Yikes... There's an idiot in the Knesset... Surprised? Nah!

[Dogmaphobe]

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

How many times are you going to project your own dishonesty unto others?

Maps have been provided to you and logical argumentation has been offered to you, but your hatred of Jews precludes your acknowledging truth.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

 

[Indeependent]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

I hate dealing with Rorshachs.
I knew asking a series of discreet, chronological questions would frustrate her.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I hate dealing with Rorshachs.
I knew asking a series of discreet, chronological questions would frustrate her.

Yep. You can't reason a person out of a position they have taken when reason had nothing to do with their taking it.

What we are dealing here with zealots such as this is the true believer syndrome. Especially when it comes to these "Palestinians", the selling feature is that hating Israel is actually some sort of virtue -- a virtue so vitally important to the self-image of the true believer that everything else must be overlooked. Honor killings? Who cares. Desire for genocide? Not a problem. Murder as the highest achievement in the society ? Phhhtttt. None of that matters because all that does mater is that they have a cause and that cause is the promotion of Arab interests.

It's really noting more than a conditioned response when it gets down to it. They receive props from their little peeps if they hate Israel and they receive condemnation if they don't. Now, it does not matter to them in the least that they hate the liberal society while supporting the knuckle dragging one, as they have hoodwinked into thinking they are somehow being "liberal" in supporting liberalism's very antithesis. They are either too stupid or too caught up in their need to join this glorious, virtuous cause to see the utter contradiction in terms.

 

[Coyote]

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

How many times are you going to project your own dishonesty unto others?

Maps have been provided to you and logical argumentation has been offered to you, but your hatred of Jews precludes your acknowledging truth.

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

How many times are you going to project your own dishonesty unto others?

Maps have been provided to you and logical argumentation has been offered to you, but your hatred of Jews precludes your acknowledging truth.

What you just said had nothing to do with what I said. "Map" refers to moving goals posts around. Maybe your own hatred is clouding your reading abilities.

 

[Indeependent]

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

How many times are you going to project your own dishonesty unto others?

Maps have been provided to you and logical argumentation has been offered to you, but your hatred of Jews precludes your acknowledging truth.

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

How many times are you going to project your own dishonesty unto others?

Maps have been provided to you and logical argumentation has been offered to you, but your hatred of Jews precludes your acknowledging truth.

What you just said had nothing to do with what I said. "Map" refers to moving goals posts around. Maybe your own hatred is clouding your reading abilities.

Nobody is moving goal posts.
Prove you can be a witness on the stand and answer my last question.

 

[Coyote]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

 

[Indeependent]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

 

[Coyote]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

You are asking questions designed to extract a certain answer - like an attorney. But this isn't a court of law. The only way you can get the answer is by constantly changing the parameters. Look back to your initial question - which I answered. The problem is - the questions you ask aren't conducive to yes/no answers, in my opinion.

And this isn't a court of law.

 

[Indeependent]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

You are asking questions designed to extract a certain answer - like an attorney. But this isn't a court of law. The only way you can get the answer is by constantly changing the parameters. Look back to your initial question - which I answered. The problem is - the questions you ask aren't conducive to yes/no answers, in my opinion.

And this isn't a court of law.

Tell me exactly what parameters I'm changing.

 

[Coyote]

Nope.

Next question...
Was Israel, in 1948, attacked without provocation by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

I won't say without provocation - there was provocation all around, the area was in civil war, territory was being fought for and various nationalist interests were trying to stake out their nations, Israel announced independence and others didn't agree. It wasn't exactly like Israel had been peacefully coexisting all this time and it's neighbors decided to jump it. The region was in turmoil. Israel won.

Let's try again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

How many times are you going to keep moving those goalposts? Do you need to draw a map now?

They apparently felt so.

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

This is the Arab perspective from Wikipedia's entry on the 1948 War: 1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yishuv

Yishuv's aims evolved during the war.[59] Mobilization for a total war was organized.[60] Initially, the aim was "simple and modest": to survive the assaults of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states. "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears". As the war progressed, the aim of expanding the Jewish state beyond the UN partition borders appeared: first to incorporate clusters of isolated Jewish settlements and later to add more territories to the state and give it defensible borders. A third and further aim that emerged among the political and military leaders after four or five months was to "reduce the size of Israel's prospective large and hostile Arab minority, seen as a potential powerful fifth column, by belligerency and expulsion".[59]


Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד', Tokhnit dalet) was a plan worked out by the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary group and the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces, in autumn 1947 to spring 1948, which was sent to Haganah units in early March 1948. According to the academic Ilan Pappe, its purpose was to conquer as much of Palestine and to expel as many Palestinians as possible,[61] though according to Benny Morris there was no such intent. In his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Pappé asserts that Plan Dalet was a "blueprint for ethnic cleansing" with the aim of reducing both rural and urban areas of Palestine.[62] According to Gelber, the plan specified that in case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule.[63] According to Morris, Plan D called for occupying the areas within the U.N sponsored Jewish state, several concentrations of Jewish population outside those areas (West Jerusalem and Western Galilee), and areas along the roads where the invading Arab armies were expected to attack.[64]


The intent of Plan Dalet is subject to much controversy, with historians on the one extreme asserting that it was entirely defensive, and historians on the other extreme asserting that the plan aimed at maximum conquest and expulsion of the Palestinians.


The Yishuv perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs' true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly."[65]​

The Arab League as a whole

The Arab League had unanimously rejected the UN partition plan and were bitterly opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state.


The Arab League before partition affirmed the right to the independence of Palestine, while blocking the creation of a Palestinian government.[clarification needed] Towards the end of 1947, the League established a military committee commanded by the retired Iraqi general Isma'il Safwat whose mission was to analyse the chance of victory of the Palestinians against the Jews.[66] His conclusions were that they had no chance of victory and that an invasion of the Arab regular armies was mandatory.[66] The political committee nevertheless rejected these conclusions and decided to support an armed opposition to the Partition Plan excluding the participation of their regular armed forces.[67]


In April with the Palestinian defeat, the refugees coming from Palestine and the pressure of their public opinion, the Arab leaders decided to invade Palestine.[68]


The Arab League gave reasons for its invasion in Palestine in the cablegram:[69]

• the Arab states find themselves compelled to intervene in order restore law and order and to check further bloodshed
• the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority
• the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian state.

British diplomat Alec Kirkbride wrote in his 1976 memoirs about a conversation with the Arab League's Secretary-General Azzam Pasha a week before the armies marched: "...when I asked him for his estimate of the size of the Jewish forces, [he] waved his hands and said: 'It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.'"[70] Approximately six months previously, according to an interview in an 11 October 1947 article of Akhbar al-Yom, Azzam said: "I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".[undue weight? – discuss][71]


According to Yoav Gelber, the Arab countries were "drawn into the war by the collapse of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab Liberation Army [and] the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinian Arabs' total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees. According to their own perception, had the invasion not taken place, there was no Arab force in Palestine capable of checking the Haganah's offensive".[65] Anyway, the Yishuv perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs' true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly."[65]
​

Looking at that, can you come up with a simple objective yes/no answer? Add to it, the actions of 1948 were formed by the perspectives and fears of the two sides.

 

[Coyote]

You can't bring yourself to give the objective answer, "No", so you prevaricate.
I'm not concerned with the POSSIBLE FEELINGS of a historically violent and oppressive People, I want an objective "Yes" or "No".

Once again...
Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

You are asking questions designed to extract a certain answer - like an attorney. But this isn't a court of law. The only way you can get the answer is by constantly changing the parameters. Look back to your initial question - which I answered. The problem is - the questions you ask aren't conducive to yes/no answers, in my opinion.

And this isn't a court of law.

Tell me exactly what parameters I'm changing.

Here was your initial question (which I answered): Did the Jews come to the land and attack anybody?

Here is it's most recent revision: Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

 

[Indeependent]

The act of building a logical argument from a series of dialectics is a foreign concept to those who have consumed the kool aid. Instead of arriving at a position from the ground floor and working their way to the final results, they operate from the final results and then simply go about the business of choosing only those arguments that serve their agenda.

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

You are asking questions designed to extract a certain answer - like an attorney. But this isn't a court of law. The only way you can get the answer is by constantly changing the parameters. Look back to your initial question - which I answered. The problem is - the questions you ask aren't conducive to yes/no answers, in my opinion.

And this isn't a court of law.

Tell me exactly what parameters I'm changing.

Here was your initial question (which I answered): Did the Jews come to the land and attack anybody?

Here is it's most recent revision: Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

It's called establishing one antecedent after another in a series of events.
Surely, you can't be so stupid you don't know that.
It's like you saying you are confused because you have to get out of bed to walk to the bathroom to urinate.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked or that Israel did not pose a threat.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

 

[Coyote]

The act of continuously moving the goal posts to get the results he wants is koolaid in and of itself. I'm glad you noticed that.

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

You are asking questions designed to extract a certain answer - like an attorney. But this isn't a court of law. The only way you can get the answer is by constantly changing the parameters. Look back to your initial question - which I answered. The problem is - the questions you ask aren't conducive to yes/no answers, in my opinion.

And this isn't a court of law.

Tell me exactly what parameters I'm changing.

Here was your initial question (which I answered): Did the Jews come to the land and attack anybody?

Here is it's most recent revision: Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

It's called establishing one antecedent after another in a series of events.
Surely, you can't be so stupid you don't know that.
It's like you saying you are confused because you have to get out of bed to walk to the bathroom to urinate.

I call it moving the goalposts.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

 

[Indeependent]

You're full of shit or plain stupid.
I'm asking you questions in sequence exactly like an attorney would do and you full well know it.
Now answer my last question without throwing out more of your weak bullshit.

You are asking questions designed to extract a certain answer - like an attorney. But this isn't a court of law. The only way you can get the answer is by constantly changing the parameters. Look back to your initial question - which I answered. The problem is - the questions you ask aren't conducive to yes/no answers, in my opinion.

And this isn't a court of law.

Tell me exactly what parameters I'm changing.

Here was your initial question (which I answered): Did the Jews come to the land and attack anybody?

Here is it's most recent revision: Did Israel, in 1948, in any manner whatsoever, pose an overt threat of attack against it's 5 Arab neighbors before being attacked by it's 5 Arab neighbors?

It's called establishing one antecedent after another in a series of events.
Surely, you can't be so stupid you don't know that.
It's like you saying you are confused because you have to get out of bed to walk to the bathroom to urinate.

I call it moving the goalposts.

It's called, in the vernacular, "Bleeding Heart".

 

[Coyote]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

 

[Phoenall]

Anat Berko, a conservative member of the Israeli Knesset, said there could be no Palestine because there’s no letter “P” in Arabic.

Applying the same logic then there are no Jews as there is no "J" in Hebrew!

What a racist little bitch!

Yeah thing is that it's written as Yehudi and Ivrit in Hebrew, neither Jewish or Hebrew although there is a J in Jewish, However ,in Arabic there is no such thing as P...but there is a P in stupid.

Even the other arab muslims call the Palestinians balestinians as they are unable to pronounce Palestine. It is a standing Joke amongst muslims the world over that the PLO leader was suckered by the Russians in the 1960's into inventing a new "race" and could not get the pronunciation right

Ok...clearly there is no such thing as Palestinians since there is no p in Arabic and there is no such thing Jews since there is no j in the Hebrew alphabet. What are we going to do with all these people who think they are something their alphabet denies them? I predict a windfall for lawyers and counselors.

Just let them fight it out until only one is left standing, and then give the prize to the winner. I predict a massacre no matter what the outcome

A spelling bee competition?

Even that would result in a blood bath as team Palestine would want the rules changing for the Jews so they could not win. Then when they still won they would be accused of using terrorist tactics and have resolutions issued against them, and the US would have to veto the racist attacks