You are the bigot against immigrants, and a racist supremecist who thinks Arabs as a race somehow deserve to own everything, even when they have never been the sole residents.
Former CIA analysts crusade for Palestine
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You are the bigot against immigrants, and a racist supremecist who thinks Arabs as a race somehow deserve to own everything, even when they have never been the sole residents.
Please don't play the moral relativist here. It's a "Palestinian" wet dream to see the 2 sides compared to each other in polite conversation.
It's not "2 sides hating each other". It's one side wants to genocide the other, and the other begging the other "come on, let's be friends instead". I'll leave the mystery of figuring out who is who to you.
Its not bigotry to put the people already in a region before immigrants
??? nice strawman. No I just think they should be given what they did own which happened to by most of the land. As british records show.
Which is why I support the notion of working toward one country for all palestinians weather they be jews or arab rather than supporting a state for only one ethncity like you do. I recognize the region has more than one resident ethnicty and believe all should be treated fairly.
Jews like you don't want that ever coming to pass.
Israel
palestine
as i just showed not much of a mystery.
Can you point me to some Israeli "come on, let's be friends instead" initiatives or statements?
Now we have the Palestinians described as a "race", and their defenders racial supremicists. Interesting.spidergoat said:
The three and four generation residents now evicted from their houses now bulldozed or occupied, the established farmers and gardeners and orchardists now evicted from their lands of tended crops now bulldozed, fenced off, or owned by others who did not pay for them, the three and four generation residents of landscapes now denied them even for travel through, at gunpoint,
do deserve a somewhat different arrangement. If ordinary justice is a concern.
I had to make the distinction, because, strictly speaking, Jews are Palestinians too. But if you think Jews should have no political rights because they are Jews, that's racist.
I agree that Arabs deserve a different arrangement, but so do the Jews. Their aggression is fueled by an equally violent Islamic nationalism. The only difference is, the Jews won the battle.
your not going to get any where. Although its a spider here fits the stereotype of the jewish person's blind loyalty to Israel and blind acceptence of the official Israeli line.
I certainly do not accept the official line, and if you got your head out of your ass, you would realize that I do not dispute the book in the original post. However, I do object to the one-sided view that Palestinians can do no wrong and Israelis are all to blame.
Which is why you repeat the line that it was the arabs that started the conflict. That they rejected the pariatian simply because they hate jews?
that's not my view at all. I blame 5 countries for the palestinian's plight in order Israel, the United Kingdom, The United States of America, Jordan, and Egypt.
back toward the topic its not surprising to me in the least that people with the access to the most info come to support the palestinian side. The Israeli narrative is filled with fuck ups once you actually look at he history.
The Palestinians wanted the immigrant non-Palestinians to be citizens of their state [see King Crane Commission Report 1909], but the non-Palestinians, leaders of whom were all mostly atheist, wanted a non-Palestinian state, based NOT on their religious laws, but strangely, mostly European and Ottoman laws. In fact, the criteria under which non-Palestinianss are permitted to "return" to occupied Palestine, are not by religious definitions [except when the "returnee" is a non-Palestinian convert to another religion]
Note that non-Palestinians have lived in Jerusalem ever since the Muslims recaptured it from the crusaders, the ONLY period when non-Palestinians were BANNED in Jerusalmem being under Crusader rule, although even this is now being considered as a false interpretation of the history/
So which part of it is the monotheism? Which one the bad ideology?
Meanwhile, the Palestinian demand is for a state of equal rights for all its citizens with rights for those who were kicked out in 1948, as they have always been, and the non-Palestinians want a state of the non-Palestinians and want the Palestinians to recognise that its a state of the non-Palestinians.
Note that even today, while being asked to be satisfied with 20% of their historic homeland [real, not mythological], the Palestinians are still willing to give equal rights and citizenship to those non-Palestinians who are already living there while the non-Palestinians support evicting the Palestinians who have not yet been removed from the occupied territories and are meanwhile treated as second class citizens. Guess which one is the only democracy in the Middle East supported with funds weapons and recognition by western secular nations that bark regularly about human rights
So which one is the monotheism, which one the bad ideology?
Last edited:
What religion? The one followed by the non-theist areligious nonPalestinians?
Last edited:
Stop talking about "human rights", SAM. They are what westerners claim them to be, what you claim them to be, what others claim don't exist at all other than as an ideal.
In other words, "human rights" vary according to the speaker. Idealistic inconsistencies ignored or passed off as irrelevant.
"Human rights" are a ideological tool used by those who know how to use it to gain ground with the ignorant.
Want a man to agree with your viewpoint? Use his ideology. Appeal to his emotion. All arguments lose ground in the face of that. Man does not see logic where his heart is at stake.
As to the rest of that diatribe...
The Israelis know that if the Palestinians gain autonomy, they will become an idealistic enemy as much as any other of the Islamic Arab nations already are.
Watching this sort of thing, watching religious nuts fight out doctrine, watching political nuts fight out ideals, watching economic nuts fight out territory... all of it is like watching a game of Rugby. Or Gridiron. Chess.
It's World War 1 without the lines.
One yard at a time.
How does it feel to be a pawn?
Btw... I'm still waiting for my little plot of land in Somerset. The Romans. The Sais. The Angles, Jutes, The Norse. Fuckers. Give it back.
Last edited:
Palestine has nothing to do with religion, clownboy. Religion is a recruitment poster.
Every Muslim country was once autonomous in its own right before the Muslims came. Islam is a variation on Christianity which came after, and Christianity supplanted that which came before it.
How far back do you want to go? Creation?
If you desire spirituality, think in lines and then circles. If you want truth, think of religion as an argumentative tool.
yah, giving the sinai to Egypt for starters, giving Gaza and the west bank to the arabs. Making peace with the kingdom of Jordan.
Correct me if im wrong, but christianity and Islam have nothing to do with each other, in reality the Islamic tribe was an off shoot of the Jewish tribe far far before Christ came along and his crusades that f****** us all over.