- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 10,664
- Reaction score
- 4,606
But it isn't Jew land. And they are stronger than you. They are not quitters like you.
you sound like a head case and considering I don´t wish you ill I won´t indulge in your madness
But it isn't Jew land. And they are stronger than you. They are not quitters like you.
Don't be obtuse. You know that if you reject the claim that the Jews from Europe have a historical link to the land then you are committed to the opposite claim that the Jews from Europe have no historical claim to the land.
But please, go ahead and clarify why you reject the claim.
Its addressed your position as stated in your post with 2 questions, don't come at me with some bullshit you have invented in your head that i'm not allowed to do that.
My questions are both potential logical conclusions drawn from the consequences of your position, maybe I gave you too much credit here but I didn't think it was that hard to work out. As I posted before I fully expect more bullshit and evasion and that I'm wasting my time.
I don't see it as an occupation. The West Bank is part of Israel. Your argument is that Israel has no authority to move people around within their own country. I disagree with that.
Why don't you humor me and tell me what my position actually is, since you seem to have missed the boat on that from the very beginning.
You are being obtuse. I never said that Israel doesn't have the legal right to be in Israel. I said that the European Jews have no valid claim to the land, whether you call it Israel or Palestine. There is no link genetic or otherwise to any native Jewish people in the land.No you're shifting the argument YET AGAIN. You can't even make a coherent argument from one post to the next, or even make the same argument for two consecutive posts. That land is in Israel. To claim that Israel has no legal right to land that's in Israel is beyond retarded. That was my point. It's consistently been my point for the length of this thread. In less than two hours you'ce claimed that I've said that European Jews have some historic link to the land, then claimed that I didn't, and are now moving on to a third claim. I'm not saying any of that, so please stick to the consistent point I've made in this thread and stop adding in all your stuff to my posts and then addressing that instead of just addressing what I've actually said. Notice how Kafir-kun and I are actually having a conversation? It's because he's actually addressing my points and not adding in filler to avoid addressing what I said.
You mean I was right and you cannot do anything.you sound like a head case and considering I don´t wish you ill I won´t indulge in your madness
Why does it have to be the Palestinians who leave?West Bank should just become Israel proper and do population transfer like with Greeks and Turks or how the millions of Germans were transfer from places Germans had settled in WWII. If Israel had done this in the last major wars the region be a lot quieter.
Only way it will stop. One side must win there be no peace.
Why does it have to be the Palestinians who leave?
No you're shifting the argument YET AGAIN. You can't even make a coherent argument from one post to the next, or even make the same argument for two consecutive posts. That land is in Israel. To claim that Israel has no legal right to land that's in Israel is beyond retarded. That was my point. It's consistently been my point for the length of this thread. In less than two hours you'ce claimed that I've said that European Jews have some historic link to the land, then claimed that I didn't, and are now moving on to a third claim. I'm not saying any of that, so please stick to the consistent point I've made in this thread and stop adding in all your stuff to my posts and then addressing that instead of just addressing what I've actually said. Notice how Kafir-kun and I are actually having a conversation? It's because he's actually addressing my points and not adding in filler to avoid addressing what I said.
Why not? I do not care about either but prefer Israel for it not being Islamic oppressive hell hole to non muslims. To me it simple. There is tons of Arab like 20 states and tons more of Muslim majority countries that are 90% or more muslim like 40 or more. Jews got 1 country that it and it is a small country that is attacked and been attacked many times even after holocaust. It not mater to me that some come from Europe they share same religion to they original people who lived in that area and have been oppressed by the ther two religions.
I mean all religion is crazy and just insanity but currently in world and has been for many years Islam is main problem.
I sure it will eventually happen as the west becomes more muslim eventually they be some backlash and I bet the EU and stuff will not care so much what Israel does.
Unless I msiread an earlier post, the land that Israel continues to steal is outside of Israel re: 1967 boundaries?
If you conquer something, it becomes yours. That's how the world has always worked. Israel sees that as part of Israel and so did the rest of the world for an entire generation.
What about the Christian and secular Palestinians?
Also, there is plenty of space for Jews in Australia. Why not go there and leave the Palestinians among other Arab/Muslim countries?
Israel is very oppressive towards non Jews and black, Palestine isn't.
What about the Christian and secular Palestinians?
Also, there is plenty of space for Jews in Australia. Why not go there and leave the Palestinians among other Arab/Muslim countries?
Israel is very oppressive towards non Jews and black, Palestine isn't.
If you conquer something, it becomes yours. That's how the world has always worked. Israel sees that as part of Israel and so did the rest of the world for an entire generation.
By now I do and I've argued as much before on this forum but in that post I was talking about the historical moment right when the Zionist settlement project began, where native Palestinians faced expulsion by Ashkenazim Jews who claimed the land because "Muh Torah!". The religious claims are absolute BS, as far as I'm concern whatever claim they think they have based on archaeology have passed their statute of limitationsIt depends on what way you're going with this. The Settlements have been there since the 60s. That's a full generation. How many Israelis where born there? Do you consider them native? Because by the logic you just laid out, you should.
By now I do and I've argued as much before on this forum but in that post I was talking about the historical moment right when the Zionist settlement project began, where native Palestinians faced expulsion by Ashkenazim Jews who claimed the land because "Muh Torah!". The religious claims are absolute BS, as far as I'm concern whatever claim they think they have based on archaeology have passed their statute of limitations
Ah, I see. The typical zionist argument: violence is okay when it works for the jew, international law is okay as long as it works for the jew, but fuck both and the goy if such does not work for the jew.
Chosen people 101.
This is just a typically awful response.
Right but again I was talking about the initial settlement project, not the territory captured in the subsequent wars. I think co existence will be hard without, at the very least, a just solution to the Palestinian issue which the Israelis don't seem very keen on finding at this point.I totally agree that religious claims to land are nonsense. It also wasn't that simple. The Syrian military frequently occupied the Golan Heights and used it to fire artillery rounds onto Israeli citizens. So they took it over and moved civilians in under the premise that civilians could not be ordered out the way troops could be.
The only real solution is that these people are going to have to learn to co exist, and that isn't happening any time soon.