the same justice the Palestinians deserve like their Arab brother king Hussein did & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
 
I just want to say that I am writing about this for a history class and I have found posters here that seem to have a good grasp on what is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I also have seen some crazy, racist rants and I am not interested in those posts at all, although they do tell their own story.

Long story short, this women is on Joe Rogan's podcast. She had traveled to Israel and Palestine and stayed there for an extended time and describes a situation that seems absolutely insane. I have seen enough to know that there are serious problems there, but what she describes?

I am looking for anyone who can come on here and tell me if she is describing what is actually going on, or, if she is lying, what is she actually lying about.

Thank-you up front for any help.



I know next to nothing about the topic but Abby Martin is a brilliant observer. She doesn't abide bullshit.
 
I just want to say that I am writing about this for a history class and I have found posters here that seem to have a good grasp on what is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I also have seen some crazy, racist rants and I am not interested in those posts at all, although they do tell their own story.

Long story short, this women is on Joe Rogan's podcast. She had traveled to Israel and Palestine and stayed there for an extended time and describes a situation that seems absolutely insane. I have seen enough to know that there are serious problems there, but what she describes?

I am looking for anyone who can come on here and tell me if she is describing what is actually going on, or, if she is lying, what is she actually lying about.

Thank-you up front for any help.



I suggest you take her name from the video and do some research on her.
Who does she work for, has worked for, their views on Israel and Jews.
There are so many things she may not be telling the truth about. I will leave it for you to
work on it a little. Most of us are preparing to celebrate the Jewish New Year tonight.
Let us know what you found from your research and if you came to any conclusion, or need to discuss some of the things she says. Exactly which ones struck you the most?

:)
 
I would suggest examining the language that she uses and asking what her purpose is in using that language. Is she presenting factual information? Is she telling a story? Is she evoking emotion? Does she present a bias? Is she representing both sides of factual incidents? Is she using singular incidents to paint everyone in a specific group in a negative light?

If you are interested learning more about the Arab/Israeli conflict, I'd suggest that you read multiple sources for each specific event or concept. Try to find (at least) one which presents the Arab side and (at least) one that presents the Israeli side and compare. Does each present the full story? Are there parts missing? Is there shifting of blame? Is there an acceptance of responsibility?
 
OK I watched the whole thing. She got some major elements of events way wrong. She also nailed other aspects of it.

When she said Israeli's have a tendency to defend their military regardless of the potential crimes committed ( although she left out the qualifier "potential" ) She was by and large correct. In any war there are atrocities on both sides. Hell the whole concept of war is an atrocity.

On the other hand she questioned the recreation of the Jewish state and claimed it occurred on top of another state. Thats patently false.

Also she doesn't seem to understand the US Israeli military relationship. Israel is a huge arms supplier as is the US. But its not an adversarial relationship. Its cooperative. The US so called "aid" must be ( I think its 75% ) used to purchase US arms. The Israeli's then improve on those arms to fit conditions and sell the improvements back to the US. Kinda like an R&D agreement kinda thing. But its hardly adversarial

The West bank is a grey area. Some would prefer to think of it as occupied however the area was designated by the league of Nations as well as the UN as an area to be used for a Jewish National Homeland. So its kinda hard to be occupying area designated as for your own use simply because the surrounding Arab nations invaded and then lost the land. That ones really complex.

Speaking of UN she mentioned UN condemnation but she failed to mention UN bias against Israel through the largest voting block at the UN the Arab block which has perverted the credibility of the UN to the point that no one really takes it seriously anymore.

Personally I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around but in the end of all the countries created out of the old Ottoman empire there's only one thats not Muslim. ;-)

Long story short, it's a skewed description of events and the history
mufti.jpeg


can be summed up in one simple picture
 
The West bank is a grey area. Some would prefer to think of it as occupied however the area was designated by the league of Nations as well as the UN as an area to be used for a Jewish National Homeland. So its kinda hard to be occupying area designated as for your own use simply because the surrounding Arab nations invaded and then lost the land. That ones really complex.

And, abi, just to show you how complex the discussion can get, I disagree with Boston on this. (And he and I agree on virtually EVERYTHING!)

I think the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is not the slightest bit a grey area, and I think it is one of the simplest and easiest things to comprehend about the conflict.

The "West Bank" is not a political or legal term. Its really just a short hand term used so that people understand what geographical area we are talking about. The "West Bank" has no legal meaning. It has no borders. It is not a "country". It has no separate government.

What it is, legally, is land that the Arab Palestinians WANT (but do not have) for their eventual State. That State does not yet exist. That State can't come into being until there is a negotiation between Israel (who currently, legally and practically holds sovereignty over that land) and the government which will represent the Arab Palestinian people. When that happens, they will create and sign a treaty which will establish a border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
 
That was great, LOL. Yeah, my two cents on the West Bank is that while it was supposed to be available for Israeli homeland it was captured by Jordan who illegally occupied it untill 67 at which point their own aggressive acts resulted in its "loss" to the Israeli's who now control it and a belligerent Arab population.

Martial rule is only necessary because of the endless attacks against the Israeli's. Elsewhere in Israel Arabs and Israeli's live in peace. Tel Aviv for instance.
 
The West bank is a grey area. Some would prefer to think of it as occupied however the area was designated by the league of Nations as well as the UN as an area to be used for a Jewish National Homeland.
There is some confusion about and I think that confusion is deliberate.

The Jewish National Home, according to the Mandate, is that Jews will become Palestinian citizens. As Palestinian citizens they will be able to live anywhere in Palestine.

Israeli settlers are not Palestinian citizens but they want to keep the right to live anywhere in Palestine.
 
The "West Bank" is not a political or legal term. Its really just a short hand term used so that people understand what geographical area we are talking about. The "West Bank" has no legal meaning. It has no borders. It is not a "country". It has no separate government.
Indeed, the West Bank is not a separate political entity.

In 1949 the UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Its area was defined by an armistice line that was specifically not to be a political or territorial border. It merely define that particular area of occupied Palestine that was controlled by Jordan. In 1967 Israel took over the occupation of that piece of Palestinian land.
 
The West bank is a grey area. Some would prefer to think of it as occupied however the area was designated by the league of Nations as well as the UN as an area to be used for a Jewish National Homeland. So its kinda hard to be occupying area designated as for your own use simply because the surrounding Arab nations invaded and then lost the land. That ones really complex.

And, abi, just to show you how complex the discussion can get, I disagree with Boston on this. (And he and I agree on virtually EVERYTHING!)

I think the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is not the slightest bit a grey area, and I think it is one of the simplest and easiest things to comprehend about the conflict.

The "West Bank" is not a political or legal term. Its really just a short hand term used so that people understand what geographical area we are talking about. The "West Bank" has no legal meaning. It has no borders. It is not a "country". It has no separate government.

What it is, legally, is land that the Arab Palestinians WANT (but do not have) for their eventual State. That State does not yet exist. That State can't come into being until there is a negotiation between Israel (who currently, legally and practically holds sovereignty over that land) and the government which will represent the Arab Palestinian people. When that happens, they will create and sign a treaty which will establish a border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
That State can't come into being until there is a negotiation between Israel (who currently, legally and practically holds sovereignty over that land)
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

So then, what is there to negotiate?
 
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

There is no occupation. To say that there is some sort of occupation of the entire territory (which is what you are arguing) is to say that the Jewish "Palestinians", who were to re-constitute their National Home, by historic right acknowledged by the international community, have no rights to be treated on an equal footing as all other Peoples with national aspirations in their historic, ancestral and indigenous homeland.

Sovereignty of Israel stems from international treaty and from the fulfillment of the criteria for establishing a State and not from "occupation".
 
Tinmore, or Tinhat as we lovingly refer to her, is, as you will soon discover, rabidly anti semitic and somewhat delusional.

1, Jews were never intended to become citizens of a mythological state of palestine. The area was very specifically, (with the words chosen to be as neutral as possible in the treaties) intended as an area designated for the "creation" of a Jewish National Homeland. Jordan was intended as the homeland for a mix of Arab nationals living in the British Mandated area, formerly southern Syria under the Ottoman empire.

2. Palestine was NOT divided into areas of occupation. Israel was redefined by an armistice based off what is called the Green line. It's nothing more than an imaginary line defining where the occupying Arab nations would like to return to and pretend a war they started never happened. There is a general agreement between governments that the West Bank is "occupied" however the Israeli side of it, is that the area was "intended for the creation of a National Jewish Homeland" and therefore they cannot be occupying land that is specifically designated in the last binding agreement as designated for their use.

The ONLY reason the area is considered occupied is that the Arab population of the region, unlike their Jewish brethren refused to move to areas designated for the Arab state ( Jordan ) and instead are left as pawns in an effort to chip away at Israel. To that end the Arab states have invented a narrative of occupation.

Again Tinhat's spin on the issues doesn't stand up to scrutiny

3. Just about every country was acquired through war and occupation, it's a natural consequence of mans aggressive nature. The UN won't be able to change that anytime soon. Think Russia and all its military acquisitions in the 20th century or China and Tibet, North and South Viet-Nam and a host of others. Israel has successfully defended itself and the losers are just pore losers.

The issue boils down to tribal rights.

Israel is a tribe that developed and maintained a presence in the area since at least the middle bronze age. When divisions of the Ottoman empire were made, many tribal peoples were represented in those divisions, some were not. But the only one that seems to ignite so much trouble is the ONE non Muslim tribal division. Which begs the question. Why the focus on Israel and why have they been forced to spend so much on security measures against a population the Geneva Convention clearly defines as combatants who may be repatriated to the nearest debarkation point at the discretion of the host nation. Indeed the Geneva Conventions "require" combatants to be segregated from a refugees.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.
 
The Balfour Declaration was a public statement, issued by the British government during World War I, which read:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia

The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle ofinternational law that has gradually given way in modern times until its proscription after World War II when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.[1]
Right of conquest - Wikipedia
 
Oh and Fangor, Lovingly referred to as Finger is also rabidly anti semitic.

He's basically arguing that a UN resolution should be retroactively applied to Israel and only Israel if it gets him closer to his goal of destroying the only Jewish state.
 
Oh and Fangor, Lovingly referred to as Finger is also rabidly anti semitic.

He's basically arguing that a UN resolution should be retroactively applied to Israel and only Israel if it gets him closer to his goal of destroying the only Jewish state.

Not for anything, but could we hold on on the attacks on this thread.
Abi asked us a question and I would like to see the conclusion she/he came to and to have a healthy discussion about what the questions are going to be.

Let us not mind the anti Israel gang until then. We know who they are :)
 
No worries, I just get a bang out of the crazy twist some folks put on the situation. Abi hopefully is reading along and doing some homework but the forces of Pallywood have a going concern in false narrative thats being spread particularly among the younger generation, who may not always understand the history of things and therefor not always see responses today as responses to actions in the past.

IE why would Israel give up an effective defensive position it was forced into in the first place.
 
RE: Is this fair?
※→ et al, and abi,

Well, there are drips of truth and many misrepresentations.

I just want to say that I am writing about this for a history class and I have found posters here that seem to have a good grasp on what is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I also have seen some crazy, racist rants and I am not interested in those posts at all, although they do tell their own story.

Long story short, this women is on Joe Rogan's podcast. She had traveled to Israel and Palestine and stayed there for an extended time and describes a situation that seems absolutely insane. I have seen enough to know that there are serious problems there, but what she describes?

I am looking for anyone who can come on here and tell me if she is describing what is actually going on, or, if she is lying, what is she actually lying about.

Thank-you up front for any help.


(COMMENT)

This is just a propaganda.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Oh and Fangor, Lovingly referred to as Finger is also rabidly anti semitic.

He's basically arguing that a UN resolution should be retroactively applied to Israel and only Israel if it gets him closer to his goal of destroying the only Jewish state.
On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel 1948
The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle ofinternational law that has gradually given way in modern times until its proscription after World War II when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles 1945
a full three years before the invention of israel, so hardly "retroactive"
You also hide behind claims of antisemitism when israel actions are called into question

Also israel is not the only jewish state, Birobidzhan - Wikipedia
neither of which I plan to destroy
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top