@Easyy
At least u don't contest that the site u cited is an advocacy group and so should not be cited as a source of facts.It is like refering to refering to the MASSOB website for facts on the Nigerian-Biafra war.

The websites I tried to link to were a newspaper and a think-tank that came out against the Iraq war.

4 Play:

@Easyy
At least u don't contest that the site u cited is an advocacy group and so should not be cited as a source of facts.It is like refering to refering to the MASSOB website for facts on the Nigerian-Biafra war.

The websites I tried to link to were a newspaper and a think-tank that came out against the Iraq war.

It's very clear you're an intelligent guy and you know that newspapers do have allegiances. Think tanks are also not entirely free of bias. Therefore there are no absolutes in terms of referencing for information

@Easyy
The Brooking instituition Iraq index that I cited to support the claim that most Iraqis say that despite their suffering they think the toppling of Saddam was worth it came from an instituition that came out against the Iraq war b4 it started and said that the war is illegal.

What u did in citing ifamericaknew.org will be like me citing the American Enterprise Institute or AIPAC for facts on the Middle East.These are all known biased advocacy groups who though I agree with most of their opinion,I can't cite for facts.

I also cited the BBC.You live in the U.K and u know that the BBC is no cheerleader for the Bush-Blair position on Iraq

For those that wondered if indeed Israel collect taxes on behalf of Palestinians the correct answer is that Israel ifact do collect taxes on behalf of Palestinians.

I recommend people genuinely see to learn more on issues theyt bother to discuss as a discussion forum has its limitations.

Somene talked about Israel giving up lands, giving up lands that belonged to who? If Israel enjoys dashing people land as is criminally being smuggled into the discussion then they should stop complaining and give up every single land that they claimed since 1948 and even they ones they forcefully took from the peope they met there when they decided to form a jewish home state after the holocaust.

There is no serious person who recognises any obligation on the part of Isreal to withdraw to 1948 lands,even Palestinians simply call for withdrawal to 1967 lands.

Resolution 242 which governs such a withdrawal is predicated on both parties reaching a peaceful agreement.Hence the obligation does not rest on Isreal alone but on both sides.

@4Play,

Do you really think through posts at all or do you just glance through, conclude based on nothing and proceed to make crazy posts?

@Afam
U said

Afam:

If Israel enjoys dashing people land as is criminally being smuggled into the discussion then they should stop complaining and give up every single land that they claimed since 1948 and even they ones they forcefully took from the peope they met there when they decided to form a jewish home state after the holocaust.

To which I replied

4 Play:

There is no serious person who recognises any obligation on the part of Isreal to withdraw to 1948 lands,even Palestinians simply call for withdrawal to 1967 lands.

U seem so confused that u are unable to follow the debate u are engaged in.U contest something in one post and then 5 posts later claim that u agreed with it all along.

So ur conclusion here then is that Isreal has no obligation pertaining to 1948 borders

No, that is not my conclusion, do you imagine I arrive at conclusions the way you do? And I won't be doing you any favour to explain to you the meaning of the original post.

@Afam
U said ur conclusion is not that Isreal has no obligation to return to 1948 lands.Then presumably u conclude the opposite-Isreal has obligations to return to 1948 lands.That conclusion ,is an incredible cocktail of ignorance and irrationality.There is no international law authority or even Palestinian demand that Isreal has obligations as per pre 1948 borders.

It is quite possble that u have no idea what ur conclusions are,which from my knowledge of ur previous posts would not surprise me

are all you deserve.

Me? Explain what you are trying to grasp to you? Never, continue with your childish way of reasoning. You are doing well in that regard anyway.

Afam:


Me? Explain what you are trying to grasp to you? Never

@Afam
No where in my last post did I ask u to explain anything.U now put questions to urself and refuse to answer them.

NEED I SAY MORE

@Easyy especially and All:

When I asked you for your 'real facts', you referred me to one of the spurious websites. The website you quoted is definitely deliberately amnesic, and I am not surprised. In most of the Pro-Palestine websites, the conclusions or basis for their support is usually predicated on the following, which is from one of such websites: "During the 1948 war, 750,000 Palestinians fled in terror or were actively expelled from their ancestral homeland and turned into refugees". This is so ignorant and deceitful because they refused to state that the "1948 war" was actually 'started' by a coalition of Six Arab countries who 'attacked' the new Israel who were forced to 'defend' themselves then, as they are still doing till today.
But why start from 1948?, it is intellectually lazy to do so. In fact if you really want to understand the origin of the conflict, historically, you will have to start from 1200 BC when the dispersion of the Jews from the 'land of Israel started, with persecution upon persecution in everyland and everycountry. You will discover that the name of this land of Israel was changed to 'Palestine' by one of the Roman Emperors during the early wave of the 'Crusaders': he did this because of his hatred for the monotheist Jews who were not polytheist like the Romans and thus named the land after the Philistines, who are polytheists like the Romans and an arch-enemy of the Israelites. You will get to 18th century when trickles of Jews started returning to the then 'Eretz Yisrael' called Palestine and either worked for or 'bought' arid lands from the Arab landowners before turning it to flourishing agricultural lands (this is called the first "Aliyah" or going up: 1840/70). Then get to 19th century when more Jews came back to 'their' land and 'bought' lands (sanctioned by the Turkish governor of the then 'Eretz Yisrael' under the Ottoman Empire and later the British government and the Arabs in the region) to escape the escalating persecution in Europe and rising anti-semitism elsewhere. It is an historical fact and true that the first, second and subsequent waves of attacks on the Jews in Eretz Yisrael were initiated by Arabs under influence of the Haj Amin el Hussein- the Grand Mufti (a muslim Nazi ally) in the 1930s, just as Ahmadinajad and Assad are doing today, because the Jews were legally buying back their lands ironically and flourishing in it.

Arab opposition to Jews was not based only on economic and social issues; it was colored by the traditional Muslim vision of the Jews as second class citizens. All these was before the creation of Israel in 1948, so that conclusion above is obtuse. When we see young boys throwing stones on TV at armed Israeli soldiers, the sympathy is emotionally for the children, but what you don't see on TV is that behind the "boys with stones" are "adult men and women with AK47 and Katyusha rockets" who are the real aggressors. I perceive you are a man of wisdom, so I have listed some references below for you. These are not spurious websites with religious coloration but books that are products of academic researches and government papers from both sides of the divide through which you can trace and get an understanding of the root of the conflict.

References:
1) A.D. Gordon, "Our Tasks Ahead" 1920
2) Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, London: Oxford University Press, 1985.
3) Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914, University of California Press, 1996
4) The BALFOUR Declaration
5) League of Nations Mandate
6) Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999.
7) Mandel, Neville, The Arabs and Palestine, UCLA, 1976
8 ) The Passfield White Paper
9) The Arab ReRevolt of 1936
10) The British White Paper of 1939
11) British Peel and Woodhead commissions
12) UN Debate on Palestine Partition- November, 26, 1947

Havila:

I perceive you are a man of wisdom, so I have listed some references below for you. These are not spurious websites with religious coloration but books that are products of academic researches and government papers from both sides of the divide through which you can trace and get an understanding of the root of the conflict.

"No No No. Those are pro-western, pro-Jewish references. So they are not true"

Is the response you will get from some folk here.

4 Play:


@Afam
No where in my last post did I ask u to explain anything.U now put questions to yourself and refuse to answer them.

NEED I SAY MORE

Dont waste your time, we have been thru this with Afam before. He resorts to insults when he is cornered and shown up for the ignorant person he truly is. Making bogus statements based on a few minutes of CNN news reports

Thanks for the expose Havilla, unfortunately many learned eggheads here will still find a reason to accuse the Jews of land grabbing and terrorism while blinding themselves to the real truth either as a result of religious bias or political correctness.

David Adenuga or whatever you call yourself, I thought I had asked you to contribute when you are through with your free education as I won't be wasting time on another empty barrel on this forum.

You have displayed enough ignorance while hiding same in religious bigotry for me to write more than a few lines responding to you.

Dear Afam, pls spare me the diatribe. I would henceforth not accord you undeserved response to your verbal diarrhoea!

Thanks and continue spitting out half truths!

That is a better approach, at least until you are mature enough to reason and discuss like a human being.

How I wish you knew the meaning of half truths as you have been proven wrong by events on most of your wrong positions based on hypocrisy and religious bigotry.

@Afam

davidylan:

Dont waste your time, we have been through this with Afam before. He resorts to insults when he is cornered and shown up for the ignorant person he truly is. Making bogus statements based on a few minutes of CNN news reports

It seems that I am not the first to notice that u are allergic to the truth.U don't want the truth to get in the way of ur argument.

The Palestine position,not including that of Hamas,is for a return to the pre-1967 borders.Lets not forget that Palestinians had an opportunity to take a greater piece of territory at 1948 but they chose the path of war thinking that they could defeat Isreal militarily.At that time Isreal had a population of just 600,000.This calculation backfired and Palestine ended up with less land than they could have gotten initially.

Even then there is no obligation on Isreal to unilaterally withdraw to the 1967 borders except as part of a comprehensive peace deal

Have you thought of it that The Arabs that aggressed Israel in 1967 if they had won would they have given back the land they won
Israel must follow rule and conventions and Arab neighbours must not by blowing them up with rockets and pronouncing that Israel should not exist.

Why is it that Israel is always the one yielding by giving back land and ceasing airstrikes but the arab neighbours are not obliged to do the same.they continue to lauch rocket and train suicide bombers and expect Israel to fold its arms and wait to be blown up.
What happened to Oslo Accord, camp David and Roadmap to peace all were flouted by the Arab neighbours.

N.B If you want some half truth, Truth bending and twisting, and absurd reasoning, and ultimately insult throwing when you dont have a point, contact Afam

@4 Play,

It is a shame that you have not been able to understand the statement that has been giving your stress up till now.

Take your time, read the statement again and attempt to understand the very clear message.

I will give you a little help here, my statement was based on the erronous statement that Israel was always giving back lands as if Israel was dashing people lands.

Based on this erronous statement, I wondered (based on the incorrect premise) why Israel has not deemed it fit to return everyland it occupies today including the pre 1948 lands.

That you fail to see the wrong premise which I based the rhetorical statement isn't really a surprise.

I always maintain that half knowledge is really dangerous and your complete misunderstanding of a simple statement here goes to show the level of intellect you posses.

@Dayokanu,

I guess you ave made a reasonable contribution on the topic at hand by writing about half truth and contacting Afam.

I have gone beyond the level you are currently operating long time ago.

The advice/explanation given to 4Play may apply to you if you are humble enough to know when you lack understanding and being able to understand statements before drawing conclusions from them.

And I am certain if you are asked to reproduce a single half truth by Afam you will start writing about everything but the statement you may be asked to reproduce.

As regards insults, do not bother yourself too much because I never hesitate to reply in kind and I do that very well because I cannot stand a person that is both ignorant and stupid.

If Israel should move to pre 1948 borders, then Americans of European descent should move to pre-Columbus borders, Blacks in America should move to the pre slave trade borders, Boers should move to the pre-colonisation borders, e.t.c
when most of humans are actually settlers in the land they occupy now, Northerners in Ilorin should move to the pre Jihad borders.
Brother, change has happened, human has evolved  and we should all learn to live with that or we would always make trouble for ourselves.

@Nilla,

How you dey jare and do accept my belated congrats on your exams. Wishing you the very best.

@Dayokanu,

I feel bad, I feel disappointed, I feel embarassed that you still find it supremely difficult to understand the rhetorical statement you are wasting your energy on.

Who is interested in asking people to vacate lands they occupied thousands of years ago?

Do ask any friend you have to help you interpret the very statement that is causing all the unnecessary post especially as regards the context, premise or assumption for making the statement.

In reality, if you understood the statement, you would have realised that it goes to undermine the erronous statement by those that tend to portray Israel as always willing to give back lands as if it is dashing people lands.

I do hope that such inability to understand very basic discussions or comments like these are not the reasons why I can't find a lot of intelligent users of this forum again.

Ask any friend you have, someone should be able to help you out, I really cannot do much to make you understand the statement even with all the pointers thus far.

I'm good, and thanx

@ Afam

Who is interested in asking people to vacate lands they occupied thousands of years ago?

So why are you talking about 1967 nor 1948 borders as a condition for peace in the middle east?

@Afam

Those who can't communicate clearly can't think clearly.Your muddled thinking produces disjointed reasoning

At one point u rejected my suggestion that Isreal has no obligations as per 1948 borders,to which I replied that u must mean that Isreal has obligations as per 1948.Again u demurred.In which case I concluded that u must hold 2 contradictory positions on this issue.

Your postings are characterised by cognitive disonance emblematic of a crack head.

My advice to u is to find another thread on other issues were u are well informed

4Play & Dayokanu,

It is funny that up till now the two of you cannot understand the statement you are hammering upon.

Maybe it has to do the your level of awareness or your lack of understanding of written words.

I, for one cannot do anything to help you other than the pointers I have given which both of you have clearly not understood.

I hope people do not use your level of understanding to generalize about Nigerians because that will be bad news.

There is a huge difference between not being able to communicate well and one's inability to understand a statement, do not confuse the 2.

@Afam

What then is your position on Isreali obligations as per 1948?

U can rebut my claim that u are confused by clarifying ur postion once and for all

So why are you talking about 1967 nor 1948 borders as a condition for peace in the middle east?

What then is your position on Isreali obligations as per 1948?

It is funny that up till now the two of you cannot understand the statement you are hammering upon.

Maybe it has to do the your level of awareness or your lack of understanding of written words.

I, for one cannot do anything to help you other than the pointers I have given which both of you have clearly not understood.

I hope people do not use your level of understanding to generalize about Nigerians because that will be bad news.

There is a huge difference between not being able to communicate well and one's inability to understand a statement, do not confuse

@ Afam cant you just address issues as 4play and myself are doing? look at our statements and compare it to your responses
Instead you side step the issue and go ahead to say something else or attack personality
It would be better for you to admit that you did not get your points right than to continue embarrassing yourself in public.

dayokanu:

@ Afam can't you just address issues as 4play and myself are doing? look at our statements and compare it to your responses
Instead you side step the issue and go ahead to say something else or attack personality
It would be better for you to admit that you did not get your points right than to continue embarrassing yourself in public.

@Dayokanu,

Do you live in outer space? You imagine that you are addressing issues when you cannot even understand the issue at hand. Don't worry about the issue of attacking personality, I only reply in kind and I do so very well, you may need to remind yourself of your silly post that I responded to.

4 Play:

@Afam

What then is your position on Isreali obligations as per 1948?

U can rebut my claim that u are confused by clarifying your postion once and for all

@4 Play,

I will take your last post to mean that you now concede that you cannot understand my statement, not that there was anything extraordinary in it anyway.

I need to also make it clear to you that the issue of Israel's obligations as per 1948 has never been an issue on our exchanges thus far, however I will answer your question so you can understand my position.

Israel was created in 1948. Israel is not expected go back to pre 1948, put differently, I do not believe it makes any sense to ask Israel to go back to pre 1948.

However, for us to have sustainable peace in the middle east (as most, if not all the problems have something to do with the Israel/Palestine issue), Israel should go back to pre 1967 borders and a state of Palestine be created.

Let me explain the last paragraph before you misunderstand me. The lands seized in the 1967 war should be returned to the Palestinians.

NB: I hope there is nothing in this response that remotely implies that Israel should go back to pre 1948 borders.

@AFAM

I asked u earlier whether u concluded that Isreal has no obligations as per 1948 borders to which u replied that is not ur conclusion.Now u say that it is

Was there a Palestinian state from which Israel seized land b4 1967 to which it has an obligation to return the land.Have u ever read RESOLUTION 242 passed in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war?It does not place a unilateral obligation on Isreal to withdraw from occupied lands but to withdraw within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement with its neighbours.

One good thing about bringing u to task about ur statements is that u are backing away from some of ur wilder statements about the conflict and conducting a more reasoned discourse.I am dedicating the time I should use for studying to make u justify ur postings and it seems to be paying off

@4 Play,

4 Play:

@AFAM

I asked u earlier whether u concluded that Isreal has no obligations as per 1948 borders to which u replied that is not your conclusion.Now u say that it is

I replied that I do not arrive at conclusions the way you do because the issue of Israel withdrawing to pre 1948 borders was not in the equation even though you have failed to see that till today. You don't lead me in discussions, you don't decide what I must comment on. Your inability to understand a statement should not be a reason to waste everyone's time.

4 Play:

Was there a Palestinian state from which Israel seized land before 1967 to which it has an obligation to return the land.Have u ever read RESOLUTION 242 passed in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war?It does not place a unilateral obligation on Isreal to withdraw from occupied lands but to withdraw within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement with its neighbours.

Resolutions? Do you know the number of UN resolutions that Israel has ignored till date simply because the UN backs Israel? Do you know how many resolutions that the US has vetoed when it concerns Israel?

As someone that claims to understand international law you should understand the inticacies of what transpires in the global arena.

4 Play:

One good thing about bringing u to task about your statements is that u are backing away from some of your wilder statements about the conflict and conducting a more reasoned discourse.I am dedicating the time I should use for studying to make u justify your postings and it seems to be paying off

Better face your studies so you don't lose on both ends. If we were doing a face to face conversation I would have said bye bye to you a long time ago based on the level of reasoning you display.

I take time to reply for the benefit of others that may not see through your wrong and confused statements.

make no mistake about it, I state my position on anything I bother to discuss and in doing so you will not see lies because I discuss only issues I understand and when asked about something I don't know I make it clear that I do not know it, it is not a crime not to know something and infact it is 100% better for you not to know something than for you to claim you know what you know nothing about.

I have been waiting in vain to read about your acknowledgements of the wrong statements you have made, instead you keep moving from one wrong statement to another.