Israel agrees to negotiate pre 67 lines

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

No Arab accepted 242 for good reason..

But you are right though after what you just called that poster, I certainly wouldn't think an apology was in order.

Maybe a T&C violation instead for attacking a member.
You seem to do that a lot..

Funny how you dont call for T and C violation for militantspeech...... Go figure... Life imitating life in your case eh? I love it when you post, as you always like to atack people and then cry about it when its returned... Funny enough the exact same thing the Arabs have done with Israel...

Attack... lose..... cry about it.

Btw baiting people is also a T and C violation... You know what baiting is right? It would be like massing your troops on a countries border in hopes of provoking an attack so one can play (or overplay) the victim card.

Intresting though how you are proving my point against militantspeeched claims.... I figured you both would be on the same side.

Explain why the Arabs didnt accept 242? While your at it make sure you go into detail so militantspeech can learn what ive been talking about.

reply to post by Xcathdra


More BS, Arabs have only attacked around half the time unlike what your type claim..

Heck, many still try to push the BS that Israel was attacked in 67.

FACT is, Israel stole land from the Arabs in 1948 with a plan that actually started in the 20"s among many prominent jews including Rothschild..

Even when they were given some land,against the wishes of that lands Arab occupants, it was obviously not enough.
Since then Israel have continued to promote war so they can take more land through battle and settlement expansion.
Both options are illegal by international standards..

reply to post by Xcathdra


Maybe tell them about the good old days of Yassar Arrafat,, how did end up?,, ohh ya like a dog in a kennel at the end,, i dont think he could even leave his lodgings,,,of course the PLO could see the writting on the wall,, and boy they sure had no problem,, switching sides at the end,, welcome ,,, Hamas,,

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

More BS, Arabs have only attacked around half the time unlike what your type claim..

Heck, many still try to push the BS that Israel was attacked in 67.

FACT is, Israel stole land from the Arabs in 1948 with a plan that actually started in the 20"s among many prominent jews including Rothschild..

Even when they were given some land,against the wishes of that lands Arab occupants, it was obviously not enough.
Since then Israel have continued to promote war so they can take more land through battle and settlement expansion.
Both options are illegal by international standards..

Let me help you out... again - and I know you hate being helped by "my kind", but apparently you forget how to speak like "your kind"

You keep saying this, yet you never support it with any verifable facts. how about you put your money where your mouth is and support your claims.

You and militantspeech seem to be experts at that.. Make a claim and refuse to support it.

Your source is?



MOD NOTE: Please review 15i in this link.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Maybe tell them about the good old days of Yassar Arrafat,, how did end up?,, ohh ya like a dog in a kennel at the end,, i dont think he could even leave his lodgings,,,of course the PLO could see the writting on the wall,, and boy they sure had no problem,, switching sides at the end,, welcome ,,, Hamas,,

Why waste the time.. They will just state arafat was controlled by Moassad, just like BackinBlack accuses Hamas of being controlled by Mossad anytime Hamas kills innocent people.

They see what they want mainly because they have been told what they are going to beleive. If they dont, they are accused of insulting Islam and get killed....

I just smile and nod and let them cry about it... eventually they talk themselves in a circle and people just ignore them.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You stated that there were votes against UN resolution 242 in your original post which I replied to. This is false as there were no votes against it. Arab rejection of res 242 is not a vote against it. None-the-less the Arab government later accpeted resolution 242.

You post is a load of BS, you are essentially releasing a barage of ad-hominem attacks and calling me a liar without adressing any of the issues in my post. This clearly signals that you are afraid of the truth which I have presented and you would rathe burry your head in the sand to suit your own ideological beliefs.

You also stated that Israel has accepted "land for peace" and I quickly proved this to be a falsification of facts. What next?

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


If they can't argue the facts then they retort to name calling and derailing..

We all know the Arabs were never in favor of giving the land in the first place but they were initially ignored and Israel was formed..

Since then, through whatever means necessary, Israel has and continues to expand..

Fact and fact..No denying that...

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


quote
"What next?"
why war of course,,,
evil has always had its way in this world,,
good has always struggled
when the Lord of Hosts,, boasts of victory,,,
from what i have read,, he don't lose.
Remember the Destroyer,,,,Lord of Hosts,,,let my people go or else,,, ya that Lord of Hosts,, and he's rested.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
You stated that there were votes against UN resolution 242 in your original post which I replied to. This is false as there were no votes against it. Arab rejection of res 242 is not a vote against it. None-the-less the Arab government later accpeted resolution 242.

I stated that no arab country involved in the 67 war voed for UN 242. It means just that, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO government, when they received UNR 242, opted not to sign on to it, or in other words voted no against it.

Accepting something 30 +/- years after the fact doesnt exactly give arabs the right to bitch about the 67 lines now does it.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
You post is a load of BS,

I see you and other certain membrs are using the same play book... Typical of people who cant think for themselves. I wonder why that is?

Try reading my post, because you apprently never bothered to the fiust time -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
you are essentially releasing a barage of ad-hominem attacks and calling me a liar without adressing any of the issues in my post.

Thank you for proving my point... You call me a liar, I respond with additional info that blows your crying out of the water, and now your complaing about an adhominem (see reference above about sharing the playbook with this word) for calling you a liar and not adressing your issues.

I have addressed your issues. The problem is your issues cant be fixed by facts since it would completely fritz out your nueral network.

No Arab country involved in the 67 war adopted UNR 242 - Addressed
You called me a liar - Addressed by providing you with facts you continue to ignore because they dont support your propoganda.

Here is the irony -
You attack me, I respond, you lose, then you cry about it not being fair and a violation of the T and C.

Poetic if you ask me.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
This clearly signals that you are afraid of the truth which I have presented and you would rathe burry your head in the sand to suit your own ideological beliefs.

Your truth has nothing to do with what I brought up. Your truth is the UN security councilk voting 15-0 in favor of 242. My truth dseals with no arab country involved in the 67 war voted in favor of adopting 242.

Your problem is you attempted to distort the argument with your UN vote and hoped no one would notice the conversation was with the araqb acceptance of 242. When you got corrected, schooled and called out on it, you respond with this BS, again trying to distory the conversation while continually accusing me of not answering your questions, which I have done.

All you need to do is read them and comprehend them and you will be up to speed.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
You also stated that Israel has accepted "land for peace" and I quickly proved this to be a falsification of facts. What next?

Isreal has recently stated they are willing to exchange land they have built settlements on in the west bank to compensate for other land they are not going to be giving up (East Jerusalem). This is not a flase statement and is one fo the reasons this type of thread is present in the forums.

What next?

Originally posted by backinblack
Since then, through whatever means necessary, Israel has and continues to expand..

That happens when Arab countries attck Israel and lose.

Originally posted by backinblack
Fact and fact..No denying that...

We are in agreement here, which is why we are confused as to why you cotninue to say its not true.


I find it amazing though on your stance towards Palestine and insistance that arabs are the virtuous ones here while they do to the Kurds what they accuse Israel of doing to the Palestinians.

So if its done by Arabs its ok?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Law no longer allows for the conquering of land through war..

Also Israel were the aggressor in 67, they attacked..

You can try to justify their attack but it doesn't alter the fact..

Could you also explain the continued settlements and justify them?

Your truth has nothing to do with what I brought up. Your truth is the UN security councilk voting 15-0 in favor of 242. My truth dseals with no arab country involved in the 67 war voted in favor of adopting 242.

Was it simply the way you worded your post, semantics??

Can you quote the post where you were accused of lying and we can see if that's the case..

Originally posted by backinblack
Law no longer allows for the conquering of land through war..

Yet its accepted when its Arabs doing the attacking?

Originally posted by backinblack
Also Israel were the aggressor in 67, they attacked..

I refer you to article 7 of the UN charter - Check self defense.

Maybe this analogy will help you -
When a person points a gun at you, you dont have to wait to be shot before responding.

Originally posted by backinblack
You can try to justify their attack but it doesn't alter the fact..

We are in agreement here. The arabs were planning to attack, Israel launched a pre emptive attack.

Originally posted by backinblack
Could you also explain the continued settlements and justify them?

Sure, right after you explain and justify the continued attacks on Israel civilians and school buses.
OIr maybe the occupation of Kurd territory by arabs.

Originally posted by backinblack

Your truth has nothing to do with what I brought up. Your truth is the UN security councilk voting 15-0 in favor of 242. My truth dseals with no arab country involved in the 67 war voted in favor of adopting 242.

Was it simply the way you worded your post, semantics??

Can you quote the post where you were accused of lying and we can see if that's the case..

Its not semantics.... Its a pretty straight forward post. There is a difference between the UN security council and the arab countries involved in the 67 war.

What was done by militanspeech was to attempt to confuse people by saying the vote was unanimous, when it has nothing to do with arab reception and rejection of that vote.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Ok with 15 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstenations the whole security council voted for resolution 242. It appears you have been caught out for lying.

Wow... Im honored.. not only are you calling me a liar in this thread, you ave also done so in a private U2U. Lets see how wrong I am....

This is called a source. Learn what it is and use it in your posts, otherwise we will assume you just make facts up, which would be common with people like you.

UN Resolution 242
Source

Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[4]

After denouncing it in 1967, Syria "conditionally" accepted the resolution in March 1972.

Hmmmm.... 1972... Not quite 1967 now is it? What else did Syria do with regards to UN 38? Lets see:

Syria formally accepted[5] UN Security Council Resolution 338, the cease-fire at the end of the Yom Kippur War (in 1973), which embraced resolution 242.[6]

Well now wait a minute, 338 refers back to 242.... Go figure.. Not quite as unianimous as you are making it out to be now is it?

On 1 May 1968, Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."

So Israel accepted 242.... I wonder what happened next... Lets find out....

In a statement to the General Assembly on 15 October 1968, the PLO rejected Resolution 242, saying "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."

Well now wait a minute, how can this be. According to you they all voted unanimously for it... Yet this says otherwise..... More lies you say? Sure, if yuou are talking about your post about it being unanimous.

In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles.

Oh wait... they accepted it in 1993.... Thats close to the end of the 6 day war is it?

Here is a suggestion... When you decide to make a post, you really should understand the difference between propoganda and media. When a government dictates to the media what they will print and do not allow those news servicess to ivestigate or disupte what the government is saying, as is common in ME media, its NOT independant journalism.

Now, another lesson for you.

Learn thbe difference between the ADOPTION of a resolution, which was unanimous by the security council. The resolution had to be agreed upon then by the member nations it affected, which would be Israel, Egypt, Sryia, Jordan and the Palestinians.

When you check, you will see, as I posted above, the countries you state accepted the resolution in fact did not.

I will be more than happy to accpet your appology both in this thread, and as a private U2U for calling me a liar when I am not. You have attempted to manipulate the facts in an effort to support your version of history, which would be incorrect, as I stated during our first go around.

An appology please...

Man.. I love being schooled by a person who has no idea what they are talking about....

Lets recap...

Un 242 was adopted by the Security Council 15 - 0.
242 was then presented to the nations it afffects - Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Palestinians.

Of those groups, only Israel accepted the resolution.

The arab countries did not.

Again, twisting facts in an effort to facilitate your lies....

nice...

You do understand everytime you do something childish like this that you continue to loose credability right? I will ive you props though.. Your move here was worthy of PressTV...

When you decide to take the time to learn history, get back to us in this thread.

edit on 3-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Xcathdra


That's obviously not the post you were accused of lying in..
It must be an earlier one..

I will agree with you if it's right.

reply to post by backinblack


First off this is not the first thread on this topic, and my argument has not changed at all from thread to thread. Here is the post in this thread where his confusion seems to start -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What? Israel is thinking about maybe possibly honoring its legally mandated responsibilities, after more than forty years, conditionally?

It's a step. A teensy-tiny, miniscule, toe-in-the-water step. But I guess even such a miniscule, conditional change in policy is, well, something. Progress by microns is progress, I suppose

I love posts like this.. Are you by chance going to actually read those legal mandates" you speak of?

If you did you would notice that Israel was not the only group to reject the UN resolution ending the 67 war. The arabs and palestinians also rejected and refused to sign on it.

Israel clearly stated they would turn over the West bank as well as Gaza in return for rab countries acknowedging their right to exist, and a peace treaty with Israel.

Arab countries rejected that part...

When you decide to throw rocks, you should probably check to see if your house is made of glass first.

About 2 posts down is where he decides to go down the road of the UN vote.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He is attempting to take my argument and shift it into the UN vote when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. He also argued that the arab countries did accept UNR 242, when clearly trhey did not.

reply to post by Xcathdra

We are in agreement here. The arabs were planning to attack, Israel launched a pre emptive attack.

That's really just an opinion that is not shared by everyone..
Israel had already attacked them before and information was being thrown around by many..
I am definitely NOT in afreement with you so please don't say I am.

Sure, right after you explain and justify the continued attacks on Israel civilians and school buses.
OIr maybe the occupation of Kurd territory by arabs.

Both sides have been attacking civilians and even children..
The figures of deaths is there to see.
But the question was about illegal settlements and how you can justify them.
What has other Arabs,not Palestinians, occupying Kurd territory got to do with Israel settlements in Palestine..

The Illegal settlements and their justification seems to be the "Elephant in the room" with you guys..
You all seem to ignore the situation and it's ramifications on peace and the reaction by the Palestinians.

reply to post by backinblack


Don't pretend you think you know about Israeli/Arab conflict and politics in the Middle East.

There will never be any long term peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians because it's in both their interests that "Palestine" never becomes an independant nation. The Palestinians know it, the Israelis know it.

There's so much going on behind closed doors that you don't even know about.

Originally posted by backinblack
That's really just an opinion that is not shared by everyone..
Israel had already attacked them before and information was being thrown around by many..
I am definitely NOT in afreement with you so please don't say I am.

Actually its more than just an opinion. If we take into account the Soviet Union playing with the information, it still places arab forces on military alert on the border with the intent of military action. If you wish to remove the blame from the arabs on this one, then place it where its due -

On their Soveit allies and not Israel.

Originally posted by backinblack
Both sides have been attacking civilians and even children..
The figures of deaths is there to see.
But the question was about illegal settlements and how you can justify them.

The same way a DMZ can be justified for Vietnam, Korea, Saudia Arabia and Iraq, Pakistan and India.

A buffer zone... When surrounded by enemies who call for your destruction, distance = survival.

What has other Arabs,not Palestinians, occupying Kurd territory got to do with Israel settlements in Palestine..

Originally posted by backinblack
The Illegal settlements and their justification seems to be the "Elephant in the room" with you guys..
You all seem to ignore the situation and it's ramifications on peace and the reaction by the Palestinians.

Its the same situation as the Palestinians except reversed. The argument is palestinian land is illegally being occupied and they have a right to fight for their land and survival. At the very same time that argument is denied for kurds loated in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

I being that up because it means the argument being used for palestinians is nothing more than a convient argument to justify politics.

If arabs truely felt that way about Palestinains, then they would recognize the same for the Kurds.

Since they dont, the intent behind the Palestinain cause is ulterior.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Law no longer allows for the conquering of land through war..

Also Israel were the aggressor in 67, they attacked..

You can try to justify their attack but it doesn't alter the fact..

Could you also explain the continued settlements and justify them?

Easy.
While you can argue all day long that it was Israel who was the aggressor, by launching a (preemptive) attack in the six day war, they did so against Egypt.
Not Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq.

FACT: on June 5th 1967 at 10:00, Jordanian forces joined the war against Israel, after receiving information from Egypt that it is wining in the south line campaign.

Jordan = West Bank.

I know facts tend to confuse you, but what the hack.