LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Indeed. The Palestinian state already exists... Jordan.
Explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- Thread starter xdangerousxdavex
- Start date
Bleipriester
Freedom!
Nonsense. Syria stopped Israel´s advance in Syria and Lebanon.
Don´t deflect from the topic, btw.
Bleipriester
Freedom!
More nonsense. When Zion puppets are running out of arguments they drop their mask...
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,407
- 4,953
- 290
How's that deflection? I merely answered You,
it's just that You see those territories as "occupied" even though it was accepted after 67 that Israel needed new borders to hold the state. Of course after those Syrians, Egyptians and other neighbors went to war of ANNIHILATION of Israel...You talk to me of "occupied".
It was a strategic place taken back from enemies.
In Your opinion that's the explanation for the conflict...but I think You're mistaking
Your own propaganda the conflict started much earlier.
Golan heights are claimed by no one except Israel.
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Oh really? Jordan and it's Jordanians--particularly Western Jordanians--are linguistically, culturally, religiously, and ethnically identical to "Palestinians."
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
Not only that but Jordan was an artificial country created by the British in 1946, and named after a river. Then, all of a sudden, Jordanian Arabs have a new ethnicity.
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
Who was Loki in mythology again? I forgot.
Bleipriester
Freedom!
The conflict started in 1948. Since then, Israel launched many raids on its neighbors. Syria has always been a backer of Lebanon.
As for Golan, except for Israel, nobody has ever accepted the occupation.
Bleipriester
Freedom!
Even if true: How is this a reason to expel the Palestinians from their land?
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Let me start my response with this: I'm not a social justice warrior; I'm not making a social justice point. I don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal bloodbath. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, that narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.
That said, there is a point in recent history that helps define the situation clearly. That point is May 14, 1948. On that date, in the region that the Western powers knew as "Palestine," the Jewish People's Council introduced to the world the sovereign state of Israel; recognized by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union--the most powerful sovereign powers of the time.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the "Palestinian" nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its birth, by hostile Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it--and those hostile foreign nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.
It occurs to me that these Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."
Yet these "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of hostile invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and then they lost. They could have fought with their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise. It's pretty self evident why Israel wanted nothing to do with those back-stabbing shit-birds.
You cannot deny that Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region. You cannot claim that Arab/Islamic "Palestinians" stood up as a valid sovereign organization to make a competing claim. And you cannot deny that (aided by foreign nations) certain Arab/Islamic Israelis went beyond contesting the legitimacy of Israeli sovereignty, but went all the more farther by embracing the invaders of their own lands--traitors to their nation and traitors to themselves.
Considering the behavior of the progeny of those traitors, I'm entirely unsurprised that Israelis are unwelcoming to them; and yet I am wholly surprised at the restraint Israel has exercised in not obliterating them from the planet in the manner that they have clearly been so capable of doing all this time.
I think these "Palestinians" have been barred from citizenship in the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations (most notably Jordan and Syria) because the citizens of those nations weren't too keen on patriating the traitors to Israel that they sponsored in 1948 (after all, traitors ARE traitors regardless of which side they sell-out to); and they sensibly maintain that same position of disdain for the trouble-making posterity of those traitors.
If I'm not wrong about this, it seems apparent to me that the right thing for these Palestinians to do is accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason.
Last edited:
Bleipriester
Freedom!
You say that Israel has been attacked since its recreation. But others say, its the other way round, among them was the SU.
The conflict started in 1920 when the LoN first broached the subject of granting part of Palestine for the Jews national home. That was also when pan arab nationalism started up and resorted to violent means to achieve their aims.
Golan was destined to be part of Israel from 1923 and it was only when Syria claimed it that it became an issue
Because they did not accept the UN resolution calling on them to stop all belligerence and live in peace. Makes them fifth columnists and liable to deportation, just as it would in the USA
And the facts on the ground show that from May 15 1948 Israel has been under constant attack
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
I think what I said was:
Are you saying that The Soviet Union claimed that Israel attacked the neighboring Arab/Islamic nations on May 14, 1948?
Is there any substantiation in verifiable facts of reality for such a claim?
You'd think that interesting little bit of history would have surfaced by now.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,127
- 280
Let me correct you. The surrounding Arab states did not attack the Jews in Palestine. The surrounding Arab states intervened in an attempt to prevent the Jews in Palestine from massacring and evicting the Christians and Muslims under the Plan Dalet. The Jews intended to massacre and evict as many non-Jews from the area illegally assigned to them as indicated by Plan Dalet. The Christians and Muslims knew this was the plan and had every right to attempt to prevent the Jews from implementing their plan for ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Palestinians continue to have every right to attempt to regain their land in any way possible including demographics, which is probably how they will regain their land eventually.
That the Arab states were unsuccessful in preventing the massacre of Christians and Muslims and their eviction by the Jews does not mean that the their intervention was in anyway unjustified.
" a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."
The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
The arab league attacked the Jews months before plan Dalet was even thought of. It was the attacks from 1947 that were the foundation of the plan to eradicate all terrorists from the planned state of Israel
LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Thank you. Please do.
Well, they most certainly did. That they did so is historical fact.
Semantics. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, that narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.
That said, there is a point in recent history that helps define the situation clearly. That point is May 14, 1948. On that date, in the region that the Western powers knew as "Palestine," the Jewish People's Council introduced to the world the sovereign state of Israel; recognized by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union--the most powerful sovereign powers of the time.
Or, alternatively the Jews intended to evict or otherwise remove the soon-to-be traitors to the nascent state of Israel, sponsored by the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations who were conspicuously planning to claim the Palestinian territory for themselves.
You see? This is why I don't give a fuck about anything before May 14, 1948. I just don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal blood-bath. While I understand that May 13, 1948 is not pre-history, I draw the line at last moment the previous recognized sovereign in control of the region left, and the next recognized sovereign took over.
This nothing but appeal to emotion. And hearsay semantics. Which is why I don't give a fuck about anything before May 14, 1948.
No. No they don't.
These Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."
Yet these "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of hostile invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and then they lost. They could have fought beside their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise.
The right thing for these "Palestinians" to do is accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason. Jordan seems to be the best likely candidate.
I'm not a social justice warrior; I'm not making a social justice point. I don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal bloodbath. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, that narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
Judge directs Trump officials to lift pause on certain immigration applications- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
-
-
