Zionism (and Nationalism in general)

[McSceptic]

There are no moral phenomena only moral interpretations of phenomena.

-

Nietzsche 101

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

Great job of obfuscation!

If you are appalled by people whose actions are based on an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, you are missing a wonderful opportunity to condemn militant Islam. Specifically, look at the PA which encourages the murder of defenceless civilians and glorifies suicide bombers.

Your arguments rest on two key assertions:

(1) the Jewish national home was established on land already inhabited by others; and

(2) Zionism is immoral because the Israel seeks to maintain its Jewish identity.

I think there is some truth to number 1. However, it isn't that simple. The people who were "already" living there were largely nomads with no land ownership in the modern sense. And the population of Palestine increased as Jewish immigrants created urban commerce.

The fact is that most countries evolved -- people were displaced and borders were changed through wars. Once you decide to go back more than a couple of biologic generations to determine the rightful owners of land, it's anyone's game.

Arabs have done everything they can to keep Palestinians living as "refugees" even though only a tiny minority ever lived within Israel. This includes human rights violations: for example, Palestinian "refugees" in Lebanon can't buy land or enter certain occupations. There is good cause to wonder if some of the "refugees" are just Arabs who signed up to play that role.

By rejecting any conceivable partition -- demanding that Arabs must get all of the land -- the Palestinians' land grievance lost all credibility. What Palestinians are angry about is not that the Jews stole a sliver of land, but that the Arabs were unsuccessful in stealing it back. In attempting to destroy Israel, Arabs are attempting to not only get "their" land back but to take land back that was sold or that never belonged to Arabs.

Your second argument is total nonsense. Soveriegn countries have the right to set whatever immigration policies they please. Countries can accept no immigrants, all immigrants, or choose to accept immigrants based on any criteria they like.

Again, you hide behind a professorial lecture on logic. If Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is immoral, what is the PA's policy of demanding that Jews by expelled from the WB and Gaza? What is Saudi Arabia's policy of not permitting non-Moslems to visit Mecca or Medinah? What is Islam's policy of not permitting Jews to visit the Temple Mount?

Just as France has a right to maintain France for the French, Israel has the right to maintain Israel for the Jews.

It is militant Islam, not Judaism, that calls everyone else "infidels." These people believe it is their religious duty to conquer the world for Islam. Israel is just the first target, as it is conspicuously located in the middle of a predominantly Moslem region.

[A-Palestinian]

I will first address Ibrodsky, since his post is quite irrational.

Idrodsky,

"If you are appalled by people whose actions are based on an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, you are missing a wonderful opportunity to condemn militant Islam. Specifically, look at the PA which encourages the murder of defenceless civilians and glorifies suicide bombers. "

Yes, militant Islam's ends-justify-the-means is also immoral, as is the PA/PLO's strategy. But I already said this exact thing before, and thus, I would strongly recommend that we read past posts first, before wasting my time and yours.

"Your arguments rest on two key assertions:

(1) the Jewish national home was established on land already inhabited by others; and

(2) Zionism is immoral because the Israel seeks to maintain its Jewish identity. "

You are correct on point one, but wrong on point 2. Re-read Statement 3.

"I think there is some truth to number 1. However, it isn't that simple. The people who were "already" living there were largely nomads with no land ownership in the modern sense. And the population of Palestine increased as Jewish immigrants created urban commerce. "

Re-read Statement 2. Weather or not the populus lived in trailers, or skyscrapers, is irrelevant. Either you can make them part of the new nation, in which case they stay, or they are not made part of the nation, in which case they cant stay. This is assuming that all of them were bedouins, which is not the case - many of them were city dwellers too.

"The fact is that most countries evolved -- people were displaced and borders were changed through wars. Once you decide to go back more than a couple of biologic generations to determine the rightful owners of land, it's anyone's game. "

Under this false logic, then suicide bombs are "ok", since "people are displaced, and borders are changed through wars." If you decide that it is simple "tough luck" that people are displaced when a country is created, then those displaced people can also say that it is "tough luck" that they are trying to displace you. This Subjectivism okays suicide bombs, and hence, your statement is wrong. (Who "deserves" the land, I have not gotten to yet.) (But I will.)

"Your second argument is total nonsense. Soveriegn countries have the right to set whatever immigration policies they please. Countries can accept no immigrants, all immigrants, or choose to accept immigrants based on any criteria they like. "

Yes, countries can set whatever immigration laws they want, once established. This is a proper right. However, not allowing the return of original inhabitants is not a right. Indeed, it is the robbery of that right.

"Again, you hide behind a professorial lecture on logic. If Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is immoral, what is the PA's policy of demanding that Jews by expelled from the WB and Gaza? "

Your snide remark is not conductive to this conversation. There is no "Hiding" involved. You have commited the logical fallacy of:

"Ad Hominem."

An ad hominem is a personal attack on the arguer (or his intentions), in the hope of weaking the argument he presents.

Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is not immoral, since it can dis-allow outside people from entering by right. The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral. You are confusing the eviction of insiders through force, (which is immoral), and the non-entry of outsiders through right. (which is moral).

"It is militant Islam, not Judaism, that calls everyone else "infidels." These people believe it is their religious duty to conquer the world for Islam. Israel is just the first target, as it is conspicuously located in the middle of a predominantly Moslem region. "

True, but Non-Sequitor.

Perhaps if you stopped stating the obvious, and give out significant rebuttals, we would get somewhere. So far, you have demonstrated an inability to do so.

I will now address Shanonbn, and re-itterate my original points, that show Zionism to be inherently immoral.

[victot]

zionism is beautiful.
it's unfortunate that the palestinians were living there, but if indeed the jews have a claim to the land, if it is theirs, then how is it immoral to take back what belongs to them?
i think the fact that jews have at least some claim to the land should be included in your morality formula.

anyways A-palestinian, i think it's a neat idea that your discecting the arguments these ways, if nothing else, maybe we'll come to a clearer view on what specific points pro-zionists and anti-zionists agree and disagree on...
but ps:
if you can, try to use a less complicated way of speaking when you get into your arguments...
pretend your trying to get your arguments to reach the common man, it shouldnt take too much away from what you actually have to say.

heh, i have a suspicion that A-palestinian is not so much a palestinian... BUT A LEFTIST!!!

curse them buggers, why are leftists notoriously anti-israel while those at the right are notorisously more pro-israel?

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral.

Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories?

You think these places, and the people living there are original inhabitants of the land?
If so, I whole heartedly disagree with you - IMO, the settlements are the major obstacle for lasting peace. These settlements, and the people living there represent not Zionism, but Colonialism in its worst racist and brutal form (Zionism != Colonialism)

I believe the Palestinians demand that the settlements be dismantled and evicted is just. It is also a moral demand, regardless of the means the Palestinians are taking to achieve this goal.
I can only wish that it was practical to dismantle all settlements. As we are talking about some 120,000 settlers, it is probably possible to perform only partially.

Correct me if you were talking on something else.

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

Under this false logic, then suicide bombs are "ok", since "people are displaced, and borders are changed through wars." If you decide that it is simple "tough luck" that people are displaced when a country is created, then those displaced people can also say that it is "tough luck" that they are trying to displace you. This Subjectivism okays suicide bombs, and hence, your statement is wrong.

This is nonsense. I never said that forcibly evicting people from their land was OK. What I said was that if you choose to revisit all past injustices, then every country on earth will go up in flames.

There is a longstanding debate about whether Palestinian Arabs left Israel voluntarily or were driven away. The historical record suggests both occurred. However, there are one million Arabs living within Israel today, which is fairly convincing evidence that a good number did not feel they were being evicted.

My saying that you are hiding behind professorial logic is not an ad hominem attack. I am discussing what you are saying and how you are saying it. Your "logic" is flawed.

The bottomline: instead of discussing the issues in a straightforward manner, you present yourself as the Grand Wizard of Logic in order to create the impression that we are your students. There is a logical fallacy here, too, but it has been nearly 30 years since I took two courses on logic... I will let the professor tell us the Latin name for it.

[ibrodsky]

sharonbn,

If so, I whole heartedly disagree with you - IMO, the settlements are the major obstacle for lasting peace. These settlements, and the people living there represent not Zionism, but Colonialism in its worst racist and brutal form (Zionism != Colonialism)

You are ignoring that Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war started by the Arabs. Actually, Israel has the right to annex all or any of this land. Clearly, Israel has decided not to annex all of it in the hope that some of it can be used as a bargaining chip.

What is immoral is saying, as Nasser did, "We will drive the Jews into the sea."

Your claim that the settlements are "colonialism" is silly. Israel did not establish settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza in order to rule and exploit the Palestinians. A fact routinely ignored is that the Palestinians rule their own cities. Plus, the settlers have never demanded that all settlements be incorporated in Israel. I personally know settlers who say they would be willing to live within a Palestinian state as long as they are accorded the same rights as Arab Palestinians.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky

Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war started by the Arabs
Technically, you’re wrong. Israel started the six-day war with a surprise air attack on Egypt and Syria. Later on (in the sixth day) Israel invaded Syria and took over the Golan Heights. This move wasn’t even part of the Israeli offensive plan at the beginning of the war (the Israeli plan included Egypt alone). The move came after the request of the kibbutzim of the north who suffered harassments from the Syrian army.
During the second day of the war, the Jordanian legion took over UN posts in Jerusalem and other positions along the border. After issuing an ultimatum, IDF started the offense in Jerusalem, Latrun, Jenin and other places.

Israel’s justifications for the initiative were:
- Closing of the Tiran straits in Sinai for ships heading to Eilat port
- The eviction of UN forces from Sinai and the position of 2 Egyptian armies there – supposedly as a preparation for an invasion.
- The proclamations of the Egyptian president, Nasser, that Egypt is preparing an invasion, together with Syria.

Some historians today say that Nasser did not intend to really
invade Israel (since he didn’t believe he has the power to successfully complete such an invasion). His speeches and actions were made to strengthen his position as the leader in the Arab world – but this is just one interpretation.

Actually, Israel has the right to annex all or any of this land
Why is that?
You are cutting the branch on which you sit – If a land belongs to whoever is currently ruling it, then the Jews have no right to claim the land of Israel, after loosing it to the Babylonians in 1000BC. The Geneva convention clearly states that land ownership is not determined by political borders (i.e. if someone owns a piece of land and flees his home because of war – he remains the owner of the land by law).
What Israeli settlers did over the past 35 years was forceful annexation of Palestinian land (usually without any retribution.) In some extreme cases, the settlers didn’t even bother to evict the land owner, but rather built their houses on his fields, cutting away his life support (this was called “nochechim nifkadim” or present absentees)

A fact routinely ignored is that the Palestinians rule their own cities
What is ignored is that this is a relatively new situation. Before the Oslo accord of 1993 (i.e. for 26 years), Palestinains didn’t rule zit.

Plus, the settlers have never demanded that all settlements be incorporated in Israel
Wrong again, Greater Jerusalem and The Golan Heights were officially annexed to Israel by a vote in the Knesset. It was the initial intention of the settlers to annex all occupied territories to Israel. This was one of the reasons they started this mess.

I personally know settlers who say they would be willing to live within a Palestinian state as long as they are accorded the same rights as Arab Palestinians
To my delight, I don’t know any settlers personally, However, During Camp-David talks in September 2000, I have heard them in the media state that they will forcefully reject any eviction/relocation from their homes (Yes, they said they will shoot at Israeli soldiers if they will come to evict them under the pretence of unlawful order.)

Therefore I believe:
- The Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are immoral. This is a historical fact regardless of current events.
- Palestinian terrorist attacks are immoral regardless if the goal behind these attacks is moral and just (The end DOES NOT justify the means).

[ibrodsky]

sharonbn,

You choose to believe that Israel started the '67 war. Actually, closing the straits of Tiran was causis belli. And contrary to your claim, the Arabs were massing forces for an obvious attack. Countries that build up their military, mass troops on their border, and proclaim they are going to destroy another country must assume that that country will take such actions and claims seriously.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights because the Syrians used the Heights to shoot at Jews living below.

I have doubts about claims that settlers "confiscated" Palestinian land. Having been to the West Bank, I know that it is mainly hilly and rocky, and most of the land is neither inhabited nor farmed. I have also learned over the years that Palestinian Arabs will lie about events to (they hope) get their way. So if Israel wins a battle, it was a "massacre of Arabs," and if Israelis build a settlement on uninhabited land, suddenly the "owners" step forward. But when asked to present documentation proving ownership, they say "I don't need no stinkin' deeds. Everyone in my village knows I inherited that land from my grandfather."

I agree that Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed. Furthermore, they should never be returned. The Arabs tried their best to massacre the Jews of Jerusalem, and Syria used the Golan to stage attacks. When the Arabs ruled East Jerusalem, did all religions have access to holy sites? Have you noticed that Moslems built a mosque on the Temple Mount and they prohibit non-Moslems from walking anywhere near their mosque?

You seem to think that Israel steals land, while Arabs simply want their land back. I think you are in a state of denial regarding Arab and Moslem culture. There is a large minority that believe they are right to seek to destroy the West and kill Jews "wherever you find them."

The only peaceful solution is two countries side by side. The people who are most against this, who knowingly harbor and encourage terrorists, and who "negotiate" by presenting the same unyielding list of demands over and over, are the Arabs.

[A-Palestinian]

Victot,

"it's unfortunate that the palestinians were living there, but if indeed the jews have a claim to the land, if it is theirs, then how is it immoral to take back what belongs to them? "

This is wrong. However, for the time being, (and only for the time being), I will refuse to correct you on this, since I have not gotten to that part of "Who owns the land" yet. But I will address this issue in time.

"heh, i have a suspicion that A-palestinian is not so much a palestinian... BUT A LEFTIST!!! "

You are commiting a form of the "Falsification by Association " fallacy. (If A holds view q, and B holds view q, then B is A). The reason, is that there is no reason why "view q" is Exclusive.

Ture, you might have ground to suspect it, and in order to remove such suspicion, I will tell you, that I am far from a leftist.

"but ps:
if you can, try to use a less complicated way of speaking when you get into your arguments...
pretend your trying to get your arguments to reach the common man, it shouldnt take too much away from what you actually have to say. "

Thank you for the feedback. I will try to be clearer.

(FYI: Leftists, do not make arguments. They only state arbitrary claims, with no rational derivations. Because of this, most leftist claims are of the form "The ends justify the means". As such, most leftist claims are irrational, and thus evil, and immoral).

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories? "

No.

The statement: "The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral ." is attributed to its policy of evicting all Jews, regardless. That (only specifically), is immoral.

Regarding settlers, I have not gotten to that yet, and so I will not address them for the time being.

[A-Palestinian]

Hmm, I have chosen not to address the arguments between ibronsky and Sharonbn, since both of them are jumping ahead, and talking about the reality, rather than the theory. While it is extremely important to address the reality, I have not gotten past the theory yet, so until that is done, talking about the reality would be a waste of time.

I will first adress ibronsky:

"I never said that forcibly evicting people from their land was OK.

You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. This conclusion is further rein-forced, when you state:

"What I said was that if you choose to revisit all past injustices, then every country on earth will go up in flames. "

By this rationale, If person A kills person B, then person C should not bring person A to justice, since it is a "past wrong", and doing would make the city "go up in flames". Therefore, the next time you are successfully mugged in a downtown alley, do not attempt to go after the mugger, (since it is now a "past injustice"), and do not even attempt to call the Police, (since attempting to bring the mugger to justice would "revert the area into flames").

It is now safe to say, that ibronsky, does not seek Justice - rather, he seeks to IGNORE justice. His bloody conclusions are anti-LIFE, and thus, pro-DEATH.

This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking).

"There is a longstanding debate about whether Palestinian Arabs left Israel voluntarily or were driven away. The historical record suggests both occurred. However, there are one million Arabs living within Israel today, which is fairly convincing evidence that a good number did not feel they were being evicted. "

True. The historical records show that Palestinians either:

1) Voluntarily stayed.
2) Were forcefully evicted
3) Voluntarily ran away.

"The bottomline: instead of discussing the issues in a straightforward manner, you present yourself as the Grand Wizard of Logic "

There is no Wizardry involved here. The only rabbits I pull out of the hat are rational conclusions. But to someone who REJECTS reason such as yourself, it may appear as magic.

...I hope you do not file the next magician you see for attempted murder when he sticks a sword through a box with a hot chick in it.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

This is in continuation with the "theory". Once we have gotten past the theory, then we can address the reality.

I have looked your post over, and I have addressed them, as such:

Your main rebuttal is over Statement 1. At the end of this post, I will address your rebuttal. For now, I will address the minor ones:

"It is indisputable that on the day of the declaration of the state of Israel in May 1948, 600,000 Jews, who mostly came from outside Israel, found a place to live without needing to remove anybody. "

If True, then Non-Sequitor . If false, then Non-Sequitor. The reason is because we are not talking about reality yet. We are talking about Zionism in theory still. However, we will, (and absolutely must) address the reality, but we can only reach rational conclusions on reality, after we have reached rational conclusions on the theory. (Since the reality of a theory, is nothing but implementation of said theory).

Basically, you are putting the donkey before the carriage. You are jumping ahead.

"I go abroad on a long trip. I come back to find some drifter has moved in to my apartment. I claim ownership of the place is my claim valid? is it moral? according to you - it depends on what I do next
I can speak with him and try to persuade him to move out - in this case I am a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is moral.
OR
I can take my gun and shoot both his legs. In this case I am not a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is immoral. "

Notice, that the reason you cannot understand this, is because we have not talked about "who owns the land yet". I have not addressed it, but will. However, to answer your question, if a thief enters your house, then it is MORAL of you to FIGHT the thief off, IF you can show a VALID and a JUST (right) ownership of your house. (Thus, you have an ownership claim to it).

This, regarding a house. But I have not yet addressed the issue of "who owns the land" on the subject which we are discussing yet. So gain, you are jumping ahead. (Yes I will address it).

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.

You state to this: "Again, your statement lacks a third possible condition – Y can stay while X forms its new nation. I showed how this condition is not only possible, but that is what actually happened. "

You make a very subtle mistake here. Read on to find out how.

When I stated this, (as an exmple to show you your fallacy): "I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person. "

..you stated in reply,

"You take “The means justify the ends” and give it a twist: “the means valid the ends”. Basically your saying – regardless if the end is moral or not, if the means chosen to pursue this end are immoral – so is the end itself. "

You mean "The means justify the ends". And No, I meant "The ends justify the means". The ENDS are "Saving mama." The MEANS are : "Kill another person for his kidney."

This is an example of the ENDS justifying the MEANS, and as such, is immoral and evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, those were the minors. Now, consider those: (they are self explanatory).

Consider:
Case 1

then,
Case 2

Now,
Redefine Initial

Thus,
Conclusion

Do you agree with the above? If yes, please state so. If no, please state so, AND pinpoint exactly what you disagree with, and most importantly, where your disagreement lies.

Moreover, DO NOT rebut with "But Israel didn't do blah blah blah, and they did yadda yadda yadda." This is a case for reality, while you are being asked only to deal with the above theory. (for the time being).

[ibrodsky]

I will first adress ibronsky:

The name is ibrodsky.

You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. This conclusion is further rein-forced, when you state:

Now class, here are some wonderful examples of false logic.

A-Palestinian declares that I "implied" it is OK to forcibly evict people from their land. Never mind that I explicitly said I do not believe this; only A-Palestinian knows what I really meant. Besides, it is more convenient for A-Palestinian to adopt a false premise.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as doubtful statement.

In fact, I said it is not right to forcibly evict people from their land, but that going back more than two biologic generations to right such wrongs is problematic because we are likely to run into multiple and sometimes conflicting occurrences. Namely, Jews were evicted from the very same land!

By this rationale, If person A kills person B, then person C should not bring person A to justice, since it is a "past wrong", and doing would make the city "go up in flames". Therefore, the next time you are successfully mugged in a downtown alley, do not attempt to go after the mugger, (since it is now a "past injustice"), and do not even attempt to call the Police, (since attempting to bring the mugger to justice would "revert the area into flames").

Now class, here we are simply dealing with a lack of reading comprehension. I made it very clear that the problem arises when we go back two or more biologic generations. A-Palestinian purposely misinterprets what I said and then attacks the misinterpretation.

This is an example of a classic logical fallacy: the straw man argument.

Here is a more accurate symbolic representation of what I said. Consider the case in which person A kills person B. Two generations pass. Now person B's grandson, person F, wants to bring person A's grandson, person E, to justice. Does anyone see a problem with this? (A-Palestinian: consider this your homework problem for tonight.)

It is now safe to say, that ibronsky, does not seek Justice - rather, he seeks to IGNORE justice. His bloody conclusions are anti-LIFE, and thus, pro-DEATH.

Well, this is a hasty conclusion based on a doubtful statement compounded by a straw man argument. (I'll ignore the fact that it is also an extremely mean-spirited comment -- given your inability to think logically.)

Had you paid attention to what I actually said instead of rushing to refute me, you would have noticed that I concede the founding of Israel involved some injustice towards Arabs.

By the way, since you are most appalled by those who are "anti-LIFE" and "pro-DEATH," I think I should bring to your attention the fact that Palestinian culture has whole-heartedly embraced the idea that it is noble to kill oneself and as many Israeli civilians as possible. They call people who committ such barbaric acts "martyrs." It is hard to imagine a more "anti-LIFE" and "pro-DEATH" ideology.

This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking).

Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

True. The historical records show that Palestinians either:

1) Voluntarily stayed.
2) Were forcefully evicted
3) Voluntarily ran away.

I don't know if it was intentional, but A-Palestinian has falsely re-presented my position. I didn't say it was either A, B, or C; I said it was probably a mixture of A, B, and C.

There is no Wizardry involved here. The only rabbits I pull out of the hat are rational conclusions. But to someone who REJECTS reason such as yourself, it may appear as magic.

Well, you are certainly anxious to convince everyone you are a Master of Logic.

You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest.

[A-Palestinian]

" "Here is a more accurate symbolic representation of what I said. Consider the case in which person A kills person B. Two generations pass. Now person B's grandson, person F, wants to bring person A's grandson, person D, to justice. Does anyone see a problem with this? (A-Palestinian: consider this your homework problem for tonight.)

Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.

"A-Palestinian declares that I "implied" it is OK to forcibly evict people from their land. Never mind that I explicitly said I do not believe this; only A-Palestinian knows what I really meant. Besides, it is more convenient for A-Palestinian to adopt a false premise. "

"You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. "

When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.

Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.

Clean up your act.

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

Ad Hominem

I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.