What do normal people - think of Israel?

[Dogmaphobe]

What do you think they are not understanding Dog?

For me to say what you do not understand would require library upon library full of text.

It would be far easier for me to say what you do know, instead, as this would require so little effort on my part.

 

[cnm]

Polls of 100 aren't 'world wide' polls.

24 000 people is the size of a small American city. Like I said, I know Israels reputation isn't great, but this poll is pure garbage and you know it

I don't know what 'polls of 100' refers to.
The poll was undertaken by a polling company. Samples of 1000 are used to poll the US accurately with a population of 300 odd million.
That you wish to deny the poll based on a spurious complaint of its methodology is only to be expected.
Nothing is preventing you presenting a 'non-bullshit' world poll of Israel's reputation, do it.

 

[cnm]

Judeophobia Symptoms Diagnosis Treatments and Causes - RightDiagnosis.com

What has that to do with what normal people think of Israel's policies and actions?

 

[Billo_Really]

I would prefer a "Let's try to educate the idiots of the world what the term Zionist actually means, so they don't use it as just some simple-minded pejorative day".

I know what it means! It means "asshole".

 

[gtopa1]

I would prefer a "Let's try to educate the idiots of the world what the term Zionist actually means, so they don't use it as just some simple-minded pejorative day".

I know what it means! It means "asshole".

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

 

[Beelzebub]

I would prefer a "Let's try to educate the idiots of the world what the term Zionist actually means, so they don't use it as just some simple-minded pejorative day".

I know what it means! It means "asshole".

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

Wassup?

You prefer people to wear braces or have their trousers fall down?
In front of kids too!

Are you some kind of paedo?

 

[gtopa1]

I would prefer a "Let's try to educate the idiots of the world what the term Zionist actually means, so they don't use it as just some simple-minded pejorative day".

I know what it means! It means "asshole".

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

Wassup?

You prefer people to wear braces or have their trousers fall down?
In front of kids too!

Are you some kind of paedo?

Boooooooom!!!!!!!!

Greg

 

[Billo_Really]

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

Nope.

What does that have to do with Zionists being assholes?

 

[Beelzebub]

I would prefer a "Let's try to educate the idiots of the world what the term Zionist actually means, so they don't use it as just some simple-minded pejorative day".

I know what it means! It means "asshole".

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

Wassup?

You prefer people to wear braces or have their trousers fall down?
In front of kids too!

Are you some kind of paedo?

Boooooooom!!!!!!!!

Greg

I'll take that as a "Yes".

 

[Kondor3]

I would prefer a "Let's try to educate the idiots of the world what the term Zionist actually means, so they don't use it as just some simple-minded pejorative day".

I know what it means! It means "asshole".

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

Wassup?

You prefer people to wear braces or have their trousers fall down?
In front of kids too!

Are you some kind of paedo?

Doubtful. That's an appellation best left to Muhammed (Peanut butter and jelly Be Upon Him), most likely.

 

[Kondor3]

You'd happily don a belt and walk into a kindergarten full of Jewish kids!!

Greg

Nope.

What does that have to do with Zionists being assholes?

Goes to bias - striking at the credibility of your redefinition of 'Zionist'.

 

[Mindful]

Is Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi a normal person?

The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy.”

— South African Interior Minister Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi

 

[cnm]

Is he talking about the occupied territories?

 

[gtopa1]

Three clear purposes seem to be served by the repeated references to "occupation" or "occupied Palestinian territories." First, Palestinian spokesmen hope to create a political context to explain and even justify the Palestinians' adoption of violence and terrorism during the current intifada. Second, the Palestinian demand of Israel to "end the occupation" does not leave any room for territorial compromise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as suggested by the original language of UN Security Council Resolution 242 (see below).

Third, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause can delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel. This has become a focal point of Palestinian diplomatic efforts since the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, but particularly since the UN Durban Conference in 2001. Indeed, at Durban, the delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of "occupation" in order to invoke the memories of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War and link them to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.4..............................................................

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (emphasis added) (Article II.2).

As noted above, in many other cases in recent history in which recognized international borders were crossed in armed conflicts and sovereign territory seized, the language of "occupation" was not used -- even in clear-cut cases of aggression. Yet in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, where no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existed, the stigma of Israel as an "occupier" has gained currency.
...........................................

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."9

Here the historical sequence of events on June 5, 1967, is critical, for Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines. Jordanian attacks began at 10:00 a.m.; an Israeli warning to Jordan was passed through the UN at 11:00 a.m.; Jordanian attacks nonetheless persisted, so that Israeli military action only began at 12:45 p.m. Additionally, Iraqi forces had crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, the temporary armistice boundaries of 1949 lost all validity the moment Jordanian forces revoked the armistice and attacked. Israel thus took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war.

The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.

From Occupied Territories to Disputed Territories byDore Gold

Facts are not the friend of those whose aims are to deligitimise Israel. They have the same credibility as those who enter schoolyards or shops and kill and maim children, teachers or anyone who happens to be in the area at the time. Hamas has NO credibility and Abbas has so far been a disappointment. And yet: Abbas is the last slim hope in this round of Hamas induced destruction!! The "death to Israel" crowd should remember the words of those disgusted by the events that led up to the return of Jews to their lands: NEVER AGAIN!!

Greg

 

[Billo_Really]

From Occupied Territories to Disputed Territories byDore Gold

Facts are not the friend of those whose aims are to deligitimise Israel. They have the same credibility as those who enter schoolyards or shops and kill and maim children, teachers or anyone who happens to be in the area at the time. Hamas has NO credibility and Abbas has so far been a disappointment. And yet: Abbas is the last slim hope in this round of Hamas induced destruction!! The "death to Israel" crowd should remember the words of those disgusted by the events that led up to the return of Jews to their lands: NEVER AGAIN!!

Greg

You need to stop watching re-runs of Walker, Texas Ranger, it's polluted your brain. Hamas didn't induce anything, it was Israel's decision to attack and they went out of their way to make up bullshit lies to do it.

And shove that "disputed territory" shit up your ass! They've been the "occupied territories" for the last half-century and you fuckers aren't changing that description now. You people got serious reality issues.

 

[gtopa1]

Results: Israelis 26%, Palestinians 27%, Neither 21%, Can’t say 26%.

Where's the 67%?????

BBC should check their bias!!!

Greg

 

[cnm]

Normal people think Israel does not separate religion and government.

So normal people think Israel

maintains apartheid regimes,
steals,
commits war crimes,
wags the US,
doesn't keep its promises,
casts itself as a victim,
won't join courts because it will be found guilty,
imposes collective punishments on occupied territiories,
provokes wars of convenience,
is living a self centred fantasy where other people's views don't count,
restricts the economic growth of Palestine,
believes it can do no wrong,
suborns citzens of other nations to subvert those nations' interests,
does not separate religion and government.

 

[cnm]

Results: Israelis 26%, Palestinians 27%, Neither 21%, Can’t say 26%.

Where's the 67%?????

BBC should check their bias!!!

Greg

I wish I could speak Queensland, then I might have a clue as to what on earth you're talking about.

 

[gtopa1]

It is interesting to note that the mouth frothers calling for the deligitimisation of Israel can't even remember their fabricated factoids. I recall one poster who claimed that t he BBC found nearly 70% of Australians had a dim view of Israel. I posted TWO polls from reputable Australian pollsters who found the following: Positive view of Israel was 26% and of the Pals was about the same at 27%. 47% backed neither or couldn't say which they preferred. This was posted prior to the poster with the convenient memory lapse. Pakeha jaffas seem most affected.

Greg

 

[cnm]

I recall one poster who claimed that t he BBC found nearly 70% of Australians had a dim view of Israel.

Fair enough. Quote the post so we can see what you're talking about.