Why does Palestine have a right to exist?

[del]

His answers were "The people living in Palestine were Palestinians and have lived there for many many generations." Then he said: "Unlike Israel, the people had been there for generations." referring to Iraq, Iran and Arabia. Contradict himself much?

Even so, that doesn't answer my question. My question was "What is a Palestinian?" You can't just live someplace and all of a sudden the entire country belongs to you.

There must be leadership, a government, an official language, an official currency. If Palestine, since the Roman Empire re-named Israel, has only existed as extensions of other governments and never existed as its own government, then Palestine never existed as a separate, individual country as the Arabs who are living there now claim to make it out to be.

However, if, and this is the information I'm trying to get out of Sunni, Palestine DID exist for even hundreds of years under its own self rule, had its own official language, its own official people.. then THOSE are the people who belong there. The only time, in the past 4,000 years, that area of land has ever done that, was under the Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael and the new nation-state of Israel. Both times the people were of Jewish origins and descent, the official language was Hebrew, the currency before and now is Shekel and Israel has had several kings before the Romans conquered it and has had several Prime Ministers after the creation of the nation-state of Israel.

I cannot just hop onto an island and declare the island a country. There are international standards and definitions as to what defines a country. And being a sattelite province of an empire is NOT one of them.

so then the nation of israel ceased to exist about 164 BC when the romans moved in and then was magically resurrected in 1948?

sure thing, pal.

 

[editec]

Very, very clever!

I wasn't trying to be clever, DavidS. Just responding to your questions.

Palestine back then was under British Imperial Rule.

Palestine, back then, was a former terroritory of the defunct Ottoman Empire.

Britian had the mandate given it by the Victors of WWI (though the League of Nations, which was basically controlled by Britian and France) to oversee that territory which they called (and everyone else had called for the last 1400 years or so) Palestine.

So it did not exist as its own country.

Neither did a whole lot of other former areas dominated by the Ottoman Empire. So?

BUT - the official borders of this place, Palestine, were created for the Jewish people,

Total Nonsense.

Go read the mandate that gave the Brits. the mandate to administrate the place called Palestine.

Palestine was not created "for the Jews". It existed with or without the Jews.

It and its people were betrayed by the Brits. for the benefit of the Jews of Europe.

but then modified and the Jews had to give up land because........ of the ARABS!

Nonsense.

Because Britian had the mandate, and because Britian agreed to the honor the Balfour Declaration.

The Jews of Europe were SOMETIMES allowed to emmigrate to Palestine between 1918 and 1948, and SOMETIMES they were not.

Per usual, anywhere the Brits controlled things, they fucked over the people and generally fucked things up so badly that damned near anyplace in the world that is currently a mess, became of mess because of the former British empire and the mandate system post WWI that they were largely the archtects of.

So back then the Jews were caving into Arab demands in exchange for peace.

If by "caving in" you mean declaring the New Israel's existence as a fact, and then fighting for its existence against the invading Arab states, and then accepting another EUROPEAN solution to a two state solution, I suppose you're sort of right.

If they would've known what we know today, I doubt very highly they would've given the Eastern 2/3 of Palestine to the Arabs for the creation of Jordan!

Or alteratively, if we'd know that the Palestinians and the Arab nations were going to go ballistic (we KNEW the Palestinians would because they'd been doing that for about 30 years) the whole BALFOUR declaration thing might have been nothing more than another empty promise the Brits made to still another victim group.

 

[Care4all]

There was no nation of Palestine and there never has been....this is truth.

But from further reading, it looks as though the British are mostly to blame for the animosity there now...along with the arabs that refused to take their portion of the disputed territory and make a country out of it....instead of holding the British to their precise word.

History Learning Site > Modern World History > The Middle East 1917 to 1973 > Palestine 1918 to 1948

Palestine is the name given by Arabs to an area in the Middle East. Palestine was absorbed into the Ottoman Empire in 1517 and remained under the rule of the Turks until World War One. Towards the end of this war, the Turks were defeated by the British forces led by General Allenby. In the peace talks that followed the end of the war, parts of the Ottoman Empire were handed over to the French to control and parts were handed over to the British – including Palestine. Britain governed this area under a League of Nations mandate from 1920 to 1948. To the Arab population who lived there, it was their homeland and had been promised to them by the Allies for help in defeating the Turks by the McMahon Agreement - though the British claimed the agreement gave no such promise.

The same area of land had also been promised to the Jews (as they had interpreted it) in the Balfour Declaration and after 1920, many Jews migrated to the area and lived with the far more numerous Arabs there. At this time, the area was ruled by the British and both Arabs and Jews appeared to live together in some form of harmony in the sense that both tolerated then existence of the other. There were problems in 1921 but between that year and 1928/29, the situation stabilised.

The main problem after the war for Palestine was perceived beliefs. The Arabs had joined the Allies to fight the Turks during the war and convinced themselves that they were due to be given what they believed was their land once the war was over.

Clashing with this was the belief among all Jews that the Balfour Declaration had promised them the same piece of territory.

In August 1929, relations between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine broke down. The focal point of this discontent was Jerusalem.

The primary cause of trouble was the increased influx of Jews who had emigrated to Palestine. The number of Jews in the region had doubled in ten years

The city of Jerusalem also had major religious significance for both Arabs and Jews and over 200 deaths occurred in just four days in August (23rd to the 26th).

Arab nationalism was whipped up by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haji Amin al-Husseini. He claimed that the number of Jews threatened the very lifestyle of the Arabs in Palestine.

The violence that occurred in August 1929 did not deter Jews from going to Palestine. In 1931, 4,075 Jews emigrated to the region. In 1935, it was 61,854. The Mufti estimated that by the 1940’s there would be more Jews in Palestine than Arabs and that their power in the area would be extinguished on a simple numerical basis.

In May 1936, more violence occurred and the British had to restore law and order using the military. Thirty four soldiers were killed in the process. The violence did not stop. In fact, it became worse after November 1937.

For the Arabs there were two enemies – the Jews and the British authorities based in Palestine via their League mandate.

For the Jews there were also two enemies – the Arabs and the British.

Therefore, the British were pushed into the middle of a conflict they had seemingly little control over as the two other sides involved were so driven by their own beliefs. In an effort to end the violence, the British put a quota on the number of Jews who could enter Palestine in any one year. They hoped to appease the Arabs in the region but also keep on side with the Jews by recognising that Jews could enter Palestine – but in restricted numbers. They failed on both counts.

Both the Jews and the Arabs continued to attack the British. The Arabs attacked because they believed that the British had failed to keep their word after 1918 and because they believed that the British were not keeping the quotas agreed to as they did little to stop illegal landings into Palestine made by the Jews.

The Jews attacked the British authorities in Palestine simply because of the quota which they believed was grossly unfair. The British had also imposed restrictions on the amount of land Jews could buy in Palestine.

An uneasy truce occurred during the war when hostilities seemed to cease. This truce, however, was only temporary.

Many Jews had fought for the Allies during World War Two and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area. Also in the aftermath of the Holocaust in Europe, many throughout the world were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews at the expense of the Arabs in Palestine.

However, neither group got what they were looking for. The British still controlled Palestine. As a result, the Jews used terrorist tactics to push their claim for the area. Groups such as the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi attacked the British that culminated in the destruction of the British military headquarters in Palestine – the King David Hotel. Seemingly unable to influence events in Palestine, the British looked for a way out.

In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine). With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). To the Palestinian Arabs, the area the Jews call Israel, will always be Palestine. To the Jews it is Israel. There have been very few years of peace in the region since 1948.

 

[Tuatara]

I've made that same suggestion many times over. Say, how do you think Texans would react to having their homes confiscated for the sake of zionism? Do you think any texans would be busy reacting violently to a perceived jewish invasion?

Exactly...and I know the US has the largest military might but let's say they were outclassed by many nations. Do you think they would object that if the state of Israel /Texas has a military might 20 times the size of theirs. I'm pretty sure those Texans just wouldn't roll over.

 

[editec]

Again, you're failing to understand this. The Arabs living there DO exist - as Arabs! Israel has over 1 million Israeli Arabs living, working and enjoying many of the freedoms and surpluses of the Israeli economy. So what is the difference between an Israeli Arab and a Palestinian Arab? There is none! The people who live there and pray to Allah and what not are Arabs - NOT Palestinians. This fighting that is going on is because they are asking Israel to give up land it won in wars to give these Arabs, who have over 20 countries of their own right now, yet another country! They have 20+ countries they could live in and they choose not to. They want to live in Israel? I have no problem with that... let them live in Israel and become productive members of society with all of the rest of the Israeli Arabs.

Excellent solution.

First thing Isreal must do for that to happen is for their court system to recognize the rightful claims of the millions of Palestinians who OWNED the properties that the State of Israel took from them.

Notice now, I do NOT say the whole nation, just those pieces of land and homes where the Palestinians actually OWNED.

Describing this problem in the most simplictic way possible, much of the creation of Isreal (not all of it, mind you) was nothing more than REAL ESTATE THEFT.

Now before you tell me thse people did not have legal title, know that I know they did and I ALSO KNOW, (perhaps you do not) that the STATE OF ISRAEL refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their titles even those the BRITISH mandate government recognised them as completely legitmate for the thirty years that THEY controlled those properties.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Very, very clever!

Palestine back then was under British Imperial Rule. So it did not exist as its own country. BUT - the official borders of this place, Palestine, were created for the Jewish people, but then modified and the Jews had to give up land because........ of the ARABS!

So back then the Jews were caving into Arab demands in exchange for peace. If they would've known what we know today, I doubt very highly they would've given the Eastern 2/3 of Palestine to the Arabs for the creation of Jordan!

==================================================

This is not quite accurate. Although the British colonial office did serve as administrator of the Mandate, the British operated there under the authority of the League of Nations, and was required to operate within certain parameters and to establish certain goals. Among these was the establishment of a "Jewish Homeland" within the Mandate, but the instructions from the League of Nations did not specify how much of the Mandate would be involved, where the Jewish Homeland would within the Mandate or even if it would be an entirely independent nation.

While the early Zionists dreamed of reclaiming all the land that comprised David's Kingdom, as a practical matter, the area east of the Jordan River was already so heavily populated with Muslim Arabs and the number of Jews that could reasonably be expected to migrate to a new Jewish Homeland before WWII was not great enough to grant them a Jewish Homeland that would include such a large number of Muslim Arabs. On the other hand, according to the early British reports to the League of Nations, the land west of the Jordan River was only sparsely populated, with the number of Christians and Jews nearly equal to the number of Muslim Arabs. In the late 19th century, when Mark Twain toured the area while working as a travel writer, he remarked how surprisingly empty this area was considering how fiercely it had been fought over for centuries. He remarked he had been shocked to find Jerusalem inhabited only by a small number of poor Arabs and a small number of very religious Jews and partly in ruins. The gold roof one sees in pictures of al Aksa was only installed in the mid 1920's as a part of a campaign to persuade the British not to establish a Jewish Homeland. During 500 years of Muslim rule under the Ottoman Turks, al Aksa may have been the third holiest spot in Islam, but apparently no one bothered to patch the roof.

I'm no fan of British colonialism, but to fair, the British had no good options. It was the British who had first promised a Jewish Homeland in 1917 and it was the British who had written that promise into the League of Nations Mandate, but as a practical matter, the number of Jews who were already there or who could reasonably be expected to emigrate was so small and the Muslim Arab opposition so strong, that their stiff upper lip began to quiver at the thought of the difficulties they would face in keeping that promise. So they stalled. And they stalled. And they stalled.

And while the British stalled, matters only got worse. In order to bolster their claim to a Jewish Homeland in the Mandate, Zionist organizations sent members out to Europe and the US to persuade Jews there to emigrate to the Mandate, and Arab leaders, to bolster their opposition to the establishment of a Jewish Homeland urged Arabs in the surrounding countries to emigrate to the Mandate. The Jews complained that the Arabs were trying to stock the area with Arabs from other countries only to stop the establishment of a Jewish Homeland, and the Arabs complained that the Jews were trying to stock the area with Jews from other countries to bolster their case for a Jewish Homeland and to justify more land for it. In response, the British established new rules designed to severely limit the numbers of Jews and Arabs who entered the land, but as their reports to the League of Nations show, especially after the creation of the state of Trans Jordan in the mid 1930's, they believed they had reduced the immigration of Jews to a mere trickle, but they claimed to have had no success in preventing large numbers of Arabs from the surrounding countries from entering the area. Then WWII erupted and the British put this issue on the back burner.

Imo, when reasonable people who are familiar with the the Mandate period read the Partition Resolution, GA 181, and its supporting documents, they cannot fail but to admire the diligence, the intelligence and the integrity of those who did the research and those who fashioned the plan. The map it produces is ugly, but the concept behind it is beautiful: an Arab state and a Jewish state, each comprised of small enclaves that are economically dependent on each other. Anticipating, the Arab invasion of the new state of Israel, the General Assembly calls on the Security Council to use force if necessary to prevent the Arab states from invading the new state of Israel, but the Security Council balked and passed a resolution merely urging the Arab states not to invade, and in this way, the Security Council unwittingly created the modern state of Israel and brought us to the current situation in Gaza. Who says the UN never gets anything done!

 

[Shogun]

Exactly...and I know the US has the largest military might but let's say they were outclassed by many nations. Do you think they would object that if the state of Israel /Texas has a military might 20 times the size of theirs. I'm pretty sure those Texans just wouldn't roll over.

fuck no they wound not roll over. If isreal were carved out of Texas then we'd be seeing zionists like DAvidS crying about how evil Texans are and how they just want to see dead jews floating in the fucking Gulf of Mexico!


These people will never care, though. Their aliegence is first, and foremost, to a racist state of israel all other human being be damned. Which, truthfully, makes them MORE dangerous to the US than the typical terrorist archtype. Hell, there sure the fuck are no MUSLIMS in the goddamn upper echelon of our government.

 

[DavidS]

Total Nonsense. Go read the mandate that gave the Brits. the mandate to administrate the place called Palestine. Palestine was not created "for the Jews". It existed with or without the Jews.
It and its people were betrayed by the Brits. for the benefit of the Jews of Europe.

Please read your history, edit.

Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Churchill White Paper (also known as The British White Paper of 1922) of 3 June 1922 clarified how Britain viewed the Balfour Declaration, 1917. That Declaration announced the British intent to aid the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", wording which became controversial.

The main provisions of this white paper are summarized by these quotations from it:

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."

'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.

'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.'

'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.'

Having clarified the understanding and intent of the British government, the White Paper continues, outlining a measure to assist in attaining the objectives: 'For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. ... The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.'

It also expressed the British view on the reason for not immediately forming an independent government of Palestine, addressing the conflicting claims related to the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, Sykes-Picot Agreement and subsequent Balfour Declaration:
'It is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24 October 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge'. Churchill's interpretation of the agreements was contrary to the interpretation given by Prime Minister Lloyd George during the Paris Peace Conference.[1]
The 1922 White Paper did not put an end to the controversy, The text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement had included a proviso that required coordination with the Sharif of Mecca regarding the so-called international zone (Palestine). It also called for an Arab State or confederation under an Arab Chief, and the British government had arranged for the meetings leading up to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement said that the boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference. The Zionist delegation submitted a map that proposed a border west of the Hedjaz Railway, exactly where Balfour had suggested it be drawn in an infamous memo to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon.
Contrary to popular belief, the borders of Palestine were not defined in the texts of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, The San Remo conference, The Treaty of Sèvres, the Treaty of Lausanne, or even by the British Mandate of Palestine. The preamble of the Mandate read:
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
On the day that the first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, signed for 'one Palestine, complete' [2] there were no formally recognized borders. The Zionist Committee's modest proposal excluded the area from Amman to the Mesopotamian and Arabian frontiers. According to Sykes, Churchill, and Balfour the areas lying east of the line from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Alleppo (the Hedjaz Railway route) had been pledged to the Arabs (as noted in Churchill's analysis). The Vilayet of Ma'an and the port of Aqaba were annexed to Transjordan from the Kingdom of Hedjaz as the latter fell to Ibn Saud. The Occupied Enemy Territory which later became Syria Mesopotamia, and Palestine were mentioned in Section VII, Articles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sèvres, the short-lived Kingdom of Hedjaz is mentioned separately in Section VIII, articles 98-100.

 

[Sunni Man]

If isreal were carved out of Texas then we'd be seeing zionists like DAvidS crying about how evil Texans are and how they just want to see dead jews floating in the fucking Gulf of Mexico!

Anit that the Truth!!!!

 

[Shogun]

you clearly didn't read your own post, DvidS.. Say, what was churchill CALLING THAT FUCKING LAND THROUGH THAT WHOLE FUCKING QUOTE?

 

[jillian]

Remember, there were no countries called Saudi Arabia, or Iran or Iraq etc....these were ALL made up countries by the UN or the League of Nations as with Israel....

yeah, but those aren't JEWISH states... oh no!! The horror!!!!

 

[jillian]

I'm sure the joke will not be lost on them given which one of us is the only user to actualy post a thread calling for the deaths of an entire population of people, jew boy.


whatsa matter, little zionist? Don't like it when you feel hated on? Imagine how Palis feel. oooops, silly me.. you don't think they are human enough to have that common human element. Hey, maybe you should shoot an email to AIPAC too, eh? Lord knows, if you don't have justice, democracy or historic fact by your side then build a wall around it and look for a reason to kill it, right jew boy?

Is jew now added to your litany of purported insults?

 

[DavidS]

so then the nation of israel ceased to exist about 164 BC when the romans moved in and then was magically resurrected in 1948?

sure thing, pal.

Actually, about 351, with the War against Gallus, i.e. the third Jewish revolt, the Romans re-named Israel to Provincia Syria Palaestina, which was later re-named Palaestina, which means land of Philistines, who were polytheistic Greeks who were a long-term thorn in Israel's side for many years. They had a strip of land where Gaza strip is today. So the official name of Israel did not exist over the land from 351-1948. 1,597 years. In between then, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Romans, Greeks, I think even Chinese once or twice, ruled over the land. Palestine was never given its own borders, its own official status, its own people, its own currency, language or anything else. It existed as a rent-a-land for nearly 1600 years until the Ottoman Empire fell.

Sykes–Picot Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shogun]

Is jew now added to your litany of purported insults?

when the example therof is DavidS's little kill em all rampage? Funny, jill.. I didn't see you utter a damn thing about his declaration to kill all the palis.. I guess it's easier to hand out Scarlet As than it is to police your own...

 

[DavidS]

There was no nation of Palestine and there never has been....this is truth.

Intelligence is difficult to find on this board. Thank you for the breath of fresh air.

But from further reading, it looks as though the British are mostly to blame for the animosity there now...along with the arabs that refused to take their portion of the disputed territory and make a country out of it....instead of holding the British to their precise word.

We have the French to blame for 'Nam and the UN to blame for Korea. Now we blame the English for the Middle East. Seems like the Europeans are responsible for a lot of problems in the history of the world... if the Romans had not conquered Israel, Israel would have never been re-named into Palestine. Damn Italians.

 

[Shogun]

Intelligence is difficult to find on this board. Thank you for the breath of fresh air.



We have the French to blame for 'Nam and the UN to blame for Korea. Now we blame the English for the Middle East. Seems like the Europeans are responsible for a lot of problems in the history of the world... if the Romans had not conquered Israel, Israel would have never been re-named into Palestine. Damn Italians.

take the semantics up with the canaanites, dude.

 

[DavidS]

when the example therof is DavidS's little kill em all rampage? Funny, jill.. I didn't see you utter a damn thing about his declaration to kill all the palis.. I guess it's easier to hand out Scarlet As than it is to police your own...

Please show me where I declared it ok to kill all of the palis?

I declared it ok to kill all of Hamas, and have, on numerous occassions hoped that only few, if any, innocent Arab civilians were hurt. There is no difference between me wanting all the members of Hamas dead and you wanting all of the members of Al Queda dead. They are both Islamic-Fascist terrorist groups that should be CRUSHED. I have also said that I encourage peace between Israel and Fatah and would support the creation of a Palestinian state under Fatah's rule, so long as it recognizes and is at peace with Israel. Abbas seems to want that. I have, on numerous occasions, pointed out how life is in the West Bank, the Arabs who mostly want peace with Israel vs. how it is with Gaza.

 

[DavidS]

take the semantics up with the canaanites, dude.

They're dead.

All of them.

So are many other cultures and civilizations that once were part of the world.

Where's Prussia?

How's Gaul? And the Eastern and Western Frank Kingdom? Destroyed.

You know, I haven't heard too much from you about the destruction of the Sumerians. Damn Babylonians, Assyrians and Hammurabians!!! I suggest you take your anger with the destruction of the Sumerians with all of the Babylonians on this board!

 

[Shogun]

Please show me where I declared it ok to kill all of the palis?

I declared it ok to kill all of Hamas, and have, on numerous occassions hoped that only few, if any, innocent Arab civilians were hurt. There is no difference between me wanting all the members of Hamas dead and you wanting all of the members of Al Queda dead. They are both Islamic-Fascist terrorist groups that should be CRUSHED. I have also said that I encourage peace between Israel and Fatah and would support the creation of a Palestinian state under Fatah's rule, so long as it recognizes and is at peace with Israel. Abbas seems to want that. I have, on numerous occasions, pointed out how life is in the West Bank, the Arabs who mostly want peace with Israel vs. how it is with Gaza.

oh sure.. backtrack now, you little pansy bitch. We all saw your thread. If you want to act like a fucking victim you might want to start acting like one instead of trying to call for the deaths of fellow human being that don't happen to be jewish enough to count in your view. Indeed, PEACE, for you zoinist motherfuckers, amounts to total domination of anything non-jewish. We've seen as much since your pet racist nation was created by western non-jews trying too unload your asses to the mid east. Indeed, you are hardly anyone to be pointing a finger at fascist terrorism, dude, given the ethnic premium and overt effort to maintain the power of a single race in your pet nation. so there are some non-jews who refuse to roll over for the sake of your buring bush myth... kill em all, right?


ps, your last day as a nation will be the day you try to destroy temple mount for the sake of the next incarnation of david's temple. I would suggest you tone down your hatred on non-pliable goyim by then.

 

[Shogun]

They're dead.
All of them.
So are many other culturies and civilizations that once were part of the world.
Where's Prussia?
How's Gaul? And the Eastern and Western Frank Kingdom? Destroyed.
You know, I haven't heard too much from you about the destruction of the Sumerians. Damn Babylonians, Assyrians and Hammurabians!!!

no shit they are all dead. AND, as it turns out in a moment of historic irony, we get to watch the latest version of that same strategy today. But please, tell me all about terrorism and evil goyim who are "out to get" you like the Canaanites were..