A Sociopath or Psychopath has shallow emotions, is shameless, is unable to empathize, feels little to no guilt or remorse, is self-assured, never feels that there is anything wrong with him or with his behaviour, and often break laws taking serious risks. He pushes his opinions onto others and can’t understand why anyone would disagree with him.
4- Nazi, SS-Brigadeführer Jürgen Stroop, conducts the final attack, and proceeds to systematically & indiscriminately murder jewish civilians, as well as burn or blow up residential buildings, schools, and synagogues, block by block, between April 19 and April 23, 1943.
He later prepares a detailed record of the operation entitled 'The Jewish Quarter of Warsaw is No More' (Das jüdische Viertel von Warschau ist Nein Mehr), commonly referred to as 'The Stroop Report' (Der Stroop Bericht)
3- Nazi "Defense Forces" (Verteidigung Zwingt) assault the ghetto for the first time, knowing that there will be little resistance from the jewish population, on January 18, 1943. Nazi military incursions continue thereafter for a period of three months, between mid-January and mid-April, justified by jewish "Armed Resistance" who came to be dubbed "Terrorists" (Terroristen)
2- Nazi, SS-Obergruppenführer Odilo L. Globocnik of the General Government directs the ghetto to be "Blockaded from the Outside World" and walled in, on November 16, 1940.
He is recorded as having stated;
'I will not recoil from radical interventions for the solution of Jewish questions'
'The Jews should feed themselves and be supported by their countrymen, as these Jews have enough. If this does not succeed, one should let them starve'
1- Nazi, Hans M. Frank, Governor-General of the German General Government of the "Occupied Territories" in Poland, (Generalgouverneur Für Die Besetzten Polnischen Gebiete), establishes the Warsaw Ghetto for 400,000 Jews crammed in 1.3 sq. miles, on October 16, 1940.
He is recorded as having stated to his Cabinet;
'Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of pity. We must annihilate the Jews'
cont. politically-speaking, it makes no sense b/c the avg Israeli citizen does not believe in leaving land that it knows it fought hard for during 1967...thus, the politics of this is such that the PM at the time (I believe it was Sharon) would have been criticized and easily overtaken in the coming re-election.
Lastly, Israel kept the land for 38 years which is MORE than 1/2 it's modern existence at the time...it could easily have held out more - this was before 2007/2008...
"That does not mean that they love peace, it means that they are happy to have peace when they have what they want."
When a country (ie. Israel) disengages from land MORE THAN ONCE (Sinai, Gaza, etc.) - it is quite clear they want and love peace. What other country have left land on more than one occasion? In fact, what country has ever left land just like that - land it has won in war??? I speak of land gained from war b/c you're main issue seems to be with the West Bank...
"So yes, Israel wants peace...and to keep the land it conquered through war."
Once again, this is a false pretense as Israel relinquished Gaza in 2005...also, Israel held the land from 67' to 05' ... clearly, after 38 years of holding it (which is half the time the modern state existed) it worried very little about the security concerns. In fact, now Israel has greater security threats as Hamas launches rockets and mortars from the very place(s) that Israel disengaged!
If it was a re-organization as you so claim...then ALL the families from Gaza would have moved to the West Bank - now, if you kept up-to-date with anything regarding the disengagement you would know that this is simply not true - in fact, some former residents of Gaza that were forcibly extracted from their homes still are not living in permanent living quarters!
Also - tell me, why would Israel disengage and uproot 8,500 of its own citizens if it wanted to expand its borders? Why would a country who wants to expand its borders LEAVE LAND??? Tell me the logic behind that...clearly, Israel is not looking to expand its borders. This example is clear evidence of such a policy against expanding borders - in fact, it shows the opposite!!!
"A Palestinian family, born in the occupied territory who were either forcibly evacuated or left during the wars, are not able to return."
By occupied territory, I assume you are referring to Gaza and the WB - which, as I clearly showed in previous posts is not occupied but disputed as given by the legal definition of occupation (ie. there must have been an autonomous state in the land prior in order for it to be currently occupied...) ...cont.
once again - your main issue seems to be with Israel having a presence in the West Bank...thus, I ask you the following: Prior to 67' and the Six Day War when Israel captured the land - why did Palestinians not form a Palestinian state in what was then being occupied by Jordan?
@StrummerDude27 Probably the same reason that Jews weren't happy living in an Muslim-Arab state and requested the creation of a Jewish alternative. Now, however, the situation has changed. Their demands have been significantly reduced whereas Israel's have increased.
"Their demands have been significantly reduced whereas Israel's have increased."
Actually, the demands of the Palestinians is that Israel be wiped off the map --- it's not hard to see this when they chant 'from the river to the see, Palestine will be free'...Israel's main demand is that the Palestinians recognize the presence of a Jewish state - it is a simple and easy demand.
@StrummerDude27 Actually, that was the Jewish demand originally. Now they want to keep control of the land that they conquered through war and by extending borders. Plus, if you look at all the foundational Zionism literature, it says exactly the same thing about regaining the land currently occupied by Palestine. It was even in the writings of Netanyahu. There is no difference.
"Now they want to keep control of the land that they conquered through war and by extending borders. "
We went through this argument already and I disproved that ridiculous claim by simply showing that Israel DISENGAGED from Gaza in 2005 - you don't leave land if you are try to 'expand' your borders...
@StrummerDude27 You haven't disproved anything. If you want proof, look at the maps showing the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. I simply don't understand how you be in such denial.
more settlements does not mean they are 'extending their borders' - which is EXACTLY what you farcically claimed Israel was doing...if Israel was 'extending their borders' - then Israel would not have disengaged and uprooted 8,500 of it's own citizens from Gaza in 2005 - go figure...
@StrummerDude27 The reason was that the amount of military protection required to protect those 8500 people far exceeded the worth to Israel. Gaza was worthless land. It has little value. Instead, they withdrew the people from Gaza, and since then have MASSIVELY expanded into the West Bank which is worth more, has more people and allows them to consolidate their security forces. It hasn't been a withdrawal as much as a re-organisation.
"The reason was that the amount of military protection required to protect those 8500 people far exceeded the worth to Israel."
False. As the protection needed was never an issue - the Israeli's relinquished the land as a gesture of peace - don't kid yourself, I know you know at least that much! In fact, to prove you even more wrong, it's been six years since the disengagement and still some families are living in trailers that used to live in houses in Gaza! cont.
Now tell me - it's clear that Israel wants peace b/c it disengaged from Gaza in 2005...it even achieved peace with Egypt with regards to Sinai and with Jordan in the past - thus, this proves Israel wants peace - has done much for peace - and can achieve peace with its neighbors...I ask you - what have the Palestinians done for peace???
@StrummerDude27 Well obviously Israel wants peace. It seems crazy that they wouldn't want peace when they have more than they could have asked for. The British Empire wanted peace in its colonies, as did all the Empires. The Arab dictatorships want civil peace because they have power and they do not want democracies to overthrow them. So yes, Israel wants peace...and to keep the land it conquered through war.
Thus, by forcibly taking out thousands of Israeli civilians from their homes in Gaza, Israel caused an even bigger problem for themselves - finding new homes for these people.
"Well obviously Israel wants peace. It seems crazy that they wouldn't want peace when they have more than they could have asked for."
Actually - they were originally promised by the British Empire what is now Jordan - if you look at the original declaration - however, Israel agreed to losing over 80% of what it was promised to have what is now the modern state of Israel. Thus, they have A LOT less than they were even promised!
@StrummerDude27 Why does all the foundation literature of Zionism call for a complete reclamation of Palestine? Are there Jews in Israel that want Palestine to be destroyed and for the Palestinians to be sent into Jordan or one of the other Arab nations?
"Are there Jews in Israel that want Palestine to be destroyed and for the Palestinians to be sent into Jordan or one of the other Arab nations?"
Of course there are extremists on both sides - what's your point?
You seem to think I think Israel or Israelis in general have never done anything wrong. I already told you before - Israel is not a perfect state - and neither is any other country in the world. Plus, Palestinians were murdered in mass in 1970 by Jordanians...cont.
As I see it, you think I believe Israel is perfect and free from blame - that is incorrect. As an ardent Zionist, I still believe that Israel has made mistakes in the past - and so has every nation. The key here is that it is just wrong and a fallacy to claim that Israel is an apartheid or nazi regime...you know very well that if Mexico fired rockets into civilian populated US cities - there would be no more Mexico in a very short time! Israel is very patient in this regard...
The creation of Pakistan has EVERYTHING to do with the time-frame...it was created around the same time (1947) IN WHAT WAS FORMERLY CONTROLLED BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE...
"You do realise that the indigenous population were converted to Islam, right?"
First off - not all peoples converted to Islam. Second, many of those who did were forcibly converted - it was death or conversion. Much like what Christianity did throughout the ages...and, in America, there are still Native Americans - I suppose you are of the opinion that the hundreds of millions of people in America should leave for the few thousand remaining Native Americans...LOL
"Why does invading and conquering a region give someone an exclusive 'right' to decide what happens to the inhabitants?"
Also - that is how just about every country has come into existence - including America. Thus, b/c just about every country in existence today has come about through these means, that is why it is acceptable. Now, does that mean it is 'correct' to do so - that is a touchy subject, if you say 'yes' you better be prepared to re-map the entire globe.
@StrummerDude27 What a ridiculous, immoral position. You think that invading a country gives someone a right to decide what to do with it? Either you are a confused individual, or you have had to contort common-sense so far to support Israel that you no longer have a reasonable justification for your beliefs.
America was not formed upon a moral foundation. It is widely accepted that the physical and cultural genocide committed upon millions of Indians was appalling.
@Englishdosser86 I think that the current estimation is that in North America, about 10 million native Americans were forcibly exterminated. I know you think that this is justified. But it isn't.
Unfortunately, this was done in a backward, prejudiced era and we would have hoped that it would never be allowed to occur again. Once a certain amount of time passes and the invaders become established over centuries, it becomes less important how they came there...
@Englishdosser86 It becomes impossible to portion blame, especially for crime committed by their ancestors, and their claim to the land increases. Knowledge of this drive Israeli policy. There is an understanding that as long as they can hold out for long enough, no matter how immoral the foundation, it will be impossible to change things.
@StrummerDude27 The reason that Israel is an exceptional case is because: 1) not enough time has passed for them to be absolved of their crimes; 2) there is an opportunity to mitigate the damage caused; 3) Israelis often seem to be in denial - they think they have the moral high ground
@StrummerDude27 I do not believe it becomes 'legal' - it means that legal culpability can not be applied. It becomes impossible to differentiate who was responsible for those crimes. That is not the case with Israel. The expansionist policies are still being implemented; the Palestinian people are still held under Israeli control.
" the Palestinian people are still held under Israeli control."
False. The Palestinian people are under Hamas control in Gaza and PA control in the West Bank - the Palestinian people in those disputed territories are not considered Israeli citizens - thus, they are not under Israeli control. This was clearly seen a few years back when Hamas took over Gaza and killed hundreds of PA politicians, supporters, etc.
" 2) there is an opportunity to mitigate the damage caused; "
Once again, Israel has shown through HUGE CONCESSIONS - like leaving Gaza and uprooting 8,500 of it's own citizens that it wants peace. What it got in return was increased rocket and mortar attacks - i'm sure you realize now, the issue is not that there is no 2-state solution (1 Palestinian state and 1 Jewish state) - the issue is that the Palestinians do not want a Jewish presence in the region.
@StrummerDude27 This is a perfect example of how time is on Israeli sides. Israel has not made huge concessions. It has offered to give back PART of the land initially given to the people of the region. It still holds the other lands that it won through war. At the moment, the Palestinian people no longer ask for all the land back. Only part of it.
You're joking, right??? Israel left Gaza and even uprooted 8,500 of it's own citizens. You're seriously gonna tell me that is not a huge concession??? Pleaseeeeeee
"3) Israelis often seem to be in denial - they think they have the moral high ground"
So now you can read the 'mind' of Israel? LOL - what do you mean by a moral high ground? Do you mean that Israeli's don't go around killing Israelis - unlike what Hamas did to PA leaders...in some cases throwing them off high-rise buildings. That Israeli society is progressive and not primitive and does not believe in suicide bombing, etc.? What exactly do you mean by a 'moral high ground'???
@StrummerDude27 Let's not be infantile. Do you believe that Israel has the moral high-ground? Do you believe that the foundation of the state of Israel was immoral? Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The Israeli government is the same, otherwise they wouldn't be continuing occupying Palestinian land.
"At the moment, the Palestinian people no longer ask for all the land back. Only part of it."
Stop kidding yourself - Israel offered to give back 97% of the WB and they also left Gaza entirely and the Palestinians declined it. You're seriously gonna tell me that the Palestinians don't want all the land? They even declare - 'from the river to the sea - 'Palestine' will be free' --- they say it themselves...
Occupying? Before the creation of Israel in 1948 the land was known as the 'Palestine Mandate' - and it included what is today Jordan as well...as I said before, there was never an autonomous Palestinian state in the history of the world. Thus, the land was never stolen nor occupied by anyone. You can call the WB and Gaza disputed territories...and if the Pals really wanted a state - they could have had one before 67'...
@StrummerDude27 I've told you a few times already that have an 'autonomous' state is a misleading notion. By occupying, I mean land won through conquest. If the Arab nations had been at least partially successful in their war against Israel and conquered large portions of Israeli land. By your logic, they would not have to return it. If they continued to extend their borders and build houses in the name of security, what recourse would Israel have?
This is true only in cases where the land previously had an autonomous entity - in this case, there was a previous Jewish state (actually, there were TWO previous Jewish states, however, there was NEVER a Palestinian one). This is why the notion of having an autonomous entity is RELEVANT.
@StrummerDude27 This has nothing to do with anything. I simply don't see how this is an argument at all. Why should having a nation a few millennia ago trump people who have lived without political representation continuously in a region for centuries to thousands of years. It is absolutely ridiculous. It was a tragedy that they never had an autonomous state. Instead they had foreign powers dominating them. That should be a reason for leniency, not further denial of political sovereignty.
...and yet for 'thousands' of years - which is historically inaccurate esp. b/c you are forgetting that the crusades only happened about 800 years ago. Nevertheless, the reason this is so is b/c there were never what is known as a "Palestinian" nationality prior to the creation of the modern state of Israel. Now, whatever nomadic tribes (like bedouins) lived there had infinite time to 'legally' claim themselves as a nationality and form a unified and autonomous state.
@StrummerDude27 Then the Jews living in Europe had infinite time to claim an autonomous state in Europe. Why did they move to a different country and do it? The whole point was, they had been successfully conquered for centuries. Just like the Jews, often it isn't plausible to band together and create a new country. That's why new countries don't just pop-up every few years.
@StrummerDude27 Israelis don't go around killing Israelis, only Palestinians. Until Israel rectifies the wrongs already committed, Palestine will remain in political disarray. Suicide bombing is terrible - but until Israel address the issues that are create a climate where suicide bombing is encouraged, it will continue. Surely this is obvious.
@StrummerDude27 You specifically said that a conquering nation has the right to control a region as it sees fit. This is wrong. Just because Britain ruled over the area, it does not give them a moral right to displace the indigenous people, encourage a mass immigration and hand over control to this new populous.
Of course it gives them this right - it controls the land, it can do with its inhabitants as it sees fit. I did not say it is correct to do so, I did say that they have the right to do so. There is a big difference between a right and a moral basis. Now, once again, if you disagree - you might as well start re-mapping the ENTIRE Middle East - actually, while you're at it, you better re-map the ENTIRE globe as well...
I disagree - when an entity defeats another nation in times of war - they have every right to decide what they want to do with the 'spoils of war'...it's what every entity does and what every entity has always done in the history of this world.
...and by 'genocide' I am referring in this specific instance to the mass murder or Native Americans throughout what is now the United States of America.
@StrummerDude27 Once again, you're 100% incorrect. I don't justify it. I'm the one who thinks that genocide should never be used as a justification for nation building. But unfortunately, time mitigates crimes. It's actually a legal concept, accepted by the UN and implemented by Israel.
@StrummerDude27 It does not make the foundation moral. It does not excuse the continued procrastination, expansion and denial of wrong-doing of the Israeli government. You agree with that, do you?
expansion? you clearly did not read my post - Israel DISENGAGED from Gaza a few years back...and you also know what happened in response - so, if anything, the opposite of expansion is occurring...
Also - if you want to talk about time-frames with regards to legality and all...let's mention the relatively recent division of Pakistan and India. I believe the division came in 1947...
Why did the Palestinians not make a state when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza??? Clearly the issue here is not about making a Palestinian state - it's about a Jewish state...you know that!
@StrummerDude27 I agree that it was initially about that. But that does not mean that Israel were justified. This was destined to happen. All the Arab nations were unanimous in saying that they didn't want Israel to be created in the land that they wholly dominated. Their wishes were ignored. There was a mass immigration of Jews into the region, which the Arabs realised was the precursor to artificially creating a Jewish nation by force of numbers. There wasn't anything they could do.
"If the Arab nations had been at least partially successful in their war against Israel and conquered large portions of Israeli land. By your logic, they would not have to return it."
Once again, this is incorrect - simply put, b/c of the fact that there was an autonomous Jewish entity in the land before. You can only 'occupy' land that previously was held by an autonomous entity - all other lands held would be correctly described as 'disputed' territory - like the West Bank.
@StrummerDude27 You are obviously wrong. The same argument was used by imperialist conquerors when they invaded America, Asia and Africa. They claimed that people who lived there were not afforded rights because they were not part of a nation, therefore they could be treated however they pleased. It is such an absurd claim. Regardless of what nation they are part of, THEY LIVE THERE. Why should what nation they're part of dictate how others treat them?
@StrummerDude27 The inhabitants of the land, who were in a majority did not want to be in a state where Judaism was the national religion (because they were not Jewish) and where Jews were granted special privileges. Now, all of this is currently a side issue because whatever the reasons for founding Israel, it now exists. It was created in a way that was bound to create discord and war. The main issue is the continued interaction between Israel and Palestine.
What are some of these 'special privileges'??? You do know that a Palestinian in the Israeli Supreme Court just sentenced a former Israeli president to jail...let's see that happen in a vice versa situation in Arab/Muslim countries!...and some people claim Israel is an apartheid regime - LOL
@StrummerDude27 That any Jew, no matter where he is from is able to enter and live in Israel, whereas Palestinians who were born in the areas that are now Israel can not.
"It wasn't the Jewish homeland until 70 years ago."
The land was ALWAYS the Jewish homeland - for thousands of years, Jews have been praying to return to Jerusalem...it's not hard to look this stuff up - look up an English translation or transliteration of a Jewish prayer book :)
@StrummerDude27 Yes, but the vast majority hadn't lived here for thousands of years. They displaced a population of people in order to regain control of it. I don't see how you think that that is ok.
The same follows for Muslims going to Jordan - or any Arab/Muslim country - whether it be to visit or immigrate...and plz don't try to mention a ridiculous claim of racism on the part of Israel --- it's quite clear the policies of Saudi Arabia.
...and let's be clear - the WB is DISPUTED territory - not occupied.
In order for it to be occupied, there would have had to have been a previous autonomous entity in that land - which I think you know well that there was not.
@StrummerDude27 It's only disputed by Israel. The rest of the world doesn't think it's disputed. I don't know why you keep banging on about an 'autonomous' state. Get over it. Israel existed thousands of years ago and was created by decimating all the local population. Why should that be a reason AT ALL?
Besides, the occupied land was granted to the Arab nations with the same authority that created Israel. You can claim that Israel is legitimate, but claim that the land is 'disputed'.
@StrummerDude27 Please don't just cherry pick quotes. Look at what my whole argument is. YOUR basis for legitimacy says that the 'disputed' territory is Palestinian. However, that is not my main argument. So then you agree that the land should be returned to Palestinians?
"So then you agree that the land should be returned to Palestinians?"
I disagree - it should not be 'returned' to the Palestinians b/c it never belonged to them to begin with! Read my post about Egypt and Jordan annexing Gaza and the WB...
"YOUR basis for legitimacy says that the 'disputed' territory is Palestinian."
Don't put words in my mouth - this is in fact the OPPOSITE of what I am saying...the disputed territory is DISPUTED which means by definition it's no ones (and everyone's) land currently.
@StrummerDude27 That is illogical. You can't say that Britain had absolute right to divide the land and then claim that once Arab owned land is disputed. What claim of ownership does Israel have over the land?
"What claim of ownership does Israel have over the land?"
Previous autonomous Israeli states had control of the land - unlike what you said previously about Palestinians controlling the land. Thus, since there was a legal basis as proven by this, Israel has those rights over the land - not to mention the fact that they won the land in war as just abt every country in existence has come abt through those means...I ask - should the US give back Texas to Mexico??? LOL
@StrummerDude27 Please don't 'lol' all the time. It's childish - this isn't a laughing matter. As I stated before, too much time has passed. Mexicans do not want Texas back and more importantly, Texans don't want to be part of Mexico. This happened recently, within a lifetime. Modern countries today do not legitimately claim land by conquest. Whenever they do, people call them for what they are. If the Arab nations had destroyed Israel, I wouldn't be on their side, whereas you would have to be.
@StrummerDude27 Of course I don't. It isn't a decided period of time. It's not like you can say after 100 years has passed, then it's all ok. It's a gradual, evolving process. This is evident from the evolution of the Palestinian demands. They no longer ask for what they once did. Now, just to get the distribution of land decided upon in the 1940s would be more than they could have hoped for.
"They no longer ask for what they once did. Now, just to get the distribution of land decided upon in the 1940s would be more than they could have hoped for."
If they didn't accept it then, they're not gonna accept it now - and plus, the WB and Gaza are not Palestinian lands...before 1967 they were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and before that by the Ottoman Turks (Ottoman Empire) - there was never a Palestinian state-of-sorts in that land.
@StrummerDude27 You are a very confused individual. What do you mean by Palestinian land? I mean the people that inhabit the region. You seem to mean the political entity that controlled them. We are talking at cross-purposes. To me it is largely irrelevant which power had dominion over them.
"You are a very confused individual. What do you mean by Palestinian land? I mean the people that inhabit the region."
Perhaps unfortunately, the Palestinian people never existed before Yasser Arafat in 1964 - what is now the 'Palestinian' people was just a conglomeration of Syrians, Egyptians, etc.
There was no distinct entity known as Palestinian people - politically or not - prior to 1964...
"You can claim that Israel is legitimate, but claim that the land is 'disputed'."
Only the West Bank and Gaza are disputed b/c there was never a previous autonomous state there - hence, why the notion of 'autonomous' matters so much...it's the difference between occupied and disputed territory.
Also, Gaza was annexed by Egypt and the WB was annexed by Jordan prior to 67' - they were never Palestinian land masses to begin with...why didn't Pals ask for a state then?
@StrummerDude27 As I've stated numerous times, having an autonomous state is a peripheral issue. The inhabiting population are afforded rights, a proper code of treatment.
Actually - having a previous autonomous state means everything as i've stated numerous times - with relation to Gaza and the WB - it's the difference between occupied and disputed territory.
It should be counted as a reason b/c it defines whether or not the WB/Gaza are currently being 'occupied' or not - don't you see the significance in that? LOL
Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created. The dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of about 15 of these newly independent states...Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine...all since 1990! LOL
...and if you aren't too blind to see things as they are - there are many Palestinians living inside Israel who have full rights - they can even vote! In fact, women, gays, any Palestinians in general are more free than they would be in many Arab/Muslim countries! So I don't exactly see where you are getting your ridiculous claim of 'special privileges'...
@StrummerDude27 You just admitted it yourself, it is a Jewish state created for Jews, regardless of their relation to the land. A Jewish family who have lived in Europe for the last few hundred years are able to start a life in Israel. A Palestinian family, born in the occupied territory who were either forcibly evacuated or left during the wars, are not able to return.
"You just admitted it yourself, it is a Jewish state created for Jews, regardless of their relation to the land. A Jewish family who have lived in Europe for the last few hundred years are able to start a life in Israel."
Yes - the same way Muslims from around the globe can live in Jordan...or any of the 22 Muslim nations for that matter!
@StrummerDude27 No, they can't. You think any Muslim in the world can just move to a Muslim country? Israel was created especially for Jews, disregarding the indigenous population, which like it or not, were vastly non-Jewish.
@StrummerDude27 You're under a very ignorant misapprehension. 1) Just because someone is Muslim, doesn't mean they have to or want to move to a Muslim country, especially if they have lived in an area for centuries. 2) Countries don't simply allow people to enter because of their religious faith (apart from Israel). Do I really have to explain this to you? If I was childish I could 'lol' at this, but the knowledge that this is the opinion probably held by many zionists is scary.
"1) Just because someone is Muslim, doesn't mean they have to or want to move to a Muslim country, especially if they have lived in an area for centuries."
I didn't say they have to or want to - I said they COULD if they wanted to...but of course no one in their right mind would b/c of the lack of basic freedoms afforded to them in an Islamic state - esp. with regards to women.
"2) Countries don't simply allow people to enter because of their religious faith "
Clearly this is not the most imp. mitigating factor - however, as I'm sure you are well aware, there are plenty of Muslims (over 1mm) living in Israel as well as a huge number of Christians...can't say the same for Saudi Arabia :)
So now laughing out loud is a childish thing??? hahaha - you sound like you don't like to laugh my friend - and btw, i'm not laughing at the subject matter, rather, i'm laughing in response to your comments...
@StrummerDude27 I do like to laugh, but frankly this isn't funny. I know that you're laughing at my responses, but that just makes you seem even more infantile. Like I said, if I was equally childish, I could scoff and laugh at some of your ridiculous comments, like Muslims pray with their backside to Jerusalem. That's just absolutely nuts.
I agree - it's absolutely nuts that they do such a thing!!! When in Jerusalem, Muslims face towards Mecca with their rear ends facing the Old City. I mean they do treat Mecca as their holy place of worship - once again, Jerusalem is not even mentioned once in the Quran...go figure!
@StrummerDude27 This response forces me to choose between two options: either you're actually a Palestinian supporter, satirising Zionistic arguments....or you're a nutcase.
Just b/c I support life and not the butchering of people, that does not mean I am a Palestinian supporter - it means, unlike Palestinian radicals who enjoy killing - actually, they live to kill...look at the irony in that!...--- I just so happen to appreciate the gift of life and believe ALL people have that inalienable right...thinking so only makes me a humanist - not a Palestinian supporter :)
@StrummerDude27 As I've said before, it's easy to call for peace when you have the better end of a bargain. The Germans wanted peace with the French when they occupied France in World War II. All conquering nations was peace with the people they have conquered. That does not mean that they love peace, it means that they are happy to have peace when they have what they want.
"The Germans wanted peace with the French when they occupied France in World War II"
They actually didn't want peace with anyone - to prove this, look at the German relationship with the Bolshevics...it's quite clear that when Germany started occupying Russian lands, they wanted NO PEACE. Your argument is totally flawed...
So you're telling me the Palestinians have NEVER done anything for peace??? B/c you still have yet to respond to my inquiry on what they have ever done for peace...
@StrummerDude27 What about all the peace talks? What about all the concessions in regards to land initially given to the Arab inhabitants that they no longer are asking for back? Is that not considered a step towards peace?
Still waiting for your response on what Palestinians have done for peace and how you can claim that Israel forcibly extraditing its own citizens from Gaza was a 'reorganization' when in fact those families by and large never moved to the West Bank...also - clearly Israel has left land for peace in the past (Sinai Desert and peace treaty with Egypt) - this case (Israel disengaging from Gaza) is NOT a precedence...
@StrummerDude27 I've given you the reason. It was financially and politically too costly to try to protect two occupations. They withdrew and concentrated their efforts in one location; a location that is far richer in resources than the Gaza strip. That obviously does not mean that they have moved everyone from G. to W.B., but they are making up the lost territory in a different location. If they weren't interested in settlement building, then why are they still doing it?
" It was financially and politically too costly to try to protect two occupations."
Once again - your 're-organization' argument is flawed b/c it cost the gov't hundreds of thousands more if not millions to place these families in new homes (thus, the financial prospects of that decision make no sense) --- also, if this was a re-organization then these families would have all moved to the West Bank, and all of them did not...cont.
It's funny you say it was b/c of financial and political tension as the fact of the matter is the disengagement itself was financially burdensome and politically disastrous. Thus, the reason you give for Israel needing to leave the area (financial and political) is in fact what occurred as a result of leaving! LOL...think a little harder next time, but good try!
@StrummerDude27 If they are not trying to expand, then why are they still expanding in the West Bank? You're argument would only make sense if they had withdrawn from Gaza and frozen settlement building in other areas. Unfortunately with you, your argument doesn't make sense when compared to the reality of events.
You are educated enough to know what transpired during September of 1970 in what is known as Black September, right? Or, do I have to give you a history lesson?...
Lastly, if you would like to ask what about from 1948 - 1967...weren't there Palestinians then? The answer is simple - the Palestinians referred to then were in fact JEWS! Shocking, I know - but even Yasser Arafat claimed that the formation of the PLO marked the beginning of the pursuit of Palestinian affairs (the Palestinian 'issue' aka the refugee problem and the presence of a Jewish state in the land).
...and my basis for legitimacy lies in the same underlying reason why countries like Jordan today are legitimate. Remember - the Palestine Mandate originally included Trans-Jordan.
"The main issue is the continued interaction between Israel and Palestine."
I agree - but will specify more --- the main issue is that while Israel is willing to live in co-existence with a Palestinian state, the Palestinians will not hear of a Jewish presence in the region. Simple...
"America was not formed upon a moral foundation. It is widely accepted that the physical and cultural genocide committed upon millions of Indians was appalling."
Appalling or not - you seem to be of the viewpoint that we should now kick out the hundreds of millions of US citizens and return the land to the few thousand remaining Native Americans...however, as I'm sure you realize - like with Israel - this is not a realistic option.
"No I'm not of that viewpoint. I don't believe that Jews should be kicked out of Israel"
So then you also believe in a 2-state solution...well, so do I - however, Israel has proven through disengaging from Gaza and uprooting 8,500 families from the area that it wants peace. And, i'm sure you know that in response - all Israel received was increased rocket and mortar attacks directed at its civilian population. Go figure...
...now you want to list the names of the peoples that Islam has forcibly converted to Islam or obliterated (as you might call it, in a 'genocidal' fashion..)
Islam came AFTER Judaism...so did Christianity - are you sure you want to continue this b/c the obvious result will be a re-mapping of the world. All religions have killed before, though none as much as Islam and Christianity over the ages - hence, this is a mjor reason why they are the two biggest religions today.
@StrummerDude27 Yes, but you have completely missed the point. The fact that it was the 'Holy Land' and rightfully Jewish by divine ordination has been celebrated and was a major reason for encouraging the foundation of Israel. The fact is, it was created by wiping out all the native tribes in the area. I wouldn't bring this up if the idea that the original creation of Israel was a moral claim.
PART IV
A Sociopath or Psychopath has shallow emotions, is shameless, is unable to empathize, feels little to no guilt or remorse, is self-assured, never feels that there is anything wrong with him or with his behaviour, and often break laws taking serious risks. He pushes his opinions onto others and can’t understand why anyone would disagree with him.
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
PART III
(j) 'offering that there was no choice in the matter'
(k) 'providing 'if necessary' a plausible rationale'
(l) 'charging the accuser with bias'
(m) 'discredit the accuser'
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PART II
(a) 'exhibiting undo familiarity with the questioner'
(b) 'drawing sympathy for self'
(c) 'suggesting care and concern for the victim'
(d) 'avoiding any blame'
(e) 'displacing responsibility upon others'
(f) 'professing a conscience and a moral standing'
(g) 'claiming ignorance'
(h) 'attributing antisocial conduct to others'
(i) 'attempting to persuasively assume the victim role'
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
Comment removed
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
Comment removed
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PART I
A True Pinnacle Sociopath or Psychopath:
Observe closely, the highly evolved skills that are so natural to such a personality type,
(i) he displays absolute emotional and physical composure under questioning
(ii) he is exceedingly articulate, deliberate, and soft-spoken, to the point of being almost charming
(iii) he exercises various manipulative tactics, to be convincing;
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
Comment removed
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
Comment removed
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
5- Indeed, Zionists learned well.
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
4- Nazi, SS-Brigadeführer Jürgen Stroop, conducts the final attack, and proceeds to systematically & indiscriminately murder jewish civilians, as well as burn or blow up residential buildings, schools, and synagogues, block by block, between April 19 and April 23, 1943.
He later prepares a detailed record of the operation entitled 'The Jewish Quarter of Warsaw is No More' (Das jüdische Viertel von Warschau ist Nein Mehr), commonly referred to as 'The Stroop Report' (Der Stroop Bericht)
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3- Nazi "Defense Forces" (Verteidigung Zwingt) assault the ghetto for the first time, knowing that there will be little resistance from the jewish population, on January 18, 1943. Nazi military incursions continue thereafter for a period of three months, between mid-January and mid-April, justified by jewish "Armed Resistance" who came to be dubbed "Terrorists" (Terroristen)
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
2- Nazi, SS-Obergruppenführer Odilo L. Globocnik of the General Government directs the ghetto to be "Blockaded from the Outside World" and walled in, on November 16, 1940.
He is recorded as having stated;
'I will not recoil from radical interventions for the solution of Jewish questions'
'The Jews should feed themselves and be supported by their countrymen, as these Jews have enough. If this does not succeed, one should let them starve'
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
1- Nazi, Hans M. Frank, Governor-General of the German General Government of the "Occupied Territories" in Poland, (Generalgouverneur Für Die Besetzten Polnischen Gebiete), establishes the Warsaw Ghetto for 400,000 Jews crammed in 1.3 sq. miles, on October 16, 1940.
He is recorded as having stated to his Cabinet;
'Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of pity. We must annihilate the Jews'
bassammaelborno 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
cont. politically-speaking, it makes no sense b/c the avg Israeli citizen does not believe in leaving land that it knows it fought hard for during 1967...thus, the politics of this is such that the PM at the time (I believe it was Sharon) would have been criticized and easily overtaken in the coming re-election.
Lastly, Israel kept the land for 38 years which is MORE than 1/2 it's modern existence at the time...it could easily have held out more - this was before 2007/2008...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"That does not mean that they love peace, it means that they are happy to have peace when they have what they want."
When a country (ie. Israel) disengages from land MORE THAN ONCE (Sinai, Gaza, etc.) - it is quite clear they want and love peace. What other country have left land on more than one occasion? In fact, what country has ever left land just like that - land it has won in war??? I speak of land gained from war b/c you're main issue seems to be with the West Bank...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
...and you never answered what the Palestinians have ever done towards achieving peace!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"So yes, Israel wants peace...and to keep the land it conquered through war."
Once again, this is a false pretense as Israel relinquished Gaza in 2005...also, Israel held the land from 67' to 05' ... clearly, after 38 years of holding it (which is half the time the modern state existed) it worried very little about the security concerns. In fact, now Israel has greater security threats as Hamas launches rockets and mortars from the very place(s) that Israel disengaged!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
If it was a re-organization as you so claim...then ALL the families from Gaza would have moved to the West Bank - now, if you kept up-to-date with anything regarding the disengagement you would know that this is simply not true - in fact, some former residents of Gaza that were forcibly extracted from their homes still are not living in permanent living quarters!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
Also - tell me, why would Israel disengage and uproot 8,500 of its own citizens if it wanted to expand its borders? Why would a country who wants to expand its borders LEAVE LAND??? Tell me the logic behind that...clearly, Israel is not looking to expand its borders. This example is clear evidence of such a policy against expanding borders - in fact, it shows the opposite!!!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"A Palestinian family, born in the occupied territory who were either forcibly evacuated or left during the wars, are not able to return."
Which somehow explains the over 1mm Palestinians living within the borders of Israel today....riiiiiggght! LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Are you claiming that why I said isn't true? If you are then you are deluding yourself.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
" If you are then you are deluding yourself."
haha - saying so and proving so are two totally different matters...I say the same to you my friend - stop being so delusional.
:)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"A Palestinian family, born in the occupied territory who were either forcibly evacuated or left during the wars, are not able to return."
By occupied territory, I assume you are referring to Gaza and the WB - which, as I clearly showed in previous posts is not occupied but disputed as given by the legal definition of occupation (ie. there must have been an autonomous state in the land prior in order for it to be currently occupied...) ...cont.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
once again - your main issue seems to be with Israel having a presence in the West Bank...thus, I ask you the following: Prior to 67' and the Six Day War when Israel captured the land - why did Palestinians not form a Palestinian state in what was then being occupied by Jordan?
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Probably the same reason that Jews weren't happy living in an Muslim-Arab state and requested the creation of a Jewish alternative. Now, however, the situation has changed. Their demands have been significantly reduced whereas Israel's have increased.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Their demands have been significantly reduced whereas Israel's have increased."
Actually, the demands of the Palestinians is that Israel be wiped off the map --- it's not hard to see this when they chant 'from the river to the see, Palestine will be free'...Israel's main demand is that the Palestinians recognize the presence of a Jewish state - it is a simple and easy demand.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Actually, that was the Jewish demand originally. Now they want to keep control of the land that they conquered through war and by extending borders. Plus, if you look at all the foundational Zionism literature, it says exactly the same thing about regaining the land currently occupied by Palestine. It was even in the writings of Netanyahu. There is no difference.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Now they want to keep control of the land that they conquered through war and by extending borders. "
We went through this argument already and I disproved that ridiculous claim by simply showing that Israel DISENGAGED from Gaza in 2005 - you don't leave land if you are try to 'expand' your borders...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 You haven't disproved anything. If you want proof, look at the maps showing the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. I simply don't understand how you be in such denial.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
more settlements does not mean they are 'extending their borders' - which is EXACTLY what you farcically claimed Israel was doing...if Israel was 'extending their borders' - then Israel would not have disengaged and uprooted 8,500 of it's own citizens from Gaza in 2005 - go figure...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 The reason was that the amount of military protection required to protect those 8500 people far exceeded the worth to Israel. Gaza was worthless land. It has little value. Instead, they withdrew the people from Gaza, and since then have MASSIVELY expanded into the West Bank which is worth more, has more people and allows them to consolidate their security forces. It hasn't been a withdrawal as much as a re-organisation.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"The reason was that the amount of military protection required to protect those 8500 people far exceeded the worth to Israel."
False. As the protection needed was never an issue - the Israeli's relinquished the land as a gesture of peace - don't kid yourself, I know you know at least that much! In fact, to prove you even more wrong, it's been six years since the disengagement and still some families are living in trailers that used to live in houses in Gaza! cont.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Now tell me - it's clear that Israel wants peace b/c it disengaged from Gaza in 2005...it even achieved peace with Egypt with regards to Sinai and with Jordan in the past - thus, this proves Israel wants peace - has done much for peace - and can achieve peace with its neighbors...I ask you - what have the Palestinians done for peace???
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Well obviously Israel wants peace. It seems crazy that they wouldn't want peace when they have more than they could have asked for. The British Empire wanted peace in its colonies, as did all the Empires. The Arab dictatorships want civil peace because they have power and they do not want democracies to overthrow them. So yes, Israel wants peace...and to keep the land it conquered through war.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Thus, by forcibly taking out thousands of Israeli civilians from their homes in Gaza, Israel caused an even bigger problem for themselves - finding new homes for these people.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"Well obviously Israel wants peace. It seems crazy that they wouldn't want peace when they have more than they could have asked for."
Actually - they were originally promised by the British Empire what is now Jordan - if you look at the original declaration - however, Israel agreed to losing over 80% of what it was promised to have what is now the modern state of Israel. Thus, they have A LOT less than they were even promised!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
Comment removed
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
cont.
Why do they chant 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' if they don't want ALL the land??? Thought so...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Why does all the foundation literature of Zionism call for a complete reclamation of Palestine? Are there Jews in Israel that want Palestine to be destroyed and for the Palestinians to be sent into Jordan or one of the other Arab nations?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Why does all the foundation literature of Zionism call for a complete reclamation of Palestine?"
Because Zionism is a nationalistic movement for a Jewish state...and since the two prior Jewish states were in that land - the answer is that simple.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Are there Jews in Israel that want Palestine to be destroyed and for the Palestinians to be sent into Jordan or one of the other Arab nations?"
Of course there are extremists on both sides - what's your point?
You seem to think I think Israel or Israelis in general have never done anything wrong. I already told you before - Israel is not a perfect state - and neither is any other country in the world. Plus, Palestinians were murdered in mass in 1970 by Jordanians...cont.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
Comment removed
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
As I see it, you think I believe Israel is perfect and free from blame - that is incorrect. As an ardent Zionist, I still believe that Israel has made mistakes in the past - and so has every nation. The key here is that it is just wrong and a fallacy to claim that Israel is an apartheid or nazi regime...you know very well that if Mexico fired rockets into civilian populated US cities - there would be no more Mexico in a very short time! Israel is very patient in this regard...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
Comment removed
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"What does this have to do with anything?"
The creation of Pakistan has EVERYTHING to do with the time-frame...it was created around the same time (1947) IN WHAT WAS FORMERLY CONTROLLED BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"You do realise that the indigenous population were converted to Islam, right?"
First off - not all peoples converted to Islam. Second, many of those who did were forcibly converted - it was death or conversion. Much like what Christianity did throughout the ages...and, in America, there are still Native Americans - I suppose you are of the opinion that the hundreds of millions of people in America should leave for the few thousand remaining Native Americans...LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
Comment removed
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Why does invading and conquering a region give someone an exclusive 'right' to decide what happens to the inhabitants?"
Also - that is how just about every country has come into existence - including America. Thus, b/c just about every country in existence today has come about through these means, that is why it is acceptable. Now, does that mean it is 'correct' to do so - that is a touchy subject, if you say 'yes' you better be prepared to re-map the entire globe.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 What a ridiculous, immoral position. You think that invading a country gives someone a right to decide what to do with it? Either you are a confused individual, or you have had to contort common-sense so far to support Israel that you no longer have a reasonable justification for your beliefs.
America was not formed upon a moral foundation. It is widely accepted that the physical and cultural genocide committed upon millions of Indians was appalling.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86 I think that the current estimation is that in North America, about 10 million native Americans were forcibly exterminated. I know you think that this is justified. But it isn't.
Unfortunately, this was done in a backward, prejudiced era and we would have hoped that it would never be allowed to occur again. Once a certain amount of time passes and the invaders become established over centuries, it becomes less important how they came there...
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86 It becomes impossible to portion blame, especially for crime committed by their ancestors, and their claim to the land increases. Knowledge of this drive Israeli policy. There is an understanding that as long as they can hold out for long enough, no matter how immoral the foundation, it will be impossible to change things.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" it will be impossible to change things."
Hence how just about every country today is in existence...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 The reason that Israel is an exceptional case is because: 1) not enough time has passed for them to be absolved of their crimes; 2) there is an opportunity to mitigate the damage caused; 3) Israelis often seem to be in denial - they think they have the moral high ground
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"1) not enough time has passed for them to be absolved of their crimes;"
...and who exactly determines how much time must pass before it becomes 'legal'??? you??? LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I do not believe it becomes 'legal' - it means that legal culpability can not be applied. It becomes impossible to differentiate who was responsible for those crimes. That is not the case with Israel. The expansionist policies are still being implemented; the Palestinian people are still held under Israeli control.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" the Palestinian people are still held under Israeli control."
False. The Palestinian people are under Hamas control in Gaza and PA control in the West Bank - the Palestinian people in those disputed territories are not considered Israeli citizens - thus, they are not under Israeli control. This was clearly seen a few years back when Hamas took over Gaza and killed hundreds of PA politicians, supporters, etc.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" 2) there is an opportunity to mitigate the damage caused; "
Once again, Israel has shown through HUGE CONCESSIONS - like leaving Gaza and uprooting 8,500 of it's own citizens that it wants peace. What it got in return was increased rocket and mortar attacks - i'm sure you realize now, the issue is not that there is no 2-state solution (1 Palestinian state and 1 Jewish state) - the issue is that the Palestinians do not want a Jewish presence in the region.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 This is a perfect example of how time is on Israeli sides. Israel has not made huge concessions. It has offered to give back PART of the land initially given to the people of the region. It still holds the other lands that it won through war. At the moment, the Palestinian people no longer ask for all the land back. Only part of it.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Israel has not made huge concessions."
You're joking, right??? Israel left Gaza and even uprooted 8,500 of it's own citizens. You're seriously gonna tell me that is not a huge concession??? Pleaseeeeeee
The Palestinian people have made NO concessions.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"3) Israelis often seem to be in denial - they think they have the moral high ground"
So now you can read the 'mind' of Israel? LOL - what do you mean by a moral high ground? Do you mean that Israeli's don't go around killing Israelis - unlike what Hamas did to PA leaders...in some cases throwing them off high-rise buildings. That Israeli society is progressive and not primitive and does not believe in suicide bombing, etc.? What exactly do you mean by a 'moral high ground'???
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Let's not be infantile. Do you believe that Israel has the moral high-ground? Do you believe that the foundation of the state of Israel was immoral? Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The Israeli government is the same, otherwise they wouldn't be continuing occupying Palestinian land.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"At the moment, the Palestinian people no longer ask for all the land back. Only part of it."
Stop kidding yourself - Israel offered to give back 97% of the WB and they also left Gaza entirely and the Palestinians declined it. You're seriously gonna tell me that the Palestinians don't want all the land? They even declare - 'from the river to the sea - 'Palestine' will be free' --- they say it themselves...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"continuing occupying Palestinian land."
Occupying? Before the creation of Israel in 1948 the land was known as the 'Palestine Mandate' - and it included what is today Jordan as well...as I said before, there was never an autonomous Palestinian state in the history of the world. Thus, the land was never stolen nor occupied by anyone. You can call the WB and Gaza disputed territories...and if the Pals really wanted a state - they could have had one before 67'...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I've told you a few times already that have an 'autonomous' state is a misleading notion. By occupying, I mean land won through conquest. If the Arab nations had been at least partially successful in their war against Israel and conquered large portions of Israeli land. By your logic, they would not have to return it. If they continued to extend their borders and build houses in the name of security, what recourse would Israel have?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"By occupying, I mean land won through conquest"
So you agree that besides for the West Bank and Gaza - all the rest is rightfully Israeli land...good!
In other words, the debate is only about the WB - since there is no Israeli presence in Gaza anymore...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 When did I ever say that? Have you been reading what I wrote?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"By occupying, I mean land won through conquest."
This is true only in cases where the land previously had an autonomous entity - in this case, there was a previous Jewish state (actually, there were TWO previous Jewish states, however, there was NEVER a Palestinian one). This is why the notion of having an autonomous entity is RELEVANT.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 This has nothing to do with anything. I simply don't see how this is an argument at all. Why should having a nation a few millennia ago trump people who have lived without political representation continuously in a region for centuries to thousands of years. It is absolutely ridiculous. It was a tragedy that they never had an autonomous state. Instead they had foreign powers dominating them. That should be a reason for leniency, not further denial of political sovereignty.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
...and yet for 'thousands' of years - which is historically inaccurate esp. b/c you are forgetting that the crusades only happened about 800 years ago. Nevertheless, the reason this is so is b/c there were never what is known as a "Palestinian" nationality prior to the creation of the modern state of Israel. Now, whatever nomadic tribes (like bedouins) lived there had infinite time to 'legally' claim themselves as a nationality and form a unified and autonomous state.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Then the Jews living in Europe had infinite time to claim an autonomous state in Europe. Why did they move to a different country and do it? The whole point was, they had been successfully conquered for centuries. Just like the Jews, often it isn't plausible to band together and create a new country. That's why new countries don't just pop-up every few years.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Then the Jews living in Europe had infinite time to claim an autonomous state in Europe."
Which they didn't b/c Europe was never the homeland of the Jewish nation...as opposed to Israel - which was for thousands of years.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"That's why new countries don't just pop-up every few years."
Actually, they do...LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Israelis don't go around killing Israelis, only Palestinians. Until Israel rectifies the wrongs already committed, Palestine will remain in political disarray. Suicide bombing is terrible - but until Israel address the issues that are create a climate where suicide bombing is encouraged, it will continue. Surely this is obvious.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" Israelis don't go around killing Israelis, only Palestinians. "
Whereas Palestinians go around murdering Israelis AND Palestinians...go figure.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"I know you think that this is justified. But it isn't."
I didn't say it was justified - I did say that re-mapping the ENTIRE globe is just unrealistic.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 You specifically said that a conquering nation has the right to control a region as it sees fit. This is wrong. Just because Britain ruled over the area, it does not give them a moral right to displace the indigenous people, encourage a mass immigration and hand over control to this new populous.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Of course it gives them this right - it controls the land, it can do with its inhabitants as it sees fit. I did not say it is correct to do so, I did say that they have the right to do so. There is a big difference between a right and a moral basis. Now, once again, if you disagree - you might as well start re-mapping the ENTIRE Middle East - actually, while you're at it, you better re-map the ENTIRE globe as well...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 No - it does not give them a 'right'. It just means no one can stop them. The two are not the same.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
I disagree - when an entity defeats another nation in times of war - they have every right to decide what they want to do with the 'spoils of war'...it's what every entity does and what every entity has always done in the history of this world.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"it becomes less important how they came there..."
Clearly YOU are justifying genocide on the parameters that time heals all injustices...LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
...and by 'genocide' I am referring in this specific instance to the mass murder or Native Americans throughout what is now the United States of America.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Once again, you're 100% incorrect. I don't justify it. I'm the one who thinks that genocide should never be used as a justification for nation building. But unfortunately, time mitigates crimes. It's actually a legal concept, accepted by the UN and implemented by Israel.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" It's actually a legal concept, accepted by the UN and implemented by Israel."
So then there's no issue - legality and all...glad we can agree!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 It does not make the foundation moral. It does not excuse the continued procrastination, expansion and denial of wrong-doing of the Israeli government. You agree with that, do you?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
expansion? you clearly did not read my post - Israel DISENGAGED from Gaza a few years back...and you also know what happened in response - so, if anything, the opposite of expansion is occurring...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Also - if you want to talk about time-frames with regards to legality and all...let's mention the relatively recent division of Pakistan and India. I believe the division came in 1947...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 What does this have to do with anything?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
Comment removed
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Why did the Palestinians not make a state when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza??? Clearly the issue here is not about making a Palestinian state - it's about a Jewish state...you know that!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I agree that it was initially about that. But that does not mean that Israel were justified. This was destined to happen. All the Arab nations were unanimous in saying that they didn't want Israel to be created in the land that they wholly dominated. Their wishes were ignored. There was a mass immigration of Jews into the region, which the Arabs realised was the precursor to artificially creating a Jewish nation by force of numbers. There wasn't anything they could do.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"If the Arab nations had been at least partially successful in their war against Israel and conquered large portions of Israeli land. By your logic, they would not have to return it."
Once again, this is incorrect - simply put, b/c of the fact that there was an autonomous Jewish entity in the land before. You can only 'occupy' land that previously was held by an autonomous entity - all other lands held would be correctly described as 'disputed' territory - like the West Bank.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 You are obviously wrong. The same argument was used by imperialist conquerors when they invaded America, Asia and Africa. They claimed that people who lived there were not afforded rights because they were not part of a nation, therefore they could be treated however they pleased. It is such an absurd claim. Regardless of what nation they are part of, THEY LIVE THERE. Why should what nation they're part of dictate how others treat them?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 The inhabitants of the land, who were in a majority did not want to be in a state where Judaism was the national religion (because they were not Jewish) and where Jews were granted special privileges. Now, all of this is currently a side issue because whatever the reasons for founding Israel, it now exists. It was created in a way that was bound to create discord and war. The main issue is the continued interaction between Israel and Palestine.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Jews were granted special privileges."
What are some of these 'special privileges'??? You do know that a Palestinian in the Israeli Supreme Court just sentenced a former Israeli president to jail...let's see that happen in a vice versa situation in Arab/Muslim countries!...and some people claim Israel is an apartheid regime - LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 That any Jew, no matter where he is from is able to enter and live in Israel, whereas Palestinians who were born in the areas that are now Israel can not.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"That any Jew, no matter where he is from is able to enter and live in Israel..."
Well yes - it is the JEWISH state...make sense?
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Yes...so then why did you say that they weren't afforded special privileges?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
you call a Jew visiting the Jewish homeland a 'special privilege??? hardly...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Not visiting, immigrating. It wasn't the Jewish homeland until 70 years ago.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"It wasn't the Jewish homeland until 70 years ago."
The land was ALWAYS the Jewish homeland - for thousands of years, Jews have been praying to return to Jerusalem...it's not hard to look this stuff up - look up an English translation or transliteration of a Jewish prayer book :)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Yes, but the vast majority hadn't lived here for thousands of years. They displaced a population of people in order to regain control of it. I don't see how you think that that is ok.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"They displaced a population of people in order to regain control of it. I don't see how you think that that is ok."
By 'they' you must mean the British Empire - and they did the same with Jordan...look who rules Jordan, a MINORITY party!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Not visiting, immigrating."
The same follows for Muslims going to Jordan - or any Arab/Muslim country - whether it be to visit or immigrate...and plz don't try to mention a ridiculous claim of racism on the part of Israel --- it's quite clear the policies of Saudi Arabia.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
...and let's be clear - the WB is DISPUTED territory - not occupied.
In order for it to be occupied, there would have had to have been a previous autonomous entity in that land - which I think you know well that there was not.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 It's only disputed by Israel. The rest of the world doesn't think it's disputed. I don't know why you keep banging on about an 'autonomous' state. Get over it. Israel existed thousands of years ago and was created by decimating all the local population. Why should that be a reason AT ALL?
Besides, the occupied land was granted to the Arab nations with the same authority that created Israel. You can claim that Israel is legitimate, but claim that the land is 'disputed'.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Besides, the occupied land was granted to the Arab nations with the same authority that created Israel. You can claim that Israel is legitimate..."
Glad we can agree :)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Please don't just cherry pick quotes. Look at what my whole argument is. YOUR basis for legitimacy says that the 'disputed' territory is Palestinian. However, that is not my main argument. So then you agree that the land should be returned to Palestinians?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"So then you agree that the land should be returned to Palestinians?"
I disagree - it should not be 'returned' to the Palestinians b/c it never belonged to them to begin with! Read my post about Egypt and Jordan annexing Gaza and the WB...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 When it was annexed, who had control of it?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
It was annexed in 1947...the WB was controlled by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 So by what right is Israel claiming it?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"YOUR basis for legitimacy says that the 'disputed' territory is Palestinian."
Don't put words in my mouth - this is in fact the OPPOSITE of what I am saying...the disputed territory is DISPUTED which means by definition it's no ones (and everyone's) land currently.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 That is illogical. You can't say that Britain had absolute right to divide the land and then claim that once Arab owned land is disputed. What claim of ownership does Israel have over the land?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"What claim of ownership does Israel have over the land?"
Previous autonomous Israeli states had control of the land - unlike what you said previously about Palestinians controlling the land. Thus, since there was a legal basis as proven by this, Israel has those rights over the land - not to mention the fact that they won the land in war as just abt every country in existence has come abt through those means...I ask - should the US give back Texas to Mexico??? LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Please don't 'lol' all the time. It's childish - this isn't a laughing matter. As I stated before, too much time has passed. Mexicans do not want Texas back and more importantly, Texans don't want to be part of Mexico. This happened recently, within a lifetime. Modern countries today do not legitimately claim land by conquest. Whenever they do, people call them for what they are. If the Arab nations had destroyed Israel, I wouldn't be on their side, whereas you would have to be.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" Please don't 'lol' all the time. It's childish"
I can't help it - your comments are very amusing :)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I find your comments tragic. I also find your attitude disturbing.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"I find your comments tragic. I also find your attitude disturbing."
The feeling is mutual my friend...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"Modern countries today do not legitimately claim land by conquest."
Umm - you must have forgotten about Chechnya...and, once again, I ask - who determines exactly how much time must pass? You???
You never answered this question that I posed previously...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Of course I don't. It isn't a decided period of time. It's not like you can say after 100 years has passed, then it's all ok. It's a gradual, evolving process. This is evident from the evolution of the Palestinian demands. They no longer ask for what they once did. Now, just to get the distribution of land decided upon in the 1940s would be more than they could have hoped for.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"They no longer ask for what they once did. Now, just to get the distribution of land decided upon in the 1940s would be more than they could have hoped for."
If they didn't accept it then, they're not gonna accept it now - and plus, the WB and Gaza are not Palestinian lands...before 1967 they were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and before that by the Ottoman Turks (Ottoman Empire) - there was never a Palestinian state-of-sorts in that land.
cont.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 You are a very confused individual. What do you mean by Palestinian land? I mean the people that inhabit the region. You seem to mean the political entity that controlled them. We are talking at cross-purposes. To me it is largely irrelevant which power had dominion over them.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"You are a very confused individual. What do you mean by Palestinian land? I mean the people that inhabit the region."
Perhaps unfortunately, the Palestinian people never existed before Yasser Arafat in 1964 - what is now the 'Palestinian' people was just a conglomeration of Syrians, Egyptians, etc.
There was no distinct entity known as Palestinian people - politically or not - prior to 1964...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
cont.
and I am against the mass murder of people - ALL PEOPLE - even my sworn enemies.
Most people look at others and see what they see - GREAT people look at others and see what they are!
I hope that sticks with you for a longgg time...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"You can claim that Israel is legitimate, but claim that the land is 'disputed'."
Only the West Bank and Gaza are disputed b/c there was never a previous autonomous state there - hence, why the notion of 'autonomous' matters so much...it's the difference between occupied and disputed territory.
Also, Gaza was annexed by Egypt and the WB was annexed by Jordan prior to 67' - they were never Palestinian land masses to begin with...why didn't Pals ask for a state then?
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 As I've stated numerous times, having an autonomous state is a peripheral issue. The inhabiting population are afforded rights, a proper code of treatment.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Actually - having a previous autonomous state means everything as i've stated numerous times - with relation to Gaza and the WB - it's the difference between occupied and disputed territory.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I know you keep saying that, but I haven't heard why it should be counted as a reason.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
It should be counted as a reason b/c it defines whether or not the WB/Gaza are currently being 'occupied' or not - don't you see the significance in that? LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 No...
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created. The dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of about 15 of these newly independent states...Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine...all since 1990! LOL
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
...and if you aren't too blind to see things as they are - there are many Palestinians living inside Israel who have full rights - they can even vote! In fact, women, gays, any Palestinians in general are more free than they would be in many Arab/Muslim countries! So I don't exactly see where you are getting your ridiculous claim of 'special privileges'...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 You just admitted it yourself, it is a Jewish state created for Jews, regardless of their relation to the land. A Jewish family who have lived in Europe for the last few hundred years are able to start a life in Israel. A Palestinian family, born in the occupied territory who were either forcibly evacuated or left during the wars, are not able to return.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"You just admitted it yourself, it is a Jewish state created for Jews, regardless of their relation to the land. A Jewish family who have lived in Europe for the last few hundred years are able to start a life in Israel."
Yes - the same way Muslims from around the globe can live in Jordan...or any of the 22 Muslim nations for that matter!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 No, they can't. You think any Muslim in the world can just move to a Muslim country? Israel was created especially for Jews, disregarding the indigenous population, which like it or not, were vastly non-Jewish.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"No, they can't. You think any Muslim in the world can just move to a Muslim country?"
What's stopping them?
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 You're under a very ignorant misapprehension. 1) Just because someone is Muslim, doesn't mean they have to or want to move to a Muslim country, especially if they have lived in an area for centuries. 2) Countries don't simply allow people to enter because of their religious faith (apart from Israel). Do I really have to explain this to you? If I was childish I could 'lol' at this, but the knowledge that this is the opinion probably held by many zionists is scary.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"1) Just because someone is Muslim, doesn't mean they have to or want to move to a Muslim country, especially if they have lived in an area for centuries."
I didn't say they have to or want to - I said they COULD if they wanted to...but of course no one in their right mind would b/c of the lack of basic freedoms afforded to them in an Islamic state - esp. with regards to women.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"2) Countries don't simply allow people to enter because of their religious faith "
Clearly this is not the most imp. mitigating factor - however, as I'm sure you are well aware, there are plenty of Muslims (over 1mm) living in Israel as well as a huge number of Christians...can't say the same for Saudi Arabia :)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"If I was childish I could 'lol' at this..."
So now laughing out loud is a childish thing??? hahaha - you sound like you don't like to laugh my friend - and btw, i'm not laughing at the subject matter, rather, i'm laughing in response to your comments...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I do like to laugh, but frankly this isn't funny. I know that you're laughing at my responses, but that just makes you seem even more infantile. Like I said, if I was equally childish, I could scoff and laugh at some of your ridiculous comments, like Muslims pray with their backside to Jerusalem. That's just absolutely nuts.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"That's just absolutely nuts."
I agree - it's absolutely nuts that they do such a thing!!! When in Jerusalem, Muslims face towards Mecca with their rear ends facing the Old City. I mean they do treat Mecca as their holy place of worship - once again, Jerusalem is not even mentioned once in the Quran...go figure!
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 This response forces me to choose between two options: either you're actually a Palestinian supporter, satirising Zionistic arguments....or you're a nutcase.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Just b/c I support life and not the butchering of people, that does not mean I am a Palestinian supporter - it means, unlike Palestinian radicals who enjoy killing - actually, they live to kill...look at the irony in that!...--- I just so happen to appreciate the gift of life and believe ALL people have that inalienable right...thinking so only makes me a humanist - not a Palestinian supporter :)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 As I've said before, it's easy to call for peace when you have the better end of a bargain. The Germans wanted peace with the French when they occupied France in World War II. All conquering nations was peace with the people they have conquered. That does not mean that they love peace, it means that they are happy to have peace when they have what they want.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"The Germans wanted peace with the French when they occupied France in World War II"
They actually didn't want peace with anyone - to prove this, look at the German relationship with the Bolshevics...it's quite clear that when Germany started occupying Russian lands, they wanted NO PEACE. Your argument is totally flawed...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
Comment removed
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
So you're telling me the Palestinians have NEVER done anything for peace??? B/c you still have yet to respond to my inquiry on what they have ever done for peace...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 What about all the peace talks? What about all the concessions in regards to land initially given to the Arab inhabitants that they no longer are asking for back? Is that not considered a step towards peace?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Still waiting for your response on what Palestinians have done for peace and how you can claim that Israel forcibly extraditing its own citizens from Gaza was a 'reorganization' when in fact those families by and large never moved to the West Bank...also - clearly Israel has left land for peace in the past (Sinai Desert and peace treaty with Egypt) - this case (Israel disengaging from Gaza) is NOT a precedence...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 I've given you the reason. It was financially and politically too costly to try to protect two occupations. They withdrew and concentrated their efforts in one location; a location that is far richer in resources than the Gaza strip. That obviously does not mean that they have moved everyone from G. to W.B., but they are making up the lost territory in a different location. If they weren't interested in settlement building, then why are they still doing it?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" It was financially and politically too costly to try to protect two occupations."
Once again - your 're-organization' argument is flawed b/c it cost the gov't hundreds of thousands more if not millions to place these families in new homes (thus, the financial prospects of that decision make no sense) --- also, if this was a re-organization then these families would have all moved to the West Bank, and all of them did not...cont.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
It's funny you say it was b/c of financial and political tension as the fact of the matter is the disengagement itself was financially burdensome and politically disastrous. Thus, the reason you give for Israel needing to leave the area (financial and political) is in fact what occurred as a result of leaving! LOL...think a little harder next time, but good try!
:)
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 If they are not trying to expand, then why are they still expanding in the West Bank? You're argument would only make sense if they had withdrawn from Gaza and frozen settlement building in other areas. Unfortunately with you, your argument doesn't make sense when compared to the reality of events.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
" but they are making up the lost territory in a different location."
You can't 'make up the lost territory' if you ALREADY CONTROL IT...hahaha!
They have nothing to actually 'make up' - unless of course they start re-settling in Gaza...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 By lost 'territory' I was referring to settlements. Was that not obvious?
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
You are educated enough to know what transpired during September of 1970 in what is known as Black September, right? Or, do I have to give you a history lesson?...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
Lastly, if you would like to ask what about from 1948 - 1967...weren't there Palestinians then? The answer is simple - the Palestinians referred to then were in fact JEWS! Shocking, I know - but even Yasser Arafat claimed that the formation of the PLO marked the beginning of the pursuit of Palestinian affairs (the Palestinian 'issue' aka the refugee problem and the presence of a Jewish state in the land).
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
...and my basis for legitimacy lies in the same underlying reason why countries like Jordan today are legitimate. Remember - the Palestine Mandate originally included Trans-Jordan.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"The main issue is the continued interaction between Israel and Palestine."
I agree - but will specify more --- the main issue is that while Israel is willing to live in co-existence with a Palestinian state, the Palestinians will not hear of a Jewish presence in the region. Simple...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
"America was not formed upon a moral foundation. It is widely accepted that the physical and cultural genocide committed upon millions of Indians was appalling."
Appalling or not - you seem to be of the viewpoint that we should now kick out the hundreds of millions of US citizens and return the land to the few thousand remaining Native Americans...however, as I'm sure you realize - like with Israel - this is not a realistic option.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 No I'm not of that viewpoint. I don't believe that Jews should be kicked out of Israel.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Englishdosser86
"No I'm not of that viewpoint. I don't believe that Jews should be kicked out of Israel"
So then you also believe in a 2-state solution...well, so do I - however, Israel has proven through disengaging from Gaza and uprooting 8,500 families from the area that it wants peace. And, i'm sure you know that in response - all Israel received was increased rocket and mortar attacks directed at its civilian population. Go figure...
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@Englishdosser86
...now you want to list the names of the peoples that Islam has forcibly converted to Islam or obliterated (as you might call it, in a 'genocidal' fashion..)
Islam came AFTER Judaism...so did Christianity - are you sure you want to continue this b/c the obvious result will be a re-mapping of the world. All religions have killed before, though none as much as Islam and Christianity over the ages - hence, this is a mjor reason why they are the two biggest religions today.
StrummerDude27 1 month ago
@StrummerDude27 Yes, but you have completely missed the point. The fact that it was the 'Holy Land' and rightfully Jewish by divine ordination has been celebrated and was a major reason for encouraging the foundation of Israel. The fact is, it was created by wiping out all the native tribes in the area. I wouldn't bring this up if the idea that the original creation of Israel was a moral claim.
Englishdosser86 1 month ago