Meanwhile in the State of Isreal/Palestine(?)Follow

In that sense, yes. Given that this is exactly what you were denying in your previous post, that's some progress, at least.




I don't care what else they have in common. I'm asking what they *don't* have in common. "Built on land arbitrarily divvied up by European interests in the 20th century" is something Israel shares with almost every other nation in the region, so you can't point to that and declare that this is why Israel shouldn't exist (but presumably the other nations should). Find something else that differentiates Israel from say Lebanon. Then get back to me.


Pssst! I'll give you a hint. It's that Israel is a Jewish state. It's ok. You can admit this. Everyone else has figured it out, so there's no reason to lie about it.

Edited, Mar 28th 2014 2:36pm by gbaji

You actually think that antisemitism in Europe was the result of Zionism? Um... I'm not even sure how to respond to that.



Which would be a great argument if, as I already pointed out, the nation of Israel were somehow unique in being created specially and just for them. The reality is that Jewish desires to create a nation in the Holy Land were largely ignored and rebuffed for most of that century. It was only after WW2 when Europe (the UK mainly) finally got around to divvying up the Middle East and they also felt really guilty about the whole "killing 6-8 million Jews" thing, that they decided that since they were creating all these other nations anyway, they really maybe ought to set a space aside for the Jews lest they really look like complete a-holes.

Could you imagine?

Churchill: Well. We know there's a long history of Jews being treated horribly in Europe, and we did just exterminate a huge number of you guys, and we are right in the middle of arbitrarily dividing up the very region where your religion was founded and your people ultimately came from, but even though there's like a zillion square miles of land, and you're only asking for like a few thousand, and we're handing the holiest areas for Islam to them, and a whole bunch of other areas as well, we're going to give them your original land too.

Ghost of Hitler: Amen brother!

I mean, let's not put any of this into any sort of perspective. That would just be crazy.



You must have not even opened the book. Because from your posts it sounds like you have close to no knowledge of the history of the region in question, much less the process of creating the various nations in that region over the last century or so. It's like you skipped from "Jews kicked out of region a thousand years ago" to "Jews being mean to people in Gaza today" and didn't pay any attention to anything in between.

Few weeks ago at this point, I think. Maybe a little less.

I think he bounced back and forth a little between the two. While he has a large post count, I assume constant down votes over the years eroded that advantage.

[edit: Shows as scholar to me]

Edited, Mar 29th 2014 1:26pm by Jophiel

Unfortunately he burned through every reason for it, from it being an affront to his freedom of speech to proving his point to it being intentional in a single day so any more discussion about it is just gonna be kind of boring.

No ones really seems to be getting beyond the past (duh).
These settlement bulldozing disputes are normal growing pains of a nation. The problems with how this nation was founded shouldn't be the issue. Land disputes are fodder for politicians. That makes no difference to way that they approach one another diplomatically.
You can't have diplomacy if one of the parties doesn't acknowledge that you're even in the room.

(I'm not even taking sides here, but I think that if this type of thing was in America it would be like Waco burnings meets the Move Movement bombing on a weekly basis... but we already had ours at places like Little Big Horn, didn't we?)

I'd say the Aztlan movement in the US southwest is a better one though. Because it's not really about moving whole people who were living in an area long distances, but a deliberate effort to divide a once much more blended population among ethnic (or religious) lines and then lay claim to the whole area for just one of those groups. And in both cases, the group making the broad claim is hard to define. Exactly who is descended from the Aztecs? Just native Americans? Just those who lived south of the border for the last century? Those who lived on both sides all along? Those who claim to Mexican citizenship somehow? Or is it just anyone who doesn't look too white?

Same deal here. What exactly makes up the "Palestinians" who are making this claim? Only those directly descended from those living in the area at the time Zionism started (so early 20th century, possibly even late 19th?). Anyone descended from those living there in 1948? What about Jewish people who can trace their lineage to those living in the area at that time period (cause it's not like there haven't been Jews living in that region the entire time, right?). Who exactly are these Palestinians? And what gives them more right than anyone else to the land in that area?

That's the problem with this issue. You dig into it far enough and it kinda becomes obvious that it's not really about land claims for some native group of people, but is purely about a religiously driven political agenda to destroy the one Jewish state in the region.

So most of you condone the unwillingness of the Muslim Palestinians to come to any compromise at all because.. well.. **** it.
Is that it?

I don't think that the emotional baggage of the past should be any excuse for condoning hatred but for some reason you seem to be OK with it.
If Native American tribes started threatening death to Europeans and refused to recognize the US as a legitimate governing body then that would be justified in your eyes?

Let's call it like it is. Prior to 1948 there was both Jews and Muslims living there that both identified as the old Roman moniker "Palestinian".
Jews move in.. a lot.. but after this A LOT of Arabs from all over the Middle-east and Europe began immigrating as well to counteract the Jewish immigration... Not just Arab.. also Egyptians(Arafat), Turks, Kurds, Algerians..

So the land was basically rejuvenated by commerce, farming, irrigation... transformed into a functioning Nation.
Now it's there to stay.
But most people seem to take the simplest point of view "Jooz stoled the lands!!".

So what are the viewpoint here? Jews must die because we in our ivory towers of freedom and "democracy" LOVE the underdog. Is that it? You would prefer to fan the flames of racial and religious hatred for the sake of political ideology over an actual honest discussion of compromise and peace?

There's too many people that want the people on the other side of the fence to die, so they'll all keep lobbing missiles at each other until that happens.

Haters gonna hate.

Yes.

Of course not, but that isn't what you asked.

Yeah... I never thought I would say it, but Kerry is even worse than Hillary.

Hillary is a major *****, but at least she occasionally can get sh*t done.

*google edit*

Edited, Apr 1st 2014 7:08pm by angrymnk

How about a little someone named John Bolton?

Well, he does have that power-mustache going for him.. although he is the kinda guy I can see using the "N-word" a lot around the dinner table.