The narrative now is that Israel is the enemy while Palestine is the oppressed. It’s sad because it’s revisionist.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Israeli-Palestinian conflict (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I am one of Israels biggest critics and anyone who stands by Israel on moral grounds is either a crazy zealot, a racist or both BUT we are discussing this very particular situation of people storming borders, whether you agree or not with the border is irrelevant, if you attack a military post you will get shot. These are not protests, this an altar where Palestinian lives are sacrificed to the social media gods, and i hold hamas responsible in this case.
I don't see the point in responding to my arguments with the exactly the same arguments I was responding to in the first place, also I think I made it pretty clear that I do separate Hamas from the people so it's a bit of a strawman argument there. I absolutely stand by my view that the PLO and Hamas don't serve the best interest of the palestinian people, there is just no logical or rational way to make that claim and hold it to the test of reality.
I guess it just leaves us with respectfully agreeing to disagree.
With that being said and much more importantly, regarding the bolded part I hope to god I am right and you are wrong about them. Because if you are right then this all conflict is going to end very badly for one of us. I prefer my version of reality much better, for both Israel and palestine sake.
I guess it just leaves us with respectfully agreeing to disagree.
With that being said and much more importantly, regarding the bolded part I hope to god I am right and you are wrong about them. Because if you are right then this all conflict is going to end very badly for one of us. I prefer my version of reality much better, for both Israel and palestine sake.
I see that this was handled but the questions are still avoided.
- - - Updated - - -
No no, go back to the start of it, not this particular incident. Ask yourself, what sort of treatment does it take for a population to elect what would be considered a terrorist organization into power for protection?
- - - Updated - - -
No no, go back to the start of it, not this particular incident. Ask yourself, what sort of treatment does it take for a population to elect what would be considered a terrorist organization into power for protection?
I see that this was handled but the questions are still avoided.
- - - Updated - - -
No no, go back to the start of it, not this particular incident. Ask yourself, what sort of treatment does it take for a population to elect what would be considered a terrorist organization into power for protection?
- - - Updated - - -
No no, go back to the start of it, not this particular incident. Ask yourself, what sort of treatment does it take for a population to elect what would be considered a terrorist organization into power for protection?
You are aware those maps are bogus right?
I was describing what a person with a lack of morals (in my opinion of course) would subscribe to. You thought those were my opinions and liked my post. Judging by your other posts in the last few pages, there's nothing in my post for you to like. It would have been much better if you had just said you misunderstood me rather than "it was still a good post". Nothing was good for you there.
Hamas is an effect, was created as such. It cannot be the root cause of the problem. Like I said, they wouldn't have been operating to this date if your government hadn't enabled them.
As for the bold part, lol why? Isn't a brainwashed people the most wretched and hopeless of them?
Hamas is an effect, was created as such. It cannot be the root cause of the problem. Like I said, they wouldn't have been operating to this date if your government hadn't enabled them.
As for the bold part, lol why? Isn't a brainwashed people the most wretched and hopeless of them?
the first map, labeled “1946”, is actually a map of what the League of Nations in the 1920s predicted Palestine would be like in 1946. I don't trust maps that rely on on the future. It's worth noting that the british mandate of palestine was actually much bigger originally and 70% of it was already been given to Jordan in the late 20's.
Beyond that it's intentionally mislabels the division between jew and arabs who both were referred to as palestinians at the time by the brits. The actual map this first map is misrepresenting includes a third category, called "public land" which is basically government owned land. The true division was that just 40% was privately owned by arabs, 10% by jews and 50% was british owned.
The second map is just irrelevant in this context. Why is the UN partition plan, which was accepted by the Jews but was never implemented because it was rejected by the arabs, part of this sequence? A plan that never happened cannot be considered an accurate depiction of reality because it never was. The arabs were supposed to get 47% of the land (similar to what they owned) but they rejected it and declared a war.
The third map attributes sovereignty to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It would be hard to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were sovereign Palestinian lands from 1949 to 1967. Seeing as Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and held onto it until 1967, it’s clear that this land was not Palestinian. Likewise, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military control for the large majority of that period. Why didn't they asked for independence from either Jordan or Egypt btw? two countries who "supposedly" fought for their cause in 48'
The fourth map is an accurate representation of Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty so far as I can tell, but its context has been completely hijacked by the inaccurate maps that precede it. Again we are talking about temporary sovereignty alone and not actual land appropriation. The settlements today are around 6-7% of the land in the west bank not the whole white thing.
Beyond that it's intentionally mislabels the division between jew and arabs who both were referred to as palestinians at the time by the brits. The actual map this first map is misrepresenting includes a third category, called "public land" which is basically government owned land. The true division was that just 40% was privately owned by arabs, 10% by jews and 50% was british owned.
The second map is just irrelevant in this context. Why is the UN partition plan, which was accepted by the Jews but was never implemented because it was rejected by the arabs, part of this sequence? A plan that never happened cannot be considered an accurate depiction of reality because it never was. The arabs were supposed to get 47% of the land (similar to what they owned) but they rejected it and declared a war.
The third map attributes sovereignty to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It would be hard to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were sovereign Palestinian lands from 1949 to 1967. Seeing as Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and held onto it until 1967, it’s clear that this land was not Palestinian. Likewise, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military control for the large majority of that period. Why didn't they asked for independence from either Jordan or Egypt btw? two countries who "supposedly" fought for their cause in 48'
The fourth map is an accurate representation of Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty so far as I can tell, but its context has been completely hijacked by the inaccurate maps that precede it. Again we are talking about temporary sovereignty alone and not actual land appropriation. The settlements today are around 6-7% of the land in the west bank not the whole white thing.
They offered Palestinians their land? Empty offers mean nothing. The reality is they have continually been swallowing up more and more Palestinian land on a daily basis since the late 40s.
That's not a narrative, that's always been the reality (unless you're a Zionist).
Israel was established by armed Zionists massacring and wiping out entire Palestinian areas - that's fact.
- - - Updated - - -
Your posts are straight out of the Hasbara manuals, word for word.
This line here is like "I killed his parents, his kids, his relatives, his friends, took all his property, and then kept beating him until he reacted, he obviously doesn't want peace that violent crazed man, why would he react, must be his backward religion!"
It's wonderful how Israel always uses Hamas as the boogeyman, ignoring the Elephant in the room, their armed to the teeth military who has continuously been taking lives and land since the establishment of their state.
That's not a narrative, that's always been the reality (unless you're a Zionist).
Israel was established by armed Zionists massacring and wiping out entire Palestinian areas - that's fact.
- - - Updated - - -
Your posts are straight out of the Hasbara manuals, word for word.
This line here is like "I killed his parents, his kids, his relatives, his friends, took all his property, and then kept beating him until he reacted, he obviously doesn't want peace that violent crazed man, why would he react, must be his backward religion!"
It's wonderful how Israel always uses Hamas as the boogeyman, ignoring the Elephant in the room, their armed to the teeth military who has continuously been taking lives and land since the establishment of their state.