Isreal's "Iron Dome" intercepting Gaza rockets

Israel's inna fight again.
The way they've been acting lately in the news, I wonder if we're in the right for supporting them this long.
With Obama in office, are we still backing these pricks or are they on their own now?

You've still got their backs, racist, hypocritical meeps that they are.

<--Hugs Jews. They're really huggable!

Really!

Mad Moshe, beyond Iron Dome

This would be a lot cooler if I didn't have to pay for it with my taxes, and if the beneficiary wasn't a racist, religiously bigoted apartheid state that condones land theft.

You said, "land theft."

lulz.

@MstrLance

What do you call the "settler" movement? I call it that thing at which you lul'd.

Also, I agree with you that (some) Jews are huggable (very), but the state of Israel is something else entirely.

@LOki

I call it "settling."

What's your point?

@MstrLance

My point is that I'd rather not support thieves.

What thieves?

@MstrLance

Why don't they call it the Yamulke?

The so-called "settler" movement and the IDF. They are thieves. Of land. Zionism is theft, unless the Palestinian (or Syrian, or Jordanian, or what have you) from whom you have purchased your little slice of holy-land has entered into the exchange of his own free will, without being coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms.

@LOki

The "Palestinians" from whom said lands are allegedly being stolen have no connection what-so-ever to the Israelis that forfeited their citizenship in the nation of Israel, when they fought (and lost) beside the hostile foreign nations (Syria, or Jordan, or what have you) that sought to invade and destroy Israel on the very day of its birth?

No Jews can make any kind of claim to being of "Palestine"; to being "Palestinian" themselves?

No Jews were ever "coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms" from their homeland--which was Judea long before it was named "Palestine" in an effort to dissociate the region from the people who were being forcibly expelled by all manner of foreign and religious Johnny-Come-Latelies?

This is your point? Really?

@MstrLance

No, I didn't say those things. That was you, L0ki.

The Palestinians who were living in Palestine at the time of the Nakba were not yet Israelis, and obviously had no desire to be. They were rightfully resisting foreign invaders who were colonizing their land and attempting to "birth" a new state on their property.

A Jew can indeed make claims to being "of Palestine" if they were born there, or if they paid fairly for the land they bought from it's previous owner, without coersion or violence. You can't "return" to a place you've never been to, and neither your ancestry nor your religion can alter that simple fact.

I also didn't say that Jews were never coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms from their homeland. If you have a problem with the ancient Romans, or the Ottomans, etc, take it up with them. Leave the Palestinians out of it: they were born on that land, whatever you choose to call it, as were their parents, in most cases, and their parents before them, and so on for hundreds of years. And they didn't take it away from the Jews.

So why do you seem to presume that ancestral homelands are subject to free colonization by remote descendants anyway? I have some Dutch ancestry. Does that mean I can go "settle" someone else's neighborhood there without paying the owners for the property? I'd better bulldoze the surrounding neighborhoods as well, because I have a right to self defense, too. Right?

-

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs ... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."

~ Mahatma Gandhi (source)

@LOki

A Swarm-Fight over a Jew-Fight... there will never be peace in our time.

Losing land after attacking another country then losing the war has been the practice for all time.
Israel has already given back most of the land it rightfully claimed after successfully rebuffing the invaders.
The 'Arabs' did not arrive in that area until the Islamic invasion that led up to the Crusades.
History trumps Progressive twaddle.

MstrLance:
No, I didn't say those things.

The implications are there, and pointing them out to you is valid.

Or ... maybe your bitterness over not belonging to Yaweh's chosen people affords you some heightened tolerance for your own cognitive dissonance.

MstrLance:
That was you, L0ki.

Or ... perhaps it's just Jew-envy inspired dissociation from reality.

MstrLance:
The Palestinians who were living in Palestine at the time of the Nakba were not yet Israelis,...

Oh, they most certainly were.

MstrLance:
... and obviously had no desire to be.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they actually were Israelis on May 14, 1948.THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, May 14, 1948: The State Of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or meep; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

MstrLance:
They were rightfully resisting foreign invaders who were colonizing their land and attempting to "birth" a new state on their property.

That is a patently obvious error of fact. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--hostile foreign nations--invaded Israel, and a certain dangerously significant contingent of Muslim-Israelis (now identified as "Palestinians") chose to fight beside the hostile foreign invaders ... against their nation; an overt act of treason. Whether they liked Jews or not.

You see MstrLance, outside of British administration, in 1948 there was no recognized valid sovereign organization in the Palestinian provinces in question. The Trans-Jordan area did, but not this area under contention by Jewish Palestinians and Muslim (and/or Christian) Palestinians. On May 14, 1948, a legitimate sovereign organization (The State of Israel) made itself known, and immediately thereafter was attacked by hostile foreign nations.

Hence, according to what we agree constitutes a Palestinian these former Arab/Islamic Israelis (Palestinians) actually belonged (briefly) to a nation (Israel) in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that when the Palestinian nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its recognition, it was attacked by the Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it, and those Arab/Islamic nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.

Is this not the case?

These "Palestinians" chose to fight (uncoerced) with the forces of the invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and they lost.

This is unambiguously true, yes?

These "Palestinians" could have fought beside their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise.

Did they not?

In doing so, did they not lose any claim to a homeland in Israel ("Palestine", whatever) when they turned against their own countrymen, embraced the agenda of invading nations ... and lost?

Did they not give up their citizenship in their nation that asserted its commitment to "[i]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 meep; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;...[/i]?

Of course they did.

And what they favored was instead this:

THE COVENANT OF HAMAS:
From Article 13: Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion.

From Article 17: The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realized the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

(HOLY meep! Those meeping Rotarians! FUKAN LOLZ!)

THE CONSTITUTION OF FATAH:
Article 12: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Article 22: Oppos[e] any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.

THE PALISTINIAN CHARTER OF 1968:
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

It seems rather apparent that some Palestinians just wish to deny Jewish Palestinians the security in their religion that some Palestinians enjoy in the Palestinian nation of Jordan--and nothing else.

MstrLance:
A Jew can indeed make claims to being "of Palestine" if they were born there, ...

An arbitrarily exclusive qualification that is obviously retarded.

MstrLance:
... or if they paid fairly for the land they bought from it's previous owner, without coersion or violence.

Which was a common practice before a bunch of anti-semites inspired by the Arab League's Islamic Manifest Destiny decided to shoot every bagel-eater right between their dread-locked sideburns.

MstrLance:
You can't "return" to a place you've never been to, and neither your ancestry nor your religion can alter that simple fact.

Despite the involuntary and unjust exile imposed upon Jewish Palestinians, you are not going to convince me now that you are unaware of the fact that said Jews (and hence their progeny) that were driven from Judea were not literally every bit as "Palestinian" as the Christian and Muslim natives that remained behind.

Unless you'd like to disavow any and all the European and/or Arabic ethnicity of those remaining "natives" to make a point.

That would be fun.

MstrLance:
I also didn't say that Jews were never coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms from their homeland.

But you are STRONGLY implying that being coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms from their homeland is sufficient cause to invalidate their and/or their progeny's claims to belonging to that homeland.

MstrLance:
If you have a problem with the ancient Romans, or the Ottomans, etc, take it up with them.

I don't have to--The English took it up. You see, MstrLance, the Ottomans were possessed of the poor judgment to join in with the Central Powers during World War I, and the bad luck to find themselves governed under under the sovereign power of England after they lost in that fight.

England, unlike you, recognized the legitimacy of Jewish people's claims to their homeland in Judea (same place as "Palestine"), and allowed them to return ... mostly ... for a little while at least.

MstrLance:
Leave the Palestinians out of it: they were born on that land, whatever you choose to call it, as were their parents, in most cases, and their parents before them, and so on for hundreds of years. And they didn't take it away from the Jews.

Well, someone did. And as it turns out, in the majority of the instances (before some "Palestinians" went traitor), returning Jews were in fact buying the properties they settled, or were settling OBVIOUSLY unoccupied wasteland.

But then, when it came to a fight to defend their nation, some "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of the invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and 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 meep-birds. And the Israelis were right, and within their rights, to expel those jackasses. Israelis settling the land left behind was not theft.

Considering the behavior of the progeny of those expelled traitors, I'm entirely unsurprised that Israelis remain unwelcoming to them, and wholly surprised at the monumental restraint Israel has exercised in not obliterating them from the planet in the manner that they have clearly been so capable of doing.

MstrLance:
So why do you seem to presume that ancestral homelands are subject to free colonization by remote descendants anyway?

I don't. I don't see it as colonization, and I certainly don't see it as free.

MstrLance:
I have some Dutch ancestry.

What a helpfully explanatory "treat."

MstrLance:
Does that mean I can go "settle" someone else's neighborhood there without paying the owners for the property?

I'd be surprised to find you (with your Dutch sensibilities) in disagreement with the notion.

MstrLance:
I'd better bulldoze the surrounding neighborhoods as well, because I have a right to self defense, too. Right?

Of course. I see no reason for you to be anything less than entirely "Dutch" about everyhing.

MstrLance:
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs ... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home." ~ Mahatma Gandhi (source)

The Jews were already there, and were explicitly committed to "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or meep."

The plan to invade "Palestine" was in actuality made by the surrounding Arab/Muslim nations--the truth of this is made manifest in the actuality of that precise invasion.

The point of that invasion was nothing short of genocide--the extermination of Jews--the truth of this is made manifest in the constitutions and covenants and unambiguous actions of the "Palestinian" traitors to Israel, and their sponsoring enablers in the hostile nations surrounding Israel.

You can feel free to maintain that the goal of the Zionists was founded in irrational fears--go ahead and claim their desire for their goal invalid based upon their irrational fear. You can continue to claim their goal invalid because of so many Jews had an (involuntary) overstay in Europe for a few generations. Call it invalid because Zionists based their desires upon overstated injustices committed upon them.

But you cannot claim that they did not stand up as the valid sovereign organization in "Palestine" on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region. And you cannot claim that (aided by foreign nations) certain Israeli/Palestinians 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.

Zionists and their goals, and the motivations for their goals are immaterial to my point. My point is that some "Palestinians" and Zionists stood to defend their nation against their neighboring aggressors, and other "Palestinians" stood with those aggressors. Those latter "Palestinians" were traitors. The posterity of those traitors, who continue to aggress against Israel, rightfully earn the title of "traitor" that they have inherited from their sires.

What nation does such a people deserve? Not the one they spurned, certainly. So which then? Do these people (as a people) deserve a nation at all?

I think these "Palestinians" have been barred from citizenship in the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations because the citizens of those nations weren't too keen on patriating the traitors to Israel they sponsored in 1948 (after all, traitors [I]ARE[/I] traitors regardless of which side they sell out to); and they maintain that same position of disdain for the posterity of those traitors (for obvious reasons).

My conclusion is that Palestinians deserve no place in Israel, and have no claim upon any lands held ("occupied", whatever) by Israel. I conclude that their place and those claims in and of Israel were forfeited in their treason.

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.

@MstrLance

>>MstrLance: No, I didn't say those things.

>The implications are there, and pointing them out to you is valid.

No they are not, so no it isn't.

>Or ... maybe your bitterness over not belonging to Yaweh's chosen people affords you some heightened tolerance for your own cognitive dissonance.

Or maybe I'm not racist, religious, or bigoted, and I didn't say or imply what you said I did. Maybe I was honestly and reasonably assessing the relative merits of the respective claims to ownership of that land.

>>MstrLance: That was you, L0ki.

>Or ... perhaps it's just Jew-envy inspired dissociation from reality.

I have no desire to join any religion, and I'm content with both my ancestry and cultural heritage as well as my dissociation from your perceived reality and attempted insults.

>>MstrLance: The Palestinians who were living in Palestine at the time of the Nakba were not yet Israelis...

>Oh, they most certainly were.

According to the Zionists, perhaps, but not to themselves, which is what mattered.

>>MstrLance: ... and obviously had no desire to be.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they actually were Israelis on May 14, 1948.

Again, not without consent of the (attempted) governed. It is of paramount relevance, unless you're into despotic subjugation and stuff.

>THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL...

...is irrelevant. They could have been promising free flying ponies to every citizen, it still didn't turn the occupying foreigners (plus indigenous Jewish minority) into a legitimate authority over their homeland, unless the native inhabitants generally agreed, which, again, they obviously didn't.

>>MstrLance: They were rightfully resisting foreign invaders who were colonizing their land and attempting to "birth" a new state on their property.

>That is a patently obvious error of fact. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--hostile foreign nations--

--concerned neighbors--

>invaded Israel,

Palestine, and it's not an invasion if you're invited by the natives.

>and a certain dangerously significant contingent of Muslim-Israelis (now identified as "Palestinians") chose to fight beside the hostile foreign invaders ... against their nation; an overt act of treason. Whether they liked Jews or not.

They chose to fight in defense of their home, alongside some neighborly backup.

>You see MstrLance, outside of British administration, in 1948 there was no recognized valid sovereign organization in the Palestinian provinces in question.

So obviously they thought they needed to import some people to form a non-muslim client state.

>The Trans-Jordan area did, but not this area under contention by Jewish Palestinians and Muslim (and/or Christian) Palestinians. On May 14, 1948, a legitimate

And how did this "legitimacy" suddenly arise? Force of arms? The say-so of one side of the territorial dispute?

>sovereign organization (The State of Israel) made itself known, and immediately thereafter was attacked by hostile foreign nations.

>Hence, according to what we agree constitutes a Palestinian these former Arab/Islamic Israelis (Palestinians) actually belonged (briefly) to a nation (Israel) in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948.

Says you, not them.

>So correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that when the Palestinian nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its recognition, it was attacked by the Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it, and those Arab/Islamic nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.

You're wrong. No traitors were sponsored, unless they were actual Israelis who self-identified as such, and not their unwilling victims.

Is this not the case?

This is not the case.

>These "Palestinians" chose to fight (uncoerced) with the forces of the invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and they lost.

It wasn't their own nation, so no.

>This is unambiguously true, yes?

No.

>These "Palestinians" could have fought beside their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise.

They fought beside their friends who were helping them defend against encroachment by proxies of the western powers.

Did they not?

They did not.

In doing so, did they not lose any claim to a homeland in Israel ("Palestine", whatever) when they turned against their own countrymen, embraced the agenda of invading nations ... and lost?

No (see above).

>Did they not give up their citizenship in their nation that asserted its commitment to "[i]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 meep; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;...[/i]?

>Of course they did.

They only gave up offered citizenship in a nation that was not their own, and which they did not want, and which was actively colonizing their homeland.

>And what they favored was instead this:

>THE COVENANT OF HAMAS: ...

>THE CONSTITUTION OF FATAH: ...

>THE PALISTINIAN CHARTER OF 1968: ...

They aligned with organizations dedicated to helping them restore their stolen homeland. What a shocker.

It seems rather apparent that some Palestinians just wish to deny Jewish Palestinians the security in their religion that some Palestinians enjoy in the Palestinian nation of Jordan--and nothing else.

Yes, and the terrorists hate our freedoms. Thanks, but I'll look for explanations of Arab Muslim motives elsewhere. It seem rather apparent that your cultural bias has colored your interpretation to a disabling degree. It also seems rather apparent that you have more regard for the rights to self-determination and defense of some races and religions than you do of others.

>>MstrLance: A Jew can indeed make claims to being "of Palestine" if they were born there, ...

>An arbitrarily exclusive qualification that is obviously retarded.

How is that arbitrary? You are from where you were born; or, if you choose to relocate (legally and ethically), you can purchase or rent land somewhere else and be from there. To just move in and declare your new country is rarely well received by the locals. By the way, having ancestors that may or may not have once lived in that part of the world doesn't seem to affect this dynamic.

>>MstrLance: ... or if they paid fairly for the land they bought from it's previous owner, without coercion or violence.

>Which was a common practice before a bunch of anti-semites

Fun fact: Arabs are Semites (although anti-semites only hate Jews, apparently, for some obscure linguistic reason).

>,inspired by the Arab League's Islamic Manifest Destiny decided to shoot every bagel-eater right between their dread-locked sideburns.

Those violent people should rightly have been punished for their crimes. Not their relatives, mind you, but the culprits themselves.

>>MstrLance: You can't "return" to a place you've never been to, and neither your ancestry nor your religion can alter that simple fact.

>Despite the involuntary and unjust exile imposed upon Jewish Palestinians, you are not going to convince me now that you are unaware of the fact that said Jews (and hence their progeny) that were driven from Judea were not literally every bit as "Palestinian" as the Christian and Muslim natives that remained behind.

Said Jews were. Their progeny were not. Their progeny were born elsewhere, and so were of other nationalities.

>Unless you'd like to disavow any and all the European and/or Arabic ethnicity of those remaining "natives" to make a point.

I wouldn't dispute their ethnicity. I would dispute their nationality and their ownership of other people's land.

>That would be fun.

You and I have wildly disparate notions of fun, inter alia.

>>MstrLance: I also didn't say that Jews were never coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms from their homeland.

But you are STRONGLY implying that being coerced, killed, or displaced by force of arms from their homeland is sufficient cause to invalidate their and/or their progeny's claims to belonging to that homeland.

No, just their progeny, who were born in (or were "of") other countries. Does the descendant of a Russian Jew who was displaced by force or threat of force from Russia have claim of property ownership there, too? Jews were also originally from Africa, just like the rest of us. Do they own that land, as well?

>>MstrLance: If you have a problem with the ancient Romans, or the Ottomans, etc, take it up with them.

>I don't have to--The English took it up. You see, MstrLance, the Ottomans were possessed of the poor judgment to join in with the Central Powers during World War I, and the bad luck to find themselves governed under under the sovereign power of England after they lost in that fight.

>England, unlike you, recognized the legitimacy of Jewish people's claims to their homeland in Judea (same place as "Palestine"), and allowed them to return ... mostly ... for a little while at least.

Which would have been fine as long as they weren't stealing anything or asserting sovereign dominion over the native majority.

>>MstrLance: Leave the Palestinians out of it: they were born on that land, whatever you choose to call it, as were their parents, in most cases, and their parents before them, and so on for hundreds of years. And they didn't take it away from the Jews.

>Well, someone did.

Not the victims of Israeli colonization.

>And as it turns out, in the majority of the instances (before some "Palestinians" went traitor), returning Jews were in fact buying the properties they settled, or were settling OBVIOUSLY unoccupied wasteland.

Which was also fine until they invited all their foreign-born relatives, declared themselves the law-makers, and started settling OBVIOUSLY occupied neighborhoods and farmland of everyone who fled the resulting carnage, whether they fought or not.

>But then, when it came to a fight to defend their nation, some "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of the invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--

Still nope. Not their nation, no matter how much you want them to have wanted it to be.

>and they lost.

...to the actual invaders, with help from the surplus hardware and other support of the recently victorious Allied forces (i.e. not because they were better, or "legitimate", or right).

>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 meep-birds.

It sure is: They wouldn't roll over and hand half of Palestine to the incoming colonists.

>And the Israelis were right, and within their rights, to expel those jackasses.

It's comforting to know that your arbitrary judgments carry no force of law.

>Israelis settling the land left behind was not theft.

It is theft. The land belonged to someone else, and they took it from the former owners, whose only "crime" was not allowing their land to be claimed as the dominion of outsiders. It is clearly theft.

>Considering the behavior of the progeny of those expelled traitors, I'm entirely unsurprised that Israelis remain unwelcoming to them, and wholly surprised at the monumental restraint Israel has exercised in not obliterating them from the planet in the manner that they have clearly been so capable of doing.

Considering the behavior of the occupiers, I'm unsurprised that resistance has continued unabated. As far as restraint in using the massive Western arsenal that continues to be handed to them (or stolen by them), I have little doubt that the prospect of international blow-back is the only thing keeping them from progressing from Warsaw ghetto mode to your more final solution.

>>MstrLance: So why do you seem to presume that ancestral homelands are subject to free colonization by remote descendants anyway?

>I don't. I don't see it as colonization, and I certainly don't see it as free.

Not free, yet taken without paying the prior owners. What was that about cognitive dissonance?

>>MstrLance: I have some Dutch ancestry.

>What a helpfully explanatory "treat."

You're welcome. What does it explain, exactly?

>>MstrLance: Does that mean I can go "settle" someone else's neighborhood there without paying the owners for the property?

>I'd be surprised to find you (with your Dutch sensibilities) in disagreement with the notion.

Surprise! I'm in profound disagreement with the notion. I just wonder why people like you aren't.

>>MstrLance: I'd better bulldoze the surrounding neighborhoods as well, because I have a right to self defense, too. Right?

Of course. I see no reason for you to be anything less than entirely "Dutch" about everyhing.

Dat racis.

***

The Jews were already there,

Some of them were. If they were born there, or paid fairly for they land they inhabit, and don't victimize their neighbors, then I have no complaint against them.

and were explicitly committed to "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or meep."

It really doesn't matter what wonderful features they ascribed to the state that the colonial invaders of (at the time) those predominantly Arab Muslim lands wanted to establish, since they did not have the consent of the governed. The neighboring nations responded to this colonial aggression in the expected manner: they attempted to help protect the existing Palestinians from the recently-arrived wanna-be Palestinians and their unilateral declaration of undeserved authority backed by U.S. and British firepower.

>The plan to invade "Palestine" was in actuality made by the surrounding Arab/Muslim nations--the truth of this is made manifest in the actuality of that precise invasion.

And that precise invasion was a heroic attempt to rescue the indigenous population from the invading colonial powers.

>The point of that invasion was nothing short of genocide--the extermination of Jews--the truth of this is made manifest in the constitutions and covenants and unambiguous actions of the "Palestinian" traitors to Israel, and their sponsoring enablers in the hostile nations surrounding Israel.

A defensive reaction to colonial aggression is hardly "genocide." Constitutions and covenants made after the invasion were made by victims of Jewish colonialism; victims who had and have legitimate grievances against that state and the people who enable and support it. There is nothing treacherous about it.

> You can feel free to maintain that the goal of the Zionists was founded in irrational fears--

No thank you. I will maintain that it was founded on theft of other people's homeland, however.

>go ahead and claim their desire for their goal invalid based upon their irrational fear.

Again no thanks. I will grant that the desire for free land is "valid," in a sense, but that doesn't make acting upon it by declaring state authority over somebody else's home a reasonable or morally acceptable course of action.

>You can continue to claim their goal invalid because of so many Jews had an (involuntary) overstay in Europe for a few generations. Call it invalid because Zionists based their desires upon overstated injustices committed upon them.

It must get tiring trying to shove so many words into my mouth. Keep your staw-man collection to yourself, please.

>But you cannot claim that they did not stand up as the valid sovereign organization in "Palestine" on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region.

I absolutely can. If they were a valid sovereign anything, they would not have needed to overcome their subject population by force.

>And you cannot claim that (aided by foreign nations) certain Israeli/Palestinians

I wouldn't call them Israeli anything if they weren't calling themselves that. The only people calling anybody Israeli were the invading colonists and the foreign nations who supported them.

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

Not their nation; rather to the proposed invasive colonial state. Perhaps they would have been traitors had they voluntarily joined first, but they hadn't.

and traitors to themselves.

Whatever, dude.

>Zionists and their goals, and the motivations for their goals are immaterial to my point. My point is that some "Palestinians" and Zionists stood to defend their nation against their neighboring aggressors, and other "Palestinians" stood with those aggressors. Those latter "Palestinians" were traitors.

That might make some kind of sense if they were willing participants in the formation of that state, but they weren't, so it doesn't.

>The posterity of those traitors, who continue to aggress against Israel,

They continue to resist because Israel is still residing on the land that was taken from them by force.

>rightfully earn the title of "traitor" that they have inherited from their sires.

No they don't.

What nation does such a people deserve?

Palestine, where they were born.

>Not the one they spurned, certainly.

No, they certainly don't deserve that.

>So which then?

Palestine, where they were born.

>Do these people (as a people) deserve a nation at all?

Every bit as much as you do.

>I think these "Palestinians" have been barred from citizenship in the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations

They're not.

>because the citizens of those nations weren't too keen on patriating the traitors to Israel they sponsored in 1948 (after all, traitors [I]ARE[/I] traitors regardless of which side they sell out to); and they maintain that same position of disdain for the posterity of those traitors (for obvious reasons).

>My conclusion

whew

>is that Palestinians deserve no place in Israel,

Nor do they want one.

>and have no claim upon any lands held ("occupied", whatever) by Israel.

That sure would be convenient, wouldn't it?

>I conclude that their place and those claims in and of Israel were forfeited in their treason. If I'm not wrong about this,

I believe you are.

>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

You mean the invading colonial Europeans, Russians, Americans, etc.

>and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now.

Oh, such generosity.

>One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason.

They don't want repatriation elsewhere any more than they want a Jewish nation on their property. They want their stolen homeland back.

@LOki

How can you meepers even keep track of which nit to pick?

I had to point this out five or six years ago...now I gotta do it again before it becomes a chemical wasteland or a big glass ashtray.


Jew


Palestinien

Neither will be done until all the blood had been drained.

STOP BREEDING & PUT DOWN THE STUPID GOD BOOKS> MAKE FOOD, NOT GUNS.
Just my thought.
Goat

Goat... they just like hearing themselves type.

:Slow clap:

First post! Oh wait, never mind...

I miss old LS. It was like this all the time.

Ah yes. Loki's a fan of Israel.
How unsurprising.
Probably Republican, too.

@pete56

Worse... He's a Libertarian.

LOkitarian.

@dragonstaff

No. Not really.

What I don't have, is a problem with Israel.

I don't have a problem with Jewish Palestinians having security in practicing their religion in their Jewish Palestinian country (Israel), the way Muslim Palestinians have security in practicing their religion in their Muslim Palestinian country (Jordan).

You see pete56, my failure to be a bigoted anti-semite tool is not evidence that I'm a fan of Israel.

@pete56

Fundamentalist LOkitarian.

Quick question for you there Mr. Birther:

Considering that more than 2 generations have passed since 1948, how many of the "Palestinians" laying claim to lands in Israel were actually born in Israel or purchased land in Israel (thus, by your measure having legitimate claim to said lands)? Are you going to say all of them? Most of them?

How many of the Jews within Israel were actually born in Israel or purchased land in Israel (thus, by your measure having legitimate claim to said lands)? Are you really going to say NONE of them?

Considering your firm "You can't "return" to a place you've never been to, and neither your ancestry nor your religion can alter that simple fact" stance, it's obvious that we must come to the same conclusion, even if not by the same argument.

@MstrLance

Quick answer: Yes, I think we would agree on that, more or less. I don't think natural-born Israelis (by their own definition) should have to give up their birth home. Not unless the original owner is still alive to claim it, of course.

@LOki

Submitted as if there was any possibility that this LOki could be anything other than fundamentally LOkitarian.

Brilliant!

@MstrLance

Fundamentalist LOkitarian.

I would like to see the Lokistitution and other supporting, founding domeepents. Is there an archive?

Give Israel back to the Ottomans. They did a whiz bang job with the place.

Now I understand what you guys are all about.

Ah yes! Ewetube.
The premiere refuge of American propagandists.