BREAKING: Trump team said to tell Israelis: Western Wall is not your territory

[Roudy]

Theft and murder is what Muslims did and do all over the Middle East, and the world. Go study some history.

Theft and murder is what THE EUROPEAN CONVERTS did and do all over the Middle East, and the world. Go study some history.

Jews are going back to their ancient religious, ancestral, and cultural homeland, as predicted by their own religious book.

You have again conflated European converts to biblical Jews.

OMG, I'm still explaining things to this guy...

Idiot, your religion spread through invasions, murder, theft, looting and rape. Your prophet did a great job providing the perfect example for his followers. As Islam came way later than the other faiths, it was the Muslims /. Arabs that first invaded and looted all of the Middle East, and then made their way into Christian Europe. Which then caused the Christians the initiate the Crusades to repel the Muslim invaders.

European Jews simply went back to their spiritual and ancestral land. The land was under Ottoman rule for the last 700 years, during which it has never been under Arab control. When the Ottoman Empire fell, the entire region was divided into the separate Muslim shitholes of intolerance, oppression, and violence that we see today, while at the same time allowing the Jews to also have their homeland on less than one percent of the land in the region. Arabs had absolutely no control or say in who gets what. They started a genocidal civil war against the Jews, and have been getting their asses kicked since then.

Now repeat after me Achmed: IDF Akbar! IDF Akbar!

 

[Roudy]

...The embassy moving to Jerusalem is a question of when not if.

You're pissed like poor Sheldon who spent jillions on this.

Report of Adelson's anger at Trump over embassy move follow similar reports of growing frustration by Netanyahu-backer at Trump's Israel policy
read more: Sheldon Adelson 'furious' at Tillerson over delay in U.S. embassy move
Sheldon Adelson 'furious' at Tillerson over delay in U.S. embassy move

Moving that embassy would destroy any chance for peace, but that's what they want.

View attachment 127121

Like I said it's a question of when and not if. Prepare to poop in your pantalones and then eating it when that happens.

 

[Shusha]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

 

[montelatici]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

Ask yourself if the Roma/Rom/Romani would have the right to expel the people in northwestern India to create a state of their own by expelling the native Indians that are there now?

 

[Roudy]

Zzzzzz. Same shit different thread. Stay on topic.

 

[Shusha]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

Ask yourself if the Roma/Rom/Romani would have the right to expel the people in northwestern India to create a state of their own by expelling the native Indians that are there now?

Are you asking me if the Roma have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? By extension, are you asking if ANY peoples have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? Of course peoples have rights to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands.

Agree or not? (I'll get to the part about expelling people next.)

 

[montelatici]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

Ask yourself if the Roma/Rom/Romani would have the right to expel the people in northwestern India to create a state of their own by expelling the native Indians that are there now?

Are you asking me if the Roma have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? By extension, are you asking if ANY peoples have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? Of course peoples have rights to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands.

Agree or not? (I'll get to the part about expelling people next.)

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

 

[louie888]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

Ask yourself if the Roma/Rom/Romani would have the right to expel the people in northwestern India to create a state of their own by expelling the native Indians that are there now?

Are you asking me if the Roma have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? By extension, are you asking if ANY peoples have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? Of course peoples have rights to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands.

Agree or not? (I'll get to the part about expelling people next.)

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

Yeah, totally insane, really.

 

[Hollie]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

Ask yourself if the Roma/Rom/Romani would have the right to expel the people in northwestern India to create a state of their own by expelling the native Indians that are there now?

Are you asking me if the Roma have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? By extension, are you asking if ANY peoples have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? Of course peoples have rights to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands.

Agree or not? (I'll get to the part about expelling people next.)

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

However, you insist that Arab invaders / colonizers have a right to lands taken by force because that appeals to your Joooo hatreds.

 

[Roudy]

The European Jews there today have nothing to with the Israelites of biblical times in any way at all whatsoever.

Hey, here's an idea for you to think about. Let's say we DID find a people who CLEARLY had everything in common with the Israelites of ancient history. Do you think THOSE people might have some sort of rights to their ancestral territory?

Ask yourself if the Roma/Rom/Romani would have the right to expel the people in northwestern India to create a state of their own by expelling the native Indians that are there now?

Are you asking me if the Roma have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? By extension, are you asking if ANY peoples have the right to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands? Of course peoples have rights to self-determination (sovereignty) on their ancestral lands.

Agree or not? (I'll get to the part about expelling people next.)

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

Yeah, totally insane, really.

His sock is agreeing with himself, like a donkey wagging it's own tail, and then braying.

 

[Shusha]

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

Its not the least bit crazy. What is crazy is trying to argue on the one hand that invading and colonizing peoples hold all the rights to the territory while arguing on the other that invading and colonizing peoples have no rights to the territory. What is crazy is trying to argue that expelled or murdered peoples have no rights to a territory while arguing on the other that the expelled and murdered peoples are the only ones with rights to the territory. You can't have it both ways.

Either indigenous peoples whose sovereignty has been lost due to invasions, conquests, expulsions, ethnic cleansings and colonization have inherent rights or they don't. Either invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights or they don't.

IF the indigenous (or long-term) peoples hold the rights to the territory -- then the Roma and the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs have rights to their ancestral (and long-term) lands.

IF the invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights on successful expulsion or murder -- then the Indians, the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis assume those rights.

You keep trying to exclude the Jewish peoples on both ends of the argument, without realizing that any argument that can be made for excluding the Jewish people ALSO excludes the Arab Palestinians.

If you want to make the argument that an expelled or murdered peoples have lost all rights to their indigenous territory, as you do above, then you have just excluded the Palestinian people from rights to any territory overtaken by Israel.

 

[louie888]

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

Its not the least bit crazy. What is crazy is trying to argue on the one hand that invading and colonizing peoples hold all the rights to the territory while arguing on the other that invading and colonizing peoples have no rights to the territory. What is crazy is trying to argue that expelled or murdered peoples have no rights to a territory while arguing on the other that the expelled and murdered peoples are the only ones with rights to the territory. You can't have it both ways.

Either indigenous peoples whose sovereignty has been lost due to invasions, conquests, expulsions, ethnic cleansings and colonization have inherent rights or they don't. Either invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights or they don't.

IF the indigenous (or long-term) peoples hold the rights to the territory -- then the Roma and the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs have rights to their ancestral (and long-term) lands.

IF the invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights on successful expulsion or murder -- then the Indians, the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis assume those rights.

You keep trying to exclude the Jewish peoples on both ends of the argument, without realizing that any argument that can be made for excluding the Jewish people ALSO excludes the Arab Palestinians.

If you want to make the argument that an expelled or murdered peoples have lost all rights to their indigenous territory, as you do above, then you have just excluded the Palestinian people from rights to any territory overtaken by Israel.

Extremely long-winded bullshit where you again, purposely conflate Europeans with the Jewish people from the torah. I say "purposely," because I for one, have explained this to you numerous times.

 

[Shusha]

Extremely long-winded bullshit where you again, purposely conflate Europeans with the Jewish people from the torah. I say "purposely," because I for one, have explained this to you numerous times.

Yes. I am fully aware of your argument. Expelled people lose their status and all their rights. Gotcha.

Which means the "European Jews" do not belong to the Jewish people.

Which means the Roma do not belong to the Romani people.

Which means the Palestinians living outside Palestine are no longer Palestinian people and have lost all their rights.

If you want to argue that, go ahead. I have no problem with it. At least its an internally consistent argument. Sadly, it means that there are only a small number of Palestinians left in Israel. (And, if you follow the line of the arguments you (and others) make -- that small number of Palestinians doesn't warrant consideration, let alone self-determination or sovereignty).

 

[louie888]

Extremely long-winded bullshit where you again, purposely conflate Europeans with the Jewish people from the torah. I say "purposely," because I for one, have explained this to you numerous times.

Yes. I am fully aware of your argument. Expelled people lose their status and all their rights. Gotcha.

Which means the "European Jews" do not belong to the Jewish people.

Which means the Roma do not belong to the Romani people.

Which means the Palestinians living outside Palestine are no longer Palestinian people and have lost all their rights.

If you want to argue that, go ahead. I have no problem with it. At least its an internally consistent argument. Sadly, it means that there are only a small number of Palestinians left in Israel. (And, if you follow the line of the arguments you (and others) make -- that small number of Palestinians doesn't warrant consideration, let alone self-determination or sovereignty).

You are arguing that. And it's stupid.

 

[miketx]

More libtard he said she said.

 

[montelatici]

Of course the Roma have no right to lands (or sovreignty) they left (or were expelled) hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's crazy.

Its not the least bit crazy. What is crazy is trying to argue on the one hand that invading and colonizing peoples hold all the rights to the territory while arguing on the other that invading and colonizing peoples have no rights to the territory. What is crazy is trying to argue that expelled or murdered peoples have no rights to a territory while arguing on the other that the expelled and murdered peoples are the only ones with rights to the territory. You can't have it both ways.

Either indigenous peoples whose sovereignty has been lost due to invasions, conquests, expulsions, ethnic cleansings and colonization have inherent rights or they don't. Either invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights or they don't.

IF the indigenous (or long-term) peoples hold the rights to the territory -- then the Roma and the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs have rights to their ancestral (and long-term) lands.

IF the invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights on successful expulsion or murder -- then the Indians, the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis assume those rights.

You keep trying to exclude the Jewish peoples on both ends of the argument, without realizing that any argument that can be made for excluding the Jewish people ALSO excludes the Arab Palestinians.

If you want to make the argument that an expelled or murdered peoples have lost all rights to their indigenous territory, as you do above, then you have just excluded the Palestinian people from rights to any territory overtaken by Israel.

The Jewish "people" and those practicing other religions (e.g. Samaritans) that were indigenous to Palestine, converted to Christianity almost 2,000 years ago. Those Christians, for the most part, then converted to Islam. The Zionist Jews are Europeans with little to no ancestral ties to Palestine.

 

[miketx]

What's the word from Putin on this latest impeachable falsehood?

 

[Shusha]

The Jewish "people" ... that were indigenous to Palestine, converted to Christianity almost 2,000 years ago. Those Christians, for the most part, then converted to Islam.

Fine. Sure. No one is really arguing against this in its broadest terms.

What we are discussing is how these events influence your understanding of the Israel/Arab conflict and how you use it to formulate an argument (or a set of rules, guidelines and policies) to make your case.

The Jewish people that were indigenous to the territory, were overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances negated the indigenous Jewish peoples rights to the territory.

The Roman Christian rulers of the territory were then overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly or voluntarily converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances negated the rights of the previous rulers.

The Arab Muslim rulers of the territory were then overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly or voluntarily converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances, if your argument is consistent, negated the rights of the previous rulers.

The Jewish Israeli rulers of the territory are now the ones who hold the rights to that territory. At least, it would be, if your argument was consistent.

 

[louie888]

The Jewish "people" ... that were indigenous to Palestine, converted to Christianity almost 2,000 years ago. Those Christians, for the most part, then converted to Islam.

Fine. Sure. No one is really arguing against this in its broadest terms.

What we are discussing is how these events influence your understanding of the Israel/Arab conflict and how you use it to formulate an argument (or a set of rules, guidelines and policies) to make your case.

The Jewish people that were indigenous to the territory, were overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances negated the indigenous Jewish peoples rights to the territory.

The Roman Christian rulers of the territory were then overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly or voluntarily converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances negated the rights of the previous rulers.

The Arab Muslim rulers of the territory were then overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly or voluntarily converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances, if your argument is consistent, negated the rights of the previous rulers.

The Jewish Israeli rulers of the territory are now the ones who hold the rights to that territory. At least, it would be, if your argument was consistent.

Still purposely conflating Europeans with biblical Jews, I see.

 

[teddyearp]

The Jewish "people" ... that were indigenous to Palestine, converted to Christianity almost 2,000 years ago. Those Christians, for the most part, then converted to Islam.

Fine. Sure. No one is really arguing against this in its broadest terms.

What we are discussing is how these events influence your understanding of the Israel/Arab conflict and how you use it to formulate an argument (or a set of rules, guidelines and policies) to make your case.

The Jewish people that were indigenous to the territory, were overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances negated the indigenous Jewish peoples rights to the territory.

The Roman Christian rulers of the territory were then overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly or voluntarily converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances negated the rights of the previous rulers.

The Arab Muslim rulers of the territory were then overtaken (expelled, murdered, forcibly or voluntarily converted, colonized) by an external force. These circumstances, if your argument is consistent, negated the rights of the previous rulers.

The Jewish Israeli rulers of the territory are now the ones who hold the rights to that territory. At least, it would be, if your argument was consistent.

Expecting monti to be consistent is like expecting the sun to not set.