response to Thomas L. Knapp antiwar/Glaser: Discussing Israeli ‘Apartheid’ (full text)

(Short version = paragraph after intermezzo near end of article...)

Thomas L. Knapp @ December 10th, 2013 at 4:04 am ...

jumped (UN-talk, seized?) upon this statement:

«all of Palestine was conquered in 1967»

with part of his retort being:

«the 90% of Palestine called "Jordan"»

which prompted my 1st response @ December 10th, 2013 at 12:07 pm.

Next from Thomas @ December 11th, 2013 at 12:24 pm included:

«As of 2013, 73% of Israel's Jewish population was born in PALESTINE, idiot.» [note term of abuse, by no means a oncer]

which, after an intermediate exchange prompted my:

«That would mean 65.7% I/Js were born in Jordan? – Please explain.»

which Thomas @ December 11th, 2013 at 12:24 pm, after another intermediate exchange *finally* came up with:

«Israel is in Palestine. Jordan is in Palestine. It does not follow from that that Israel is in Jordan, ...»

Note: Thomas has shifted from "PALESTINE" to "Israel," with neither leave nor explanation. This might 'normally' be ½-acceptable – but not in an induced pettifogging setting. [update:] Note also, that it's gone from «90% of Palestine called "Jordan"» to «Jordan is in Palestine.»

Now - but only now, do I admit that my "90% of 73% = 65.7%" was a gambit (which could be true or not = ambivalent, depending on input assumptions, recalling GIGO). Not because Thomas has *once again* deployed antagonistic language:

«I still see that you have a math and/or logic deficiency going,»

but because the bulls**t approaches terminal silliness, namely in the face of the 90% and 73% *provocations* (deliberate distractions? red herrings? non-sequiturs? simply irrelevant? what? why?)

Intermezzo: IMHO, Palestine was not 'conquered' so much, as 'ethnically cleansed,' by aggressive, alien Z-invaders, using *genocidal* methods. Just because the (remnant) Palestinian population is growing is *no* argument against (attempted) genocide, only that the rate of killing is not keeping up with the 'natural increase.' The main ethnic cleansing occurred in two waves, namely 1st = ~1948, ~700,000 'expelled' = fled from active terrorism (Plan Dalet; all such outrages before (King David Hotel bombing, say), during (Deir Yassin massacre, all etc.), and after ('08/9 Gaza massacre, say), down to the 'current moment' (Bedouin 'resettlement,' say)); 2nd wave = 1967, ~300,000 expelled, ~½ of them for the 2nd time.

Recall Herzl, 1897+: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the" [natives] (motive = coveting + illegal from the beginning)

Jabotinsky, ~1923: «only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state.» (premeditation, modus operandi)

Meir raised ~$50mio in the US for arms. (means)

The Irgun&ilk used them.

The Zs' main m.o. is murder for soil = ethnic cleansing by aggressive, *genocidal* methods.

IMHO, the Zs have *zero* claim on any of Palestine, outside of the ~6% they managed to wangle from the natives by 1948; refer: "a fair exchange is no robbery."

The excess over the 'legal 6%,' gained exclusively via armed force (in contravention of UNSC242; inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied); prior 'legal guidelines' = Nuremberg ~1946, prior 'moral guidelines' = 'mosaic,' "Thou shalt not kill (lie, cheat or steal)" -

that excess should revest and/or the Zs fully, acceptably recompense and in all cases pay appropriate reparations (all in UNGA194) - but let me guess: Fat chance.

End intermezzo.

Thomas, I request that you both a) substantiate, and b) justify your 90% claim (i.e. accuracy and *relevance*, say, recalling that Transjordan was 'split off' from the British mandate ~1922), and c) explain what relevance and/or significance your 73% statement might have - to the headline topic, the developing argument, or to the price of fish?

PS This republish from comment to article so that content may be searchable; IF response @ antiwar THEN expect update here.

response to T. L. Knapp antiwar/Glaser: Discussing Israeli ‘Apartheid’

(Short version as submitted here; see comment for long version.)

With all due respect, perhaps we could dispense with the jousting?

Thomas, I request that you both a) substantiate, and b) justify your 90% claim (i.e. accuracy and *relevance*, say, recalling that Transjordan was 'split off' from the British mandate ~1922), and c) explain what relevance and/or significance your 73% statement might have - to the headline topic, the developing argument, or to the price of fish?