Israel declares war on Hamas

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Oh really? Care to disagree with the founding fathers of Zionism then?

Jabotinsky:


Nordau:


People coming in boats to take land, by force, that doesn't belong to them is by definition, colonialism.

Colonialism happened. It does not justify Hamas' actions. What he said was wrong, but it's irrelevant.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Happy to DM you if you want, but I’m not going to name the handful of people I’m referring to here when two of them already said they’d be happy to see me dead, just to appease you and make you believe me. Otherwise you’re free to read through the thread.

What?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Kind of irrelevant here, but it would be an interesting thought experiment...what would be there, who would rule it, would it be better or worse than now had the land never been set aside after WW1?

It would probably have been the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine, ruled by the current Jordanian royal family. It would have probably included present day Israel, West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jordan.

As the family is very pro-west, jewish immigration would have probably continued to an extent, but jews would not have been anywhere near a majority there.

But we all know, white people don't just simply immigrate and become a minority in non white lands. They colonize, exploit and implement apartheid.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

What?

He's had two people tell him to go to Palestine and see what him saying what he says here, there, implying he will get killed.


He's being a bit dramatic about it, but it was said.

Originally Posted by _Q_

But we all know, white people don't just simply immigrate and become a minority in non white lands. They colonize, exploit and implement apartheid.

Very clearly arguing from a sound position and not trying to incite people at all.

[PsYcNeT]

It's funny that Q and Pepsi aren't allowed to be emotive about it, but our resident Zionists can froth for days and bay for blood with nary a verbal handslap from the handwringing gallery.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It would probably have been the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine, ruled by the current Jordanian royal family. It would have probably included present day Israel, West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jordan.

As the family is very pro-west, jewish immigration would have probably continued to an extent, but jews would not have been anywhere near a majority there.

But we all know, white people don't just simply immigrate and become a minority in non white lands. They colonize, exploit and implement apartheid.

Jesus

[Jbo]

This thread is going predictably. Off the rails. I’m all for open discourse and people are of course going to be passionate on this topic, but it’s also brutal to read posts crying racism or picking small snippets of history to support an argument.

So with that I hope both groups can find peace one day, although I don’t feel it will happen in my lifetime

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's funny that Q and Pepsi aren't allowed to be emotive about it, but our resident Zionists can froth for days and bay for blood with nary a verbal handslap from the handwringing gallery.

Solid addition to the discourse

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It would probably have been the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine, ruled by the current Jordanian royal family. It would have probably included present day Israel, West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jordan.

As the family is very pro-west, jewish immigration would have probably continued to an extent, but jews would not have been anywhere near a majority there.

I agree with this. Without Jewish influence, the British likely don't split the Mandate of Palestine into Jordan and the rest. To resolve the Saudi/Hashemite conflict, they provide all of the Mandate of Jordan to the Hashemites.

They may have still called it Jordan though, to disassociate themselves from the British.

Originally Posted by _Q_

But we all know, white people don't just simply immigrate and become a minority in non white lands. They colonize, exploit and implement apartheid.

Even if you want to include all Ashkenazi Jews as "white", you do realize the majority of Jews living in Israel are former residents of Muslim and Arab lands. These middle eastern Jews also overwhelmingly vote for Likud, and it's the Ashkenazi Jews (the evil white people) who overwhelmingly vote for left wing and anti-settler parties.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's funny that Q and Pepsi aren't allowed to be emotive about it, but our resident Zionists can froth for days and bay for blood with nary a verbal handslap from the handwringing gallery.

I don't think anyone is silencing Q and Pepsi. In fact, they are typically part of the anti-Israel dog pile that dominates these threads.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It would probably have been the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine, ruled by the current Jordanian royal family. It would have probably included present day Israel, West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jordan.

As the family is very pro-west, jewish immigration would have probably continued to an extent, but jews would not have been anywhere near a majority there.

But we all know, white people don't just simply immigrate and become a minority in non white lands. They colonize, exploit and implement apartheid.

You need to take a break. Whatever point you are trying to argue is lost when you start shouting the last paragraph

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think anyone is silencing Q and Pepsi. In fact, they are typically part of the anti-Israel dog pile that dominates these threads.

"Not allowed" used in relation to the milquetoast tut-tutting they get for saying "maybe this is bad/disproportionate" while the ghouls scream "#### AROUND, FIND OUT" while watching buildings literally crush a population that's nearly 50% under 18

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Kind of irrelevant here, but it would be an interesting thought experiment...what would be there, who would rule it, would it be better or worse than now had the land never been set aside after WW1?

For several hundred years it was part of the Ottoman Empire, then the British empire, then finally, along with numerous other nations, the UN partitioned the land, as part of decolonization.

I am guessing Egypt would have taken all the land to create a bigger buffer for the Suez Canal, or it would be split with Lebanon. I'd imagine Syria or Jordan wanted access to the Mediterranean. There for sure would have been blood spilled. While Jewish control was very much undesired by the Muslim world, the argument at the time seemed focused on Muslim control (since Ottoman Empire), and unless there are better sources, the thought of a Palestinian nation wasn't really the movement.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think anyone is silencing Q and Pepsi. In fact, they are typically part of the anti-Israel dog pile that dominates these threads.

You're interacting with the guy who posted this earlier...

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Just say you hate brown people dude, you have the social license again like it's 2001

Just leave it alone. He's no better than the people he's now calling "ghouls".

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think anyone is silencing Q and Pepsi. In fact, they are typically part of the anti-Israel dog pile that dominates these threads.

There is no "Anti-Israel" dogpile happening.

The fact that a few here want to categorize legitimate criticism of Israel as a dogpile is a major problem with the discussion. If we just claim that any criticism of Israel or their policies is a dogpile or Anti-Semitism then we have no chance of having a worthwhile discussion.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jbo

Solid addition to the discourse

It was a solid addition and a valid point. Not sure why it has to be mocked or disregarded, while actually I do as it goes to the no criticizing of Israel or its policies allowed to some.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Spurs

It was a solid addition and a valid point. Not sure why it has to be mocked or disregarded, while actually I do as it goes to the no criticizing of Israel or its policies allowed to some.

It’s inciting and you know it. My post was not mocking it. You are reading into and projecting.

What would be nice is if people on a forum preaching solutions about how to solve the situation could do so without eventually falling into the same issues. You can talk to people with respect even if you don’t agree with them.

[FlameOn]

So what future awaits the Gaza Strip/West Bank at this point? Multiple peace agreements have been tried and failed. I don't think there is any possibility of peace.

Integration w/ Israel. Palestinians: No.
Two state solution ala. 2000 Camp David accords. Palestinians: No.
Israel withdraws from West Bank, Gaza, and occupied Arab territories. PNA hold elections. Palestinians: We elect Hamas.
Hamas spends the entire time not rebuilding, but lobbing rockets so much that the Israelis developed Iron Dome. Then stockpiled enough munitions and trained enough ppl in Iran to launch this invasion.

It just seems like they don't want to compromise at all outside of their position of No Jews. No Arab country wants Palestinians anymore in their country. Lebanon's president got assassinated by them sparking the Lebanon Civil War, they started the Black September Civil War in Jordan, and in Kuwait Palestinians sided with the Saddam during the Gulf War. Its really hard for the broader public to sympathize with Palestinians despite what are clearly illegal land grabs by the Hasidic and ultra nationalist Jews, when Palestinians are cheering in the streets in Gaza parading around raped women hostages and dead Isreali civilians, they try to overthrow their Arab allies whenever possible, and its all the "Gas the Jews", "Kill the Jews", with Palestinians cheering the beheadings internationally. Germany's now banned pro-Palestinian support rallies.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jbo

It’s inciting and you know it. My post was not mocking it. You are reading into and projecting.

What would be nice is if people on a forum preaching solutions about how to solve the situation could do so without eventually falling into the same issues. You can talk to people with respect even if you don’t agree with them.

I did say or disregarded. If you did not mean that it was unnecessary then I apologize but not really leaping to conclusions with how you worded it.

There is nothing inciting about the post at all.

[PsYcNeT]

It's impossible to respect the bloodthirsty and those that think the answer to violence is ghettoization, disenfranchisement, and ultimately genocide.

Particularly when it's predicated on an absurd belief of Divine Right.