The zionist questionFollow

Put your ***** for Israel back in your pants. The governments actions have done more than enough to entice everything that Palestine throws at them. When your "back yard" has tanks and APC's sitting it all day, and you are surrounded by a giant wall, of stone razor wire, and machine gun fire, I think you are entitled to shoot a few rockets or blow yourself up so your family might be able to sit out back in the sun without threat of an over zealous Israeli trooper taking liberties with his shoot first ask questions later doctrine.

Everything Israel gets they deserve. Outside of mass murder they are treating the Palestinians the exact same way the ***** did the Jews. **** Israel, its a stain on the world map and should have been removed a long time ago. Support of Israel is why the Arabs largely despise us. The West pours money into Israel, but not any of the other nations, and what has Israel done in return?

My concern, personally, is that Britain shouldn't have been such an asshole about handing away land that was already occupied. That was just sort of a **** move.



Yeah, neither side has acted well in this, I would never pretend that they have.

So your justification is the prolonged subjugation of the natives. Right, that's great.

Mexicans with Spanish ancestors are the rightful of inhabitants of Morocco, right? I mean, that's pretty much the same situation. Do you hate Mexicans or something?



Desperate people subjected to slow genocide in support of extremism shocker.

It's a problem Israel made for itself. If they weren't hung up on having some ******* medieval "Jewish state" and accepted the Arabs as equals then there wouldn't be much appeal in extremism. They've turned a police problem into a military problem so as to further 'justify' their barbarism.



Which also had the happy coincidence of changing the facts on the ground prior to negotiation. "Lol this Palestinian land which is on our side of the fence? Naw bruh, can't give it back, dem sandniggers will murder us. We'll just have to keep it". There's also the fact that it violates international law.



Which is obviously a result of the embargo imposed on Palestine. Apparently chocolate, jam, canned fruit, fruit juice etc are essential components to weapons making. Teddy bears are some brutal ************** my grandfather lost his arm to one in dubya dubya two.



Those dumb ******* civilians and their daily routines. They should have known better than to send their kids to school while being Arab.

So when are we going to nuke Iraq and Afghanistan?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40417/karma-norway-camp-breivik-shot-up-celebrated-hamas-jew-hatred/comment-page-2/#comment-730489

Mostly just things like this.

If you think there's a justification for the current treatment of Palestinian civilians then you're beyond any logical conversation, and at any rate unwilling to participate in one. Enjoy your indoctrination.

I don't need a defense, that burden is on you.



He said as he cherry-picked one statement and answered it with an excuse that's already been addressed.

The US won't be a world power forever. One day Israel will lose its western support, and if it continues on this path it will reap what it's sowed and be obliterated.

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 1:46pm by zukunftsangst

They teach you that tactic at the JIDF academy?

"When losing ground in an argument, call the opponent a ****** and tell them to prove you wrong."

Now which exact part of the OP is it that you want me to justify? Do you think you can vague up your posts a bit more for me?

Id say any number of years of attack is warranted with 33+ years of occupation. Or do you think that random bombings of **** supplies and such in the various occupied nations in Europe (primarily Norway,Denmark,Belgium,France,Holland) By the citizens of those countries were out of line. I mean the ****'s occupied them so they should have just bent over and took it right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm (since you like the BBC)

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 2:28pm by rdmcandie

We obviously have different views of the word "occupation".

Your response to the genesis of the state of Israel was essentially "Nuh-uh, doesn't count! Two wrongs don't make a right!"

If you think that was sufficient, that's fine. But it's not really anything worth responding to. Was there a specific argument you feel invalidates the history of ownership?

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 1:33pm by Jophiel

You should do your homework since my comments about the chain of ownership were in regards to the original state. If your argument is that it's "unfair" that Israel should hold territory seized following a failed attempt to destroy them by their neighboring states... well, that's up to you but I find it hard to give much sympathy. Maybe you should ***** about their neighbors instead.

As a response to your first post. I would hardly say this summarizes the sentiment I've expressed in the whole of this thread.



Rather, I don't think the ownership is valid in the first. Imperialism might be the reality of the world, but I don't see that as a reason to accept the current state of affairs. I would say that the people who've continuously inhabited the region for millennia have natural rights which supersede those of military conquerors and those who they pledge the land to.

It's my opinion, and I would be obliged to say a matter of fact, that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is no particularly different than any other matter of colonization or imperialism. Only, it's been clouded by ethnic matters. 'The Jews have suffered great persecution through history so we'll turn a blind eye to their current war crimes', etc.

tl;dr in hindsight, Palestine should have accepted the Peel commission partition plan back in '37.

Here's a map.

National boundaries and ownership of various sections of the world do change over time. I suspect that it is you who were making an exception in this one case, not the other way around.



Which people though? Have you actually studied this issue? Have you looked at the population numbers in the region in question going back to say the 1920s? Have you looked at the ratio of various ethnic/religious populations over that time period? The region was fairly sparsely populated until after the Jews began putting a lot of money into building their new nation of Israel. When it was just a smallish number of Jew, Christians, and Muslims living in the area, no one cared much, and no one fought over it much. Tourists came and went and that was about it.

The people you today call Palestinians are largely made up of the descendants of those Arab tribespeople who moved into the area *after* the Jews began spending lots of money and effort to build it up. In many cases, they moved there deliberately in order to prevent the creation of a Jewish state, often at the request (or demand) of the Muslim run states nearby. During the British Mandate period, it was a fairly common practice for the neighboring states to push the nomadic groups out of their territory and into the Palestinian territory. Partly because this allowed them to get rid of troublemakers and extra mouths to feed and foist them on the British, but it's hard to read the historical records and not see a strong anti-semitic aspect to it as well.




I'd say that the blinds eye aspect has been overwhelmingly outweighed by the anti-semitic angle though. No other group of people would have faced such great opposition to the creation of a state, right? The reason we have conflict is because there are large groups of people who've opposed a Jewish state from day one and have acted to create a conflict in order to prevent it. That conflict continues today.

Palestine is the name for the general territory. It's not an ethnic or national identity. The Jews living in Israel are *also* Palestinian. As are the Christians. As are the numerous Muslims who live peacefully in Israel itself. For some strange reason, you (and many others) attribute this label to just the Muslims who were pushed out of Jordan, Syria, and Eqypt and told to make trouble in Isreal, and who then got caught up in the middle when those three nations attempted to invade, and then became refugees when the nations they initially came from refused to take them back after the conflict ended. Very very very few people living in the camps and calling themselves Palestinians were people who'd been living in the area for generations prior to the creation of the Jewish state in the first place.


I just think it's complete absurdity to attempt to grant some kind of centuries (or even millenium) long struggle of a local people, when most of them can't trace their heritage in the area itself to a time prior to the actual struggle itself. The reality is that the Palestinians moved (forcibly in some cases) into the region either immediately before the conflict(s) or shortly afterwards. And they were moved there deliberately to create the exactly conflict and problems that we're seeing. And in the most bizarre twist, those refugee camps have experienced some of the highest population growths since the conflict began. Strange, don't you think? Most people would be attempting to move out of such camps, and you'd certainly expect population growth within them to be low, right? It's fairly clear that people are moved into those camps deliberately to create a problem for Israel and to make people like you feel sorry for them.


You should feel sorry for them. But it wasn't Israel who screwed them over.

Your disclaimer carries very little water with me, Heydrich.

Tell you what; you go separate the Pallys who are all "Can't I just have my farm back" from the Pallys who are all "Israel and the Jews are all maggots who have no right to exist" then get back to me.

Until that happens the problem in not resolvable.