An Appropriate Thread

[Phoenall]

Shusha, you just can't get it through your head that many (if not a majority) of the ancestors of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians once practiced Judaism. Once you understand this basic fact, maybe you will be able to understand why many people believe that the European invasion of Palestine and its effect on the native Muslim and Christian population was a crime. Who were the first Christians, after all, Shuhsa?

So you deny the historical records that show over the last 2000 years both Christians and muslims have been expelled from palestine many times proving that the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are recent immigrants and have no ties to the lands. Even the palestinian leadership admit that they are recent illegal immigrants and have no right to claim the land

 

[Hollie]

... Ruby Bridges and the palestinian people share a common humanity, a common set of universal rights.

Of course. As do the Jewish people.

Which they already had in their countries of origin, but those rights do not carry over into a settler colonial project in someone else's homeland.

As we know from the Ottoman land records, absentee owners in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon sold large tracts of land to Jewish buyers.

Your shrill screeching about the Zionist Jews™ and your "colonial project" canard is just so much background noise from a silly little boy.

 

[Phoenall]

Of course there was a crime committed. People from Europe invaded Palestine and took over the land. Where do you think the Zionists came from?

Not from the invading Roman Catholics that is for sure, they are the only European invaders of palestine for the last 2000 years. The majority of the Jews living in Israel are from the surrounding lands, and were evicted by force from their property by islamonazi scum contrary to the UN charter, Geneva conventions and IHL

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

On the other hand, there is historic (or is it hysteric) precedence for exclusive Islamist states. Islamist history has no history of multi-religious states where the islamo-fascists are in a significant majority. The KSA is one one example and Islamics across the Middle East are working on making sure their portion of fascist Islamism is exclusively Islamist.

Just ask the Copts in Egypt who's Church was recently Peacefully Inner Struggled.

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

Which is why the original land area designated for the Jewish national home was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. The arab muslims after complaining about the wholly Jewish state then demanded they be given it all so that the former Ottoman empire became a wholly arab muslim state. The Jews stated that they would allow the arab muslims free access to the religious sites, it is the arab muslims that are stopping the access for others.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

On the other hand, there is historic (or is it hysteric) precedence for exclusive Islamist states. Islamist history has no history of multi-religious states where the islamo-fascists are in a significant majority. The KSA is one one example and Islamics across the Middle East are working on making sure their portion of fascist Islamism is exclusively Islamist.

Just ask the Copts in Egypt who's Church was recently Peacefully Inner Struggled.

Deflection.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.

The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.

So, in the context of this thread, then, you are arguing that States which are homogeneous and built around a specific culture or ethnicity should not exist. Or are you applying this only to Jews?

 

[montelatici]

While not very civilized or desirable, I guess states that are homogeneous can decide to remain so. However, to go someplace on another continent to remove most of the people that do not fit the homogeneity desired and subjugate the remaining minority is not kosher. Pardon the pun.

 

[Shusha]

While not very civilized or desirable, I guess states that are homogeneous can decide to remain so. However, to go someplace on another continent to remove most of the people that do not fit the homogeneity desired and subjugate the remaining minority is not kosher. Pardon the pun.

The Jewish people were already a people of the place. And the Palestinians were neither "removed" nor "subjugated", except as a direct result of wars of aggression committed by them and their allies.

 

[montelatici]

While not very civilized or desirable, I guess states that are homogeneous can decide to remain so. However, to go someplace on another continent to remove most of the people that do not fit the homogeneity desired and subjugate the remaining minority is not kosher. Pardon the pun.

The Jewish people were already a people of the place. And the Palestinians were neither "removed" nor "subjugated", except as a direct result of wars of aggression committed by them and their allies.

No the Jews were not people of the place, there were a handful of Jews from Spain that had settled in Jerusalem in the late 1400s. The place was 99.9% Muslim and Christian before the Ziojist invasion began. The Palestinians were evicted and are now subjugated because they dared resist being conquered by the Jews in complete contravention of International Law and specific requirement of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations. This was clearly admitted in UN A/364 of 3 September 1947.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

 

[Hollie]

While not very civilized or desirable, I guess states that are homogeneous can decide to remain so. However, to go someplace on another continent to remove most of the people that do not fit the homogeneity desired and subjugate the remaining minority is not kosher. Pardon the pun.

The Jewish people were already a people of the place. And the Palestinians were neither "removed" nor "subjugated", except as a direct result of wars of aggression committed by them and their allies.

No the Jews were not people of the place, there were a handful of Jews from Spain that had settled in Jerusalem in the late 1400s. The place was 99.9% Muslim and Christian before the Ziojist invasion began. The Palestinians were evicted and are now subjugated because they dared resist being conquered by the Jews in complete contravention of International Law and specific requirement of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations. This was clearly admitted in UN A/364 of 3 September 1947.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Well, we know from your link:

(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." (article 2) considered together with the obligation to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions" arid "encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (article 6).


So, as we see, the Mandate provided for establishment of the Jewish National Home and immigration of the Jewish people was intended to facilitate that.

Your link actually identifies the intent of the mandate which was, in part, an intent toward facilitation of Jews reclaiming their ancestral homeland after the Islamist Entity™ had all but purged existence of the Jewish heritage from the area.

 

[montelatici]

And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.

 

[Shusha]

No the Jews were not people of the place, there were a handful of Jews from Spain that had settled in Jerusalem in the late 1400s. The place was 99.9% Muslim and Christian before the Ziojist invasion began. The Palestinians were evicted and are now subjugated because they dared resist being conquered by the Jews in complete contravention of International Law and specific requirement of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations. This was clearly admitted in UN A/364 of 3 September 1947.

"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Monte, frankly, I'm tired of this bullshit. I'm tired of constantly having to assert that the Jewish people exist. That the Jewish people are the historical, indigenous peoples of the land. That the Jewish people are not foreign invaders. That the Jewish people have rights to self-determination, to self-government, to territory or a State on their ancestral lands.

I'm tired of having to remind you that the reason Muslims and Christians were the majority in the land was because the Jewish inhabitants were murdered, cleansed, removed, exiled or invaded and conquered. And their culture overwhelmed by an alien culture.

Not to mention, having to assert, once again, that a report to the UN has no legal significance or binding force.

 

[Hollie]

And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."

As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.

As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .

Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
And I would also suggest that not all nations are founded on the principle of homogeneity and for these nations diversity is to be embraced. Canada and the US are examples.

America (and Canada) is being flooded with non-white immigration and the american mass media and education system are bombarding the american youth with the glamourization of black, hispanic and asian culture as well as the glamourization of mixed-couples in a clear effort to promote race mixing as a model to be followed by the american youth.

If the exact same thing were happening in an african or asian country, the whole world would be crying genocide.

But since it's happening in a white country, suddenly, it's not genocide anymore... it's "diversity".

 

[José]

And even if you decide to leave the issue of slow-paced genocide through miscigenation aside...

Why on Earth do Canada and the US have to have one of the core components of any nation-state their (non-supremacist) racial composition destroyed by millions of immigrants with no historical right to live in North America whatsoever?

America has no historical debt with the people of Burkina Faso or Sri Lanka.

The only historical debt America had was with native americans, black americans, the original hispanic population of the Southwest and I would argue that this debt was reasonably paid to the point of causing blatant, overt discrimination of hundreds of thousands of white Americans and Canadians who lose college
and job opportunities every year to less qualified minorities.

Multiculturalism is a mental disease thinly disguised as a political ideology according to which western countries (and only western countries) have an obligation to destroy their own non-supremacist ethnic composition.

This is a direct consequence of the fourth social paradigm created by WWII I described in The Tremendous Power etc...:

4 - The redefinition of western countries as multi-racial nations without a predominant ethnic identity

Western countries were redefined as nations without any racial, ethnic identity and immigration laws were changed allowing massive non-white immigration into the US and Europe.

The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen

Throurought their history, the United States and Canada have always consistently said that their essence as western countries was their white majorities and ideals and institutions derived from the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

After WWII, all of a sudden:

OH!! We're sorry but for 300 years we've been committing a terrible mistake... the white majority was never really part of our foundations just the ideals of John Locke, Montesquieu and Voltaire...

This was an huge overreaction to the horrors of Nazi Germany... Nazi Germany had an overwhelming white majority... So instead of blaming solely Hitler's ideology and anti-semitism in general, the racial composition of western nations was blamed for what happened and deemed a risk to racial minorities, a risk of future genocides.

All that needed to be done after WWII was to teach tolerance and respect for minorities to the american and european youth.

Starting a process of genocide and destruction of their non-supremacist racial compositions was overkill, totally over the top.

No american president has ever held any plebiscite or referendum asking the american people's approval for the drastic ongoing changes in the country's racial composition. Much on the contrary, national figures like Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy and Emmanuel Celler assured, promised the american people and Congress over and over that the 1965 Immigration Act would not "upset the country's ethnic makeup" (Kennedy's words)... The american people was shamelessly deceived, lied to by their political leaders.

No british Prime Minister has ever consulted the british people to see if they agreed to (the more modest) changes in Britain's racial composition.

When the rest of the world, China, Nigeria, Iran, see what's happening in America (and Canada), a country actively, willingly destroying its racial composition through mass immigration, without having any moral obligation to do so, they shake their heads in disbelief and think to themselves:

"This country is batshit crazy."

This insane paradigm that preaches the denationalization of western countries, the cannibalization of their non-supremacist white majorities is precisely what leads millions of brainwashed westerners to parrot the grotesque aberration of thought according to which people from China and India have more right to live in America, Canada and Britain than Palestinians in Palestine (in conjunction with the other paradigms: the superhumanization and dehumanization of Jews and Palestinians, respectively).

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
I find your use of racial terms (white, black, asian) to be abhorrent. I find your description of the US as a "white European" nation to be abhorrent. I find the idea of ethnic supremacism to be repulsive, including the accusation that one particular ethnic group believes themselves to be superior to others.

Last time I checked, I was supporting the preservation of the ethnic composition of countries so incredibly "racist" that they even discriminate against their majority racial group in terms of job opportunities, continuously discriminating in favour of less qualified racial minorities.

I didn't advocate the reinstitution of slavery, Jim Crow laws, a new uprooting and genocide of american Indians, the confiscation of their cassinos and multi million-dollar financial compensations every year, the theft of another chunk of Mexico... not even the end of blatantly discriminatory social programs like affirmative action... just the preservation of America's non-supremacist racial composition like any other mentally sane country in the world.

Last time I checked also, it was you who was supporting the preservation of the ethnic composition of a country so incredibly "non-racist" that its border agents receive direct orders to arrest, maime or murder any native who tries to exercise his birthright to move freely in his own homeland in a peaceful, non-violent manner.

So if you want to know who's really saying moral abominations and defending racial supremacism here, I strongly suggest you take a good look in the mirror.

 

[Shusha]

Oh. Wow. I'm attempting to have a reasonable discussion with someone who complains about "race-mixing" and the "glamourization of mixed race couples".

 

[Shusha]

...destroyed by millions of immigrants with no historical right to live in North America whatsoever?

You really need to think your premises through. NO ONE has an historical right to live in North American except the First Nations peoples. Everyone else is an immigrant with no historical, indigenous claims to the land. (Which is not to say they don't have claims, just that they are not based on indigeneity).

And you are a hypocrite of the highest order if you demand that the US (do NOT bring Canada into this craziness) protect its "white European" composition by excluding immigration from blacks, Asians and Latinos. You are giving value and rights to a certain group of immigrants while excluding all other groups of immigrants, based on race.

Ironically, I retract my claim that your argument is not internally consistent. While it is a vile and abhorrent belief system based on race and exclusion and "purity", it is perfectly consistent with respect to both the US and Palestine. In both cases you deny the rights and claims of the indigenous inhabitants and all other groups of immigrants except your "chosen" group.

I'm going to go take a shower.