Worthy News: Hamas: Olmert must accept less - Jerusalem Post

[amor]

[Arab terrorists kill Jews, and amor is silent, couldn't care less. If a Jew kills an Arab in the process of defending himself from Arab aggression, then the Jew is a fascist thug.

As I said before you raised the issue of Deir Yassin. Deir yassin had agreed with the Haganah to remain neutral, it was attacked by Irgun and Lehi despite that agreeement - how does an unprovoked attack, even in your strange dictionary, end up as an act of self defence?

Why is it wrong to categorise those (members of Lehi) who sought an alliance with Nazi Germany at the height of the holocaust seeking - "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich"- as fascists? It seems to be a perfect description of what they were.

[Guest shiloh357]

As I said before you raised the issue of Deir Yassin. Deir yassin had agreed with the Haganah to remain neutral, it was attacked by Irgun and Lehi despite that agreeement - how does an unprovoked attack, even in your strange dictionary, end up as an act of self defence?

Deir Yassin did not remain neutral. Muslims are known for breaking their promises. In fact, NO promise made with infidels are required to be kept. The Palestinians have been operating off that premise going back at least ,to the days of Oslo. Truces and cease fires made with non Muslims are only honored when it is in the best interest of the Muslim agenda. There are plenty of incidents where Jewish convoys were ambushed from Deir Yassin along the road to Jersualem prior to the events at Deir Yassin. You simply choose to ignore that as you ignore the ubiquitous massacres of Jews by Arab Muslims in the Holy Land for years even decades prior.

Why is it wrong to categorise those (members of Lehi) who sought an alliance with Nazi Germany at the height of the holocaust seeking - "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich"- as fascists? It seems to be a perfect description of what they were.

The problem is that this event with Deir Yassin is used to deligitmize the entire existance of Israel. It is used by Israel's enemies to demosntrate that Jewish state was born out of a desire to ethnically cleanse the region of any Arab presence and to steal the Land and property of the Arabs and give it to Jews in order to create a Jewish state. As a result, Israel is demonized as an imperialistic, colonial intenty which it has proven over and over again to be a false charge. When Deir Yassin is brought up, it is used to beat Israel over the head, and is divorced from the events that preceded Deir Yassin.

This is not a debate about the LEHI. I don't care for the LEHI, and neither did the Jewish inhabitants of the Land back when they were in operation. Most Jews knew about their "treaty" offer to the third Reich. It is one reason among many that they were so despised. The issue of Deir Yassin is separate from the misdeeds of the LEHI on other occasions. The LEHI's stupid treaty did not pass. If the subject here was the "sins of LEHI," you would get no argument from me. The reason I am debating this is that LEHI's actions have been painted as "Israeli." Many of Israel's critics claim that Israel was founded on the immoral compass of LEHI. The fact that the Israeli Jews hated the LEHI is always ignored by Israel's critics. LEHI is presented as being typical of the Israeli mindset at the time period, and thus it promotes more hatred for Israel that is completely unjustified and is based upon gross misinformation. LEHI is is represented as "Zionist" and their sins are then projected upon all Zionists by many in the world, without mentioning that many true Zionists hated the LEHI.

My point is that the attack on Deir Yassin was in response to Arab aggression leveled at Jews in violation of their so-called "treaty." It was a defensive response meant to grant free passage for Jews along the road to Jersusalem. It was not a "fascist" act. The Israelis have no desire to rule the Palestinians. My problem with you, is that you are associating "fascism" with the attack on Deir Yassin. The plethora of Arab terrorist attacks from that city and from other Arabs prior to Deir Yassin, preclude anyone from assigning fascist values to this battle or to the intention of the LEHI and Irgun.

[amor]

As I said before you raised the issue of Deir Yassin. Deir yassin had agreed with the Haganah to remain neutral, it was attacked by Irgun and Lehi despite that agreeement - how does an unprovoked attack, even in your strange dictionary, end up as an act of self defence?

Deir Yassin did not remain neutral. Muslims are known for breaking their promises. In fact, NO promise made with infidels are required to be kept. The Palestinians have been operating off that premise going back at least ,to the days of Oslo. Truces and cease fires made with non Muslims are only honored when it is in the best interest of the Muslim agenda. There are plenty of incidents where Jewish convoys were ambushed from Deir Yassin along the road to Jersualem prior to the events at Deir Yassin. You simply choose to ignore that as you ignore the ubiquitous massacres of Jews by Arab Muslims in the Holy Land for years even decades prior.

It did remain neutral, indeed had signed a non-agression pact with the Haganah. All.. that has been confirmed by members of that movement.

Your attitude is that it is acceptable to lie and murder Muslims. Remember the 120 men , women and children slaughtered in the attack. How does the murder of innocent Jews justify the slaughtering innocent Muslims?

[Guest shiloh357]

It did remain neutral, indeed had signed a non-agression pact with the Haganah. All.. that has been confirmed by members of that movement.

Your attitude is that it is acceptable to lie and murder Muslims. Remember the 120 men , women and children slaughtered in the attack. How does the murder of innocent Jews justify the slaughtering innocent Muslims?

Signing a non aggession pact and KEEPING that pact are two different things. I did not deny that such a pact was signed. I simply sighted the practice of signing pacts with Jews is not considered binding by the Muslims in that region. They have proven this to be true in our generation.

They did not keep their "pact" and such, it was null and void. They continued to murder Jews along the road to Jerusalem. Therefore, military action was justified.

The fact that there were 44 casualties including four dead on the side of the Irgun and LEHI refutes the notion that there was a massacre. There was a fierce gun battle. If they wanted a masscre, then why did they let 200 civiliians leave prior to the fighting?? Why did they bring some of the civilians to Arab controlled parts of Jerusalem. Oh wait... Im sorry, amor. I am trying to reason with you like I would reason with someone who actually has some semblence of intelligence. I should not set such high expectations for you. Maybe if I typed a little slower, you could keep up.

You might as well give up. You prefer your moronic history revisionism instead of credible history that intelligent people ascribe to.

[amor]

The fact that there were 44 casualties including four dead on the side of the Irgun and LEHI refutes the notion that there was a massacre. There was a fierce gun battle. If they wanted a masscre, then why did they let 200 civiliians leave prior to the fighting?? Why did they bring some of the civilians to Arab controlled parts of Jerusalem. Oh wait... Im sorry, amor. I am trying to reason with you like I would reason with someone who actually has some semblence of intelligence. I should not set such high expectations for you. Maybe if I typed a little slower, you could keep up.

You might as well give up. You prefer your moronic history revisionism instead of credible history that intelligent people ascribe to.

Very bad of these Arabs to actually dare to resist an attack. As to hopeless history it was you who claimed that a third of the Fascist terrorists involved in the attack were killed.

It was billed as a massacre without the knowledge that 1/3 of the Israelis soldiers there were killed. If the Irgun wanted a massacre, NO ONE would have survived.

Now its 4 with 44 injured .Four is less than 10% (1/10 in case you have problems with percentages - rather a lot less that 1/3) of 44 let alone of the total number involved in the attack. Since You can't even keep up with yourself, are you really in a position to criticize me.

I await your normal excuse that the above discrepancy is another one of you convenient mistakes, the result of you holding 17 jobs down at once, and therefore have little time to formulate your rants accurately.

[Arthur Durnan]

Islam, child of polygamist WarLord Muhammad of Yathrib, gives rise to Hitlerism II as evidenced by its virulent hatred of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob and its warfare against the very children of same. Just as soon as Islam lovingly permits the creation of places of non-Islamic places of worship within ITS dictatorial territories - in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, The Sudan, Northern Nigeria, on into the night - ie, Christian churches, Jewish synagogues and Buddhist temples, THEN, and then ONLY can Islamic apologists speak with meaning & purpose. Till then, Muhammad's virulent Child of the Sword underscores its reality of plunder, rape & genocide in the path of the Beast of Braunau!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Guest shiloh357]

I await your normal excuse that the above discrepancy is another one of you convenient mistakes, the result of you holding 17 jobs down at once, and therefore have little time to formulate your rants accurately.

At least I readily admit and immediately correct my mistakes and misstatements. That is something called integrity, amor. Something a person like you, would not know anything about. Perhaps if you were a Christian, you would understand.

I have called you on several of your errors, and inconsistencies, and you ignore them and pass over them hoping to deflect attention away from them, or hope that people will eventually forget. I don't try to cover my genuine mistakes by changing the subject, or ignoring them, the way you do An example of this is the way you consistently ignore the evidence that demosntrates that it is the Arabs and not Israel, who are to blame for the Palestinian refugee crisis. Every time the issue has been brought up in the past, you ignored it or just disappeared from the thread until the evidence was buried by other posts.

I am prone to making mistakes when I post hurriedly, and sometimes it is a day or two when I reread a post to find I misspoke. I always make the necessary corrections. That is far cry from the outright lies, deception, misinformation and anti-Semtic propaganda you engage in on these boards. It is one thing to make mistakes and errors in the process of explaining one's position. It is quite another to push anti-Semitic misinformation propaganda/conspiracy theories by Muslim organizations who seek delegitimize Israel's existence, and then portray that misinformation as "truth." I may mistakes, when I post hurriedly, but I have a far better grasp on the history and dynamics of this conflict that you ever will. Your posts demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge where the history of this conflict is concerned. You prefer Muslim history revisionism. That suits your anti-Semitism better than real history. You don't possess the moral fiber to deal with the truth in an honest manner.

Very bad of these Arabs to actually dare to resist an attack.

So they resisted an attack??? So much for your silly "massacre" scenario. So, when Arabs resist an attack it is heroic. But when Jews resist attacks from Arabs, it is fascism. Is that how it works???

[EricH]

This has really become an argument that is getting nowhere. I am closing it