Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 19:53:21 GMT
The so called "rights" in Israeli law to protect minorities, do not prevent widespread discrimination in all sectors of life for those of Arab ethnicity. So you have little cause to say a independent Palestinian State would act in worse manner. I suspect that the Palestinians after all the grief given to them by the Israeli occupiers and makers of the new Apartheid , will have learned something the Israelis have forgotten. That looks like a clear case of wishful thinking. The right to a dream of better days it not the sole preserve of Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 17, 2018 20:58:07 GMT
The so called "rights" in Israeli law to protect minorities, do not prevent widespread discrimination in all sectors of life for those of Arab ethnicity. So you have little cause to say a independent Palestinian State would act in worse manner. I suspect that the Palestinians after all the grief given to them by the Israeli occupiers and makers of the new Apartheid , will have learned something the Israelis have forgotten. That looks like a clear case of wishful thinking. I'm afraid @williamhone1780 that Israel is pretty much the locus classics that a people who have been treated like shit do not become saints when they themselves are in power. I really would like to think better of the Palestinians, but I can't. If anything pre-1948 Jewish culture gave much more reason for hope. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 21:17:03 GMT
That looks like a clear case of wishful thinking. I'm afraid @williamhone1780 that Israel is pretty much the locus classics that a people who have been treated like shit do not become saints when they themselves are in power. I really would like to think better of the Palestinians, but I can't. If anything pre-1948 Jewish culture gave much more reason for hope. That's too sweeping a statement, take for instance South Africa were that clearly isn't the case, but even if not perfect it still doesn't excuse Israeli behaviour towards Palestinians nor the treatment of their own Arab speaking minority. Palestinian actions are a result of 50 years of worsening conditions for them. Live there then try and not go mad and you will understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 17, 2018 21:26:47 GMT
I'm afraid @williamhone1780 that Israel is pretty much the locus classics that a people who have been treated like shit do not become saints when they themselves are in power. I really would like to think better of the Palestinians, but I can't. If anything pre-1948 Jewish culture gave much more reason for hope. That's too sweeping a statement, take for instance South Africa were that clearly isn't the case, but even if not perfect it still doesn't excuse Israeli behaviour towards Palestinians nor the treatment of their own Arab speaking minority. Palestinian actions are a result of 50 years of worsening conditions for them. Live there then try and not go mad and you will understand.
I'm not trying to excuse the Israelis nor lacking in sympathy for the Palestinians. The only thing you say that is actually relevant is to give the South African counter example, which is sound enough. But do you see a Palestinian Mandela and Tutu? It takes that sort of saintliness combined with authority to bring about a result as (relatively) successful as South Africa. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 21:36:31 GMT
I'm afraid @williamhone1780 that Israel is pretty much the locus classics that a people who have been treated like shit do not become saints when they themselves are in power. I really would like to think better of the Palestinians, but I can't. If anything pre-1948 Jewish culture gave much more reason for hope. That's too sweeping a statement, take for instance South Africa were that clearly isn't the case, but even if not perfect it still doesn't excuse Israeli behaviour towards Palestinians nor the treatment of their own Arab speaking minority. Palestinian actions are a result of 50 years of worsening conditions for them. Live there then try and not go mad and you will understand.
I wouldn’t hold South Africa up tbh. Sure whilst Mandela was alive there some hope. Since 2013 however, things haven’t been going so well have they? Corruption, ANC extreme populist racism frankly, the Guptas, Malema and his fascists are reminiscent of the days of the 1920’s here in Europe. South Africa is no longer a beacon of anything positive imo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 21:37:46 GMT
That's too sweeping a statement, take for instance South Africa were that clearly isn't the case, but even if not perfect it still doesn't excuse Israeli behaviour towards Palestinians nor the treatment of their own Arab speaking minority. Palestinian actions are a result of 50 years of worsening conditions for them. Live there then try and not go mad and you will understand.
I'm not trying to excuse the Israelis nor lacking in sympathy for the Palestinians. The only thing you say that is actually relevant is to give the South African counter example, which is sound enough. But do you see a Palestinian Mandela and Tutu? It takes that sort of saintliness combined with authority to bring about a result as (relatively) successful as South Africa. "But do you see a Palestinian Mandela " Yes Marwan Barghouti, but the Israelis imprisoned him. All political leaders are flawed, look at Aung San Suu Kyi. In fact the Israelis like their Palestinian leaders weak and better still compromised as potential collaborators. Didn't work when the racist white minority government of pre-1995 killed and imprisoned black leaders to prevent leaders arising and sure as hell wont work now.
If you have some sympathy for the Palestinians then support the boycott, make things more difficult for their policies not easier. At least a boycott is peaceful..
|
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Jan 18, 2018 11:23:22 GMT
Palestine had it chance (multiple times) and CHOSE to continue to fight for even more land. War can be over here (if you want it)
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jan 18, 2018 20:29:04 GMT
Palestine had it chance (multiple times) and CHOSE to continue to fight for even more land. War can be over here (if you want it) And, not to put too fine a point on it, Palestinians have had, on their doorstep, a whole load of very similar countries to decamp to if they want to or need to. Israelis/Jews really don't have anywhere else to go. It's an isolated, unique, one-of-a-kind country. Yes, some people will argue they go to the USA on the other side of the world, but that's really, really not comparable to the 'United States of Islam' option available to Palestinians. It's a pipe dream, I know, but I'd like to see something resembling the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel restored. Yes, at the expense of territory from identikit Arab states. The world needs more unique countries and fewer Qatars, Chads and Luxembourgs. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 18, 2018 21:05:33 GMT
Palestine had it chance (multiple times) and CHOSE to continue to fight for even more land. War can be over here (if you want it) And, not to put too fine a point on it, Palestinians have had, on their doorstep, a whole load of very similar countries to decamp to if they want to or need to.
Israelis/Jews really don't have anywhere else to go. It's an isolated, unique, one-of-a-kind country. Yes, some people will argue they go to the USA on the other side of the world, but that's really, really not comparable to the 'United States of Islam' option available to Palestinians. It's a pipe dream, I know, but I'd like to see something resembling the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel restored. Yes, at the expense of territory from identikit Arab states. The world needs more unique countries and fewer Qatars, Chads and Luxembourgs. I don't think this is at all acceptable. If southern England was handed over to another country and I was evicted from my property I wouldn't just accept being told "stop whinging, you can live in Australia or New Zealand, you're all identikit anglo countries." Arab countries aren't all "identikit"; they have fought wars with each other (Jordan vs the PLO aided by Syria, Saudi vs Yemen in progress, Syria vs assorted Lebanese, Nasser's Egypt vs Oman off the top of my head.) We went to war (in alliance with Saudi and Syria) to preserve the independence of Kuwait from Iraq. As for the post you are replying to: pre 1948 Palestinian Arabs could live all over Palestine. The UN proposed borders would have handed over about half the place to Israel, Israel took more in the '48 fighting, then the lot in '67. A small amount was handed back on limited terms (which the Israelis insist does not about to independence) and the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful and make concessions - but the existence of Israel at all (however justified for other reasons) involves massive sacrifices and compromises by the Palestinians. Not only are these never enough, they aren't recognised as having happened at all - to the extent that it can be claimed that it is the Palestinians who seek "more land". There is only one side that is grabbing land in this situation. I've been clear that I hold no optimism for a Palestinian state being democratic or tolerant but it is not surprising that they see no prospect for anything other than war when the opposing side expects them to hand over all their land and be grateful for scraps. As for "biblical boundaries" of Israel: WTF? Why not the boundaries of Achaemenid Persia for Iran if antiquity is the reason? Or if we are going by mythological fictions, how about restoring King Arthur's conquest of the Roman Empire for Britain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 21:09:35 GMT
Palestine had it chance (multiple times) and CHOSE to continue to fight for even more land. War can be over here (if you want it) And, not to put too fine a point on it, Palestinians have had, on their doorstep, a whole load of very similar countries to decamp to if they want to or need to. Israelis/Jews really don't have anywhere else to go. It's an isolated, unique, one-of-a-kind country. Yes, some people will argue they go to the USA on the other side of the world, but that's really, really not comparable to the 'United States of Islam' option available to Palestinians. It's a pipe dream, I know, but I'd like to see something resembling the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel restored. Yes, at the expense of territory from identikit Arab states. The world needs more unique countries and fewer Qatars, Chads and Luxembourgs. I'm sure you are just trolling now to see if I will respond, but I will not, since these ideas are not original and come straight from the racist zealots who are members of the current Israeli government.
Nice photo of Esther, do you have one of her in a swimsuit?
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jan 18, 2018 21:23:40 GMT
And, not to put too fine a point on it, Palestinians have had, on their doorstep, a whole load of very similar countries to decamp to if they want to or need to.
Israelis/Jews really don't have anywhere else to go. It's an isolated, unique, one-of-a-kind country. Yes, some people will argue they go to the USA on the other side of the world, but that's really, really not comparable to the 'United States of Islam' option available to Palestinians. It's a pipe dream, I know, but I'd like to see something resembling the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel restored. Yes, at the expense of territory from identikit Arab states. The world needs more unique countries and fewer Qatars, Chads and Luxembourgs. I don't think this is at all acceptable. If southern England was handed over to another country and I was evicted from my property I wouldn't just accept being told "stop whinging, you can live in Australia or New Zealand, you're all identikit anglo countries." Arab countries aren't all "identikit"; they have fought wars with each other (Jordan vs the PLO aided by Syria, Saudi vs Yemen in progress, Syria vs assorted Lebanese, Nasser's Egypt vs Oman off the top of my head.) We went to war (in alliance with Saudi and Syria) to preserve the independence of Kuwait from Iraq. As for the post you are replying to: pre 1948 Palestinian Arabs could live all over Palestine. The UN proposed borders would have handed over about half the place to Israel, Israel took more in the '48 fighting, then the lot in '67. A small amount was handed back on limited terms (which the Israelis insist does not about to independence) and the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful and make concessions - but the existence of Israel at all (however justified for other reasons) involves massive sacrifices and compromises by the Palestinians. Not only are these never enough, they aren't recognised as having happened at all - to the extent that it can be claimed that it is the Palestinians who seek "more land". There is only one side that is grabbing land in this situation. I've been clear that I hold no optimism for a Palestinian state being democratic or tolerant but it is not surprising that they see no prospect for anything other than war when the opposing side expects them to hand over all their land and be grateful for scraps. As for "biblical boundaries" of Israel: WTF? Why not the boundaries of Achaemenid Persia for Iran if antiquity is the reason? Or if we are going by mythological fictions, how about restoring King Arthur's conquest of the Roman Empire for Britain? Australia and New Zealand are on the other side of the world and have radical differences from us (Christmas in the Summer FFS) - that's really not the same as moving from Gaza to Beirut. And this country is, like Israel, one of the more objectively unique ones, so I don't buy that analogy. If you were forced to move from Abingdon to Bath, or Carshalton to Twickenham, or even to Orkney or Shetland, that would be a better comparison. Judging by the places I've been in the Middle East, I wouldn't be able to tell that Doha, Dubai and Muscat were all in different countries. I'm not suggesting that this phenomenon is unique to that region - it's common enough in bloody Europe as well. But there is nothing remotely like Israel for their people to go to - and a lot, or possibly every single one, of the neighbouring countries would be actively hostile to taking them in. The state of Israel really wasn't created out of spite but absolute necessity (with only really a modest nod to history and sacronsanctity). Arthurian restoration would indeed have some merit. What a fine idea. I might concentrate on that once I've been successful in my campaign to bring back the French monarchy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 21:52:35 GMT
And, not to put too fine a point on it, Palestinians have had, on their doorstep, a whole load of very similar countries to decamp to if they want to or need to.
Israelis/Jews really don't have anywhere else to go. It's an isolated, unique, one-of-a-kind country. Yes, some people will argue they go to the USA on the other side of the world, but that's really, really not comparable to the 'United States of Islam' option available to Palestinians. It's a pipe dream, I know, but I'd like to see something resembling the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel restored. Yes, at the expense of territory from identikit Arab states. The world needs more unique countries and fewer Qatars, Chads and Luxembourgs. I don't think this is at all acceptable. If southern England was handed over to another country and I was evicted from my property I wouldn't just accept being told "stop whinging, you can live in Australia or New Zealand, you're all identikit anglo countries." Arab countries aren't all "identikit"; they have fought wars with each other (Jordan vs the PLO aided by Syria, Saudi vs Yemen in progress, Syria vs assorted Lebanese, Nasser's Egypt vs Oman off the top of my head.) We went to war (in alliance with Saudi and Syria) to preserve the independence of Kuwait from Iraq. As for the post you are replying to: pre 1948 Palestinian Arabs could live all over Palestine. The UN proposed borders would have handed over about half the place to Israel, Israel took more in the '48 fighting, then the lot in '67. A small amount was handed back on limited terms (which the Israelis insist does not about to independence) and the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful and make concessions - but the existence of Israel at all (however justified for other reasons) involves massive sacrifices and compromises by the Palestinians. Not only are these never enough, they aren't recognised as having happened at all - to the extent that it can be claimed that it is the Palestinians who seek "more land". There is only one side that is grabbing land in this situation. I've been clear that I hold no optimism for a Palestinian state being democratic or tolerant but it is not surprising that they see no prospect for anything other than war when the opposing side expects them to hand over all their land and be grateful for scraps. As for "biblical boundaries" of Israel: WTF? Why not the boundaries of Achaemenid Persia for Iran if antiquity is the reason? Or if we are going by mythological fictions, how about restoring King Arthur's conquest of the Roman Empire for Britain? I agree with 9/10 of this but not the bit about Palestinian democracy that's to sombre |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 18, 2018 22:19:03 GMT
I don't think this is at all acceptable. If southern England was handed over to another country and I was evicted from my property I wouldn't just accept being told "stop whinging, you can live in Australia or New Zealand, you're all identikit anglo countries." Arab countries aren't all "identikit"; they have fought wars with each other (Jordan vs the PLO aided by Syria, Saudi vs Yemen in progress, Syria vs assorted Lebanese, Nasser's Egypt vs Oman off the top of my head.) We went to war (in alliance with Saudi and Syria) to preserve the independence of Kuwait from Iraq. As for the post you are replying to: pre 1948 Palestinian Arabs could live all over Palestine. The UN proposed borders would have handed over about half the place to Israel, Israel took more in the '48 fighting, then the lot in '67. A small amount was handed back on limited terms (which the Israelis insist does not about to independence) and the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful and make concessions - but the existence of Israel at all (however justified for other reasons) involves massive sacrifices and compromises by the Palestinians. Not only are these never enough, they aren't recognised as having happened at all - to the extent that it can be claimed that it is the Palestinians who seek "more land". There is only one side that is grabbing land in this situation. I've been clear that I hold no optimism for a Palestinian state being democratic or tolerant but it is not surprising that they see no prospect for anything other than war when the opposing side expects them to hand over all their land and be grateful for scraps. As for "biblical boundaries" of Israel: WTF? Why not the boundaries of Achaemenid Persia for Iran if antiquity is the reason? Or if we are going by mythological fictions, how about restoring King Arthur's conquest of the Roman Empire for Britain? Australia and New Zealand are on the other side of the world and have radical differences from us (Christmas in the Summer FFS) - that's really not the same as moving from Gaza to Beirut. And this country is, like Israel, one of the more objectively unique ones, so I don't buy that analogy. If you were forced to move from Abingdon to Bath, or Carshalton to Twickenham, or even to Orkney or Shetland, that would be a better comparison. Judging by the places I've been in the Middle East, I wouldn't be able to tell that Doha, Dubai and Muscat were all in different countries. I'm not suggesting that this phenomenon is unique to that region - it's common enough in bloody Europe as well. But there is nothing remotely like Israel for their people to go to - and a lot, or possibly every single one, of the neighbouring countries would be actively hostile to taking them in. The state of Israel really wasn't created out of spite but absolute necessity (with only really a modest nod to history and sacronsanctity). Arthurian restoration would indeed have some merit. What a fine idea. I might concentrate on that once I've been successful in my campaign to bring back the French monarchy. The options for Israelis to move aren't at issue; I'm not saying that Israel should not exist, nor even that Palestinians don't have to move to make that possible. I am saying that the idea that the Palestinians are being obdurate doesn't stand up - to create Israel in any form, on any borders, involves considerable sacrifices for the Palestinians. If you want to change the analogy to moving from Abingdon to Orkney (or perhaps Scotland generally, in order to make people fit in) I don't mind. It would involve massive disruption (for both parties btw, the inhabitants of Scotland/Beirut aren't necessarily going to welcome a big influx - the proposition was tried in Beirut and ended in one of the more appalling massacres of the Mid East). It would involve people giving up their homes and livelihoods and breaking up communities - as happened to the Palestinian diaspora - and these were largely rural people, their precise piece of land mattered to them. There would be misery and pain in the English example, there has been for the Palestinians. None of these things mean that Israel should not exist nor the Palestinians accept the need to yield territory; but the point is that they are yielding territory, masses of it, yet the debate is solely about whether the Israelis should trade land for peace, and how little they can get away with. But its not their fucking land. They aren't giving the Palestinians anything, they are just agreeing not to take all of it. Until they accept that Palestinians have at least an equal claim, there is no meeting of minds - there is no give-and-take because one side genuinely doesn't think it is taking at all; but it is. And the attitude that Palestinians already have a home in e.g. Jordan or Lebanon - two places where the indigenous populations fought wars to expel Palestinian refugees from - is part of the problem. (There'd be even more war in Syria if they went there, too.) |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 19, 2018 8:06:15 GMT
And, not to put too fine a point on it, Palestinians have had, on their doorstep, a whole load of very similar countries to decamp to if they want to or need to. Israelis/Jews really don't have anywhere else to go. It's an isolated, unique, one-of-a-kind country. Yes, some people will argue they go to the USA on the other side of the world, but that's really, really not comparable to the 'United States of Islam' option available to Palestinians. It's a pipe dream, I know, but I'd like to see something resembling the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel restored. Yes, at the expense of territory from identikit Arab states. The world needs more unique countries and fewer Qatars, Chads and Luxembourgs. I'm sure you are just trolling now to see if I will respond, but I will not, since these ideas are not original and come straight from the racist zealots who are members of the current Israeli government.
Nice photo of Esther, do you have one of her in a swimsuit?
 I don't agree that the world needs fewer Luxembourgs either. I don't think this is at all acceptable. If southern England was handed over to another country and I was evicted from my property I wouldn't just accept being told "stop whinging, you can live in Australia or New Zealand, you're all identikit anglo countries." Arab countries aren't all "identikit"; they have fought wars with each other (Jordan vs the PLO aided by Syria, Saudi vs Yemen in progress, Syria vs assorted Lebanese, Nasser's Egypt vs Oman off the top of my head.) We went to war (in alliance with Saudi and Syria) to preserve the independence of Kuwait from Iraq. As for the post you are replying to: pre 1948 Palestinian Arabs could live all over Palestine. The UN proposed borders would have handed over about half the place to Israel, Israel took more in the '48 fighting, then the lot in '67. A small amount was handed back on limited terms (which the Israelis insist does not about to independence) and the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful and make concessions - but the existence of Israel at all (however justified for other reasons) involves massive sacrifices and compromises by the Palestinians. Not only are these never enough, they aren't recognised as having happened at all - to the extent that it can be claimed that it is the Palestinians who seek "more land". There is only one side that is grabbing land in this situation. I've been clear that I hold no optimism for a Palestinian state being democratic or tolerant but it is not surprising that they see no prospect for anything other than war when the opposing side expects them to hand over all their land and be grateful for scraps. As for "biblical boundaries" of Israel: WTF? Why not the boundaries of Achaemenid Persia for Iran if antiquity is the reason? Or if we are going by mythological fictions, how about restoring King Arthur's conquest of the Roman Empire for Britain? Australia and New Zealand are on the other side of the world and have radical differences from us (Christmas in the Summer FFS) - that's really not the same as moving from Gaza to Beirut. And this country is, like Israel, one of the more objectively unique ones, so I don't buy that analogy. If you were forced to move from Abingdon to Bath, or Carshalton to Twickenham, or even to Orkney or Shetland, that would be a better comparison. Judging by the places I've been in the Middle East, I wouldn't be able to tell that Doha, Dubai and Muscat were all in different countries. I'm not suggesting that this phenomenon is unique to that region - it's common enough in bloody Europe as well. But there is nothing remotely like Israel for their people to go to - and a lot, or possibly every single one, of the neighbouring countries would be actively hostile to taking them in. The state of Israel really wasn't created out of spite but absolute necessity (with only really a modest nod to history and sacronsanctity). Arthurian restoration would indeed have some merit. What a fine idea. I might concentrate on that once I've been successful in my campaign to bring back the French monarchy. I'm half-tempted to say that this sounds like a Sisyphean task... and the other half is tempted to answer that it looks as if Le Roi Emmanuel Ier of the House of Macron has already got there first! Moving from Abingdon to Orkney, incidentally, would just constitute a transfer between two Lib Dem seats. |
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Jan 19, 2018 10:24:19 GMT
Wrt Israel stealing land, an analogy.
Suppose my neighbour owns a hammer, with which he intends to clout me over the head.
To prevent this happening, I steal his hammer from his toolshed in the middle of the night, thus removing the threat against me.
I have technically committed a crime of theft. Ought I be compelled to return his property to him in the knowledge that he's just going to try and bash my brains in as soon as he gets the hammer back? Or do we acknowledge that the wider context makes that impossible without binding assurances that the hammer, which has the words STRONTIUM DOG MUST DIE!! carved into it, will not be used for its originally intended purpose?
Now apply this logic to the Middle East land dispute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 12:30:29 GMT
Wrt Israel stealing land, an analogy. Suppose my neighbour owns a hammer, with which he intends to clout me over the head. To prevent this happening, I steal his hammer from his toolshed in the middle of the night, thus removing the threat against me. I have technically committed a crime of theft. Ought I be compelled to return his property to him in the knowledge that he's just going to try and bash my brains in as soon as he gets the hammer back? Or do we acknowledge that the wider context makes that impossible without binding assurances that the hammer, which has the words STRONTIUM DOG MUST DIE!! carved into it, will not be used for its originally intended purpose? Now apply this logic to the Middle East land dispute. Israel is armed to the teeth and they have nukes. Anyone attacking them is suicidal and the Palestinians know this. Furthermore, any peace will probably involve a demilitarised Palestinian State AND Israeli troops on the Jordan river. That is a massive sacrifice and loss of face. I’m pro Israel but the Israelis can’t have it all their own way. FWIW I think the idea that Palestinians today should be held guilty for the crimes of their fathers in Yom Kippur etc. is for the birds. We would not accept being colonised by India because our great grandparents generation did it to them. So why should the Palestinians be continually invaded because their fathers invaded Israel? |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jul 21, 2018 20:59:28 GMT
Israel is armed to the teeth and they have nukes. Anyone attacking them is suicidal and the Palestinians know this. Furthermore, any peace will probably involve a demilitarised Palestinian State AND Israeli troops on the Jordan river. That is a massive sacrifice and loss of face. I’m pro Israel but the Israelis can’t have it all their own way. FWIW I think the idea that Palestinians today should be held guilty for the crimes of their fathers in Yom Kippur etc. is for the birds. We would not accept being colonised by India because our great grandparents generation did it to them. So why should the Palestinians be continually invaded because their fathers invaded Israel? "...So why should the Palestinians be continually invaded because their fathers invaded Israel?.." Forfarshire Conservative As you know only to well, the Palestinians have never invaded their own country.
That’s a piss poor attempt at baiting me. All I’ll say is that the Jewish people have a right to self determination. End of discussion. |
|
