Al Jazeera reporter killed during Israeli raid in West Bank

Since when does the rain fall on the plain in Spain ? Why are you asking silly questions. People have identified with the region now known as Palestine for thousands of years... .

Define Jewish Palestinians

 

Jewish Palestinians - Jews who have lived in the region called Palestine while it was called Palestine.

Prove that people who identified with the region thousands of years ago are the non Jewish Palestinians of today.

 

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

Re:

Yes, it's typical Hasbara B.S. through and through
I've already shown through multiple sources the degree to which Israel's paid, trained and scripted Hasbara trolls have secretly infected Wikipedia (Post #1003 was the second time I've posted sources exposing Israel's paid Hasbarats)

Re:

That's all that Israel's propagandists can do, slander the messenger:

The ACT.IL tactic is based on the “trick” revealed by former Israeli Education Minister Shulamit Aloni.

“WELL, IT’S A TRICK, WE ALWAYS USE IT. WHEN FROM EUROPE SOMEBODY IS CRITICIZING ISRAEL, THEN WE BRING UP THE HOLOCAUST. WHEN IN THIS COUNTRY (THE US) PEOPLE ARE CRITICIZING ISRAEL, THEN THEY ARE ANTI-SEMITIC…..IT’S VERY EASY TO BLAME PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE CERTAIN ACTS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AS ANTI-SEMITIC, AND TO BRING UP THE HOLOCAUST, AND THE SUFFERING OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE, AND THAT IS TO JUSTIFY EVERYTHING WE DO TO THE PALESTINIANS.”

Re:

What difference does it make?
Why is the testimony of Nakba survivors any less credible than that of holocaust survivors?

Re:

I've repeatedly shown how Israel's paid, trained and scripted Hasbara propagandists have infected Wikipedia and MSM, what evidence do you have to show that Arab News, Hub of Middle East Politics, Middle East Monitor and Countercurrents parrot the Palestinian position?

 

Prove that anyone there has that designation .. What a pile of steaming nonsense. and a joke.. albeit a failed one .. Name some Jew that can give a lineage back to the Canaanites .. tell us what plot of land they were settled on.

Go ahead now .. lets see this lineage .. which entitles this particular Jew to some Historical right to the land .. and then tell me the total number of Jews that can do the same .. BWAAAA HAAAA HAAAAA ..

Just kidding .. I would have to be a moron to suggest such a thing .. no need to go canvasing the Jewish neighborhoods .. desperate for a few that can prove lineage .. and plot of land.. in a failed effort to support some general historical right of Israel to the land.

Already proved what you asked mate --- Palestinians . as a group . and Jews .. are both Canaanites .. according to DNA .. here is a more detailed answer .. a little acadamia .. as opposed to the fantasy necessary illusion to which you cling.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/

and once again .. think you would have lerned by now - Crucified ..

 

Some Jew? Sure. The extended Cohen Modal Haplotype (the priestly gene), absent in non-Jews, traces back to one individual who lived in the region more than three thousands years ago.

The existence of the Jewish people, and their connection with the land later called Palestine, is well documented throughout history, unlike the alleged existence of a non-Jewish Palestinian people, supposedly living on the same land in the same period of time. Why?

Your link doesn't prove that Jews and Palestinians are Canaanites. It only proves that, at some point in history, ancestors of today's Jews and Palestinians mixed with Canaanites, or with populations of Canaanite origin. We're not told when and were the mixing occurred, nor how.

Canaanites, by the way, still survive in Lebanon. The Lebanese are mostly of Canaanite origin, Arabized Canaanites, not Arabs.

 

Okay, so you will be open to sources outside of Wikipedia containing the exact same information?
Or are Abu Mahmud, Hazam Nusseibeh, Haj Ayish and Mohammed Radwan simply figments of the imagination of Hasbara trolls?

Source not cited.

It makes a BIG difference. There is a BIG distinction between saying that nothing happened AT ALL in Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, and saying that something DID happen, but it was not a massacre. You claimed that Israel denies that the Deir Yassin massacre even happened. And so I asked again: do they deny that it happened at all, or do they just deny that it was specifically a "massacre?"

Are we talking about 'Nakba?'

Would you say that Arab News, Hub of Middle East Politics and Middle East Monitor are objective sources on this subject?

 

Alright, I see what you're saying now. Earlier you said:

"Dirty deeds to hide?" I have been conversing with you on and off for years now, and I swear that your sentence structure and use of grammar used to be different and I was able to understand you better. I don't mean to be rude, but is English your first language? Surely you can see that "dirty deeds to hide" was not the best way that you could have said it.

 

Alright, but I still don't understand how you think that a motive is equal to criminal proof.

 

Then you should surely be at least OPEN to the idea that it was a massacre.

 

As a general rule, the kind of sources anti-Zionists use are very unreliable. It's dangerous to be open to ideas expressed in these sources, but I do my best to be as objective as humanly possible. The benefit of the doubt, you know. There's always hope that some of their articles are written by people driven by genuine concern for human rights.

It's very hard to fight against an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms and hides among civilians. The civilian death toll was probably higher than the principle of proportionality in war allows, but the circumstances were very different from conventional wars. Seems that one soldier did shoot civilians intentionally, as retaliation for the death of a fellow soldier. If true, then a massacre was committed by one soldier, but we can't say that the whole attack was a massacre.

 

Well I didn't mention any such sources. I'm just saying that you should surely be at least OPEN to the idea that it was a massacre.

No, but we can be open to the idea.

 

I'm open to ideas, as long as facts don't block the way.

I'll give you one example: there's a poster here who claims that IDF employs mercenaries. I live in Israel, I know tons of people who served, or are currently serving, in the army. I know for a fact that the poster's claim is bullshit on steroids. This is one idea I'm not open to.

 

The two are not equal - one is part of the other -- some other parts were given. Regardless is silliness to be asking for Criminal Proof - this is also were understanding is lacking.

 

I don't mean to be rude either .. but your reading comprehension is lacking.. my short hand is just fine .. meaning conveyed .. English is first language .. and am far smarter than you.

get all that mate

"Not the best way" - good grief .. you need to examine your own posts and figure out your own gross failure prior to pretending to have some clue what the best way is.

 

Proof ?? Is it not generally moronic to talk in terms of absolute Proof" - when talking about History ? .. and if you realize this .. why are you talking "Proof" You have no defacto proof... for any of your claims .. and in some cases such is not possible.

Regardless -- what we do have proof of ... Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times.

They do have an idea of when the mixing occurs .. You have no clue what you are talking about .. and what we do know .. is that both Jews and Palestinians were mixing in the region .. both having the same historical claim to the land ..

The fact that Cannanites still survive in Lebanon -- in of itself - makes nonsense of your claim that "non Jews" in the region have as much historical right to the land as Israel .. how is it that you are unable to figure this out ?

 

"Dirty deeds to hide" is nonsense. It's not even shorthand, which is something very specific.

 

Why is it silly?

 

"Dirty Deeds" . What is it that you do not understand ?

What is it about - " someone having dirty deeds to hide could be motive" .. has you so confounded and confused .. so much so that you run around crying "Nonsense" I don't get it mate.

 

You're still are conceding to that 6 independent investigations proved that Israel murdered a reporter.
You are conceding since you're not disputing it.

The US isn't an independent party.

 

That's not what you said though. You just said "dirty deeds to hide."

 

But CNN is?

 

Was in response to the question of motive ... duh ..

So once again - what is it about - " someone having dirty deeds to hide could be motive" did you not understand -- and why should anyone continue talking to someone who exhibits such disingenuous lack of understanding ..

 

Well that's irrelevant because you said it nonetheless. It doesn't matter what it was in response to.

There is nothing about that which I do not understand. I understand it perfectly, but again, it's not what you said. You just said "dirty deeds to hide."

 

So you clearly DO NOT believe that the 6 independent inquiries by the six non-governmental bodies have ANYTHING to do with any official international investigation. Hey, it looks like we agree on something!

 

Of course matters what it was in response to.

You asked - "What is the motive" I responded "dirty deeds to hide"

and from this you could not figure out that " Israel having dirty deeds to hide could be a motive"

I can help you no further other than remember that mrning comes to those who cry