Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, that's what I mean. Although if your principle of "assumed risk" applies to the Gaza Palestinians, it of course also applies to the Israelis. I don't favor its application to anyone. But in the pro-Israel U.S. media, even when the Palestinians attack a military target it's described as terrorism, so what can you do?
The whole concept of when Palestinian national consciousness emerged is a minor irrelevancy in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In the first place, whether there was Palestinian national consciousness before 1948, there is now, and that is going to remain the case going forward. Great historical traumas do sometimes give birth to a new national consciousness (q.v. the United States.)
Secondly, but following on from the first point, very little in the page you cited contains any rationalization for the Zionist invaders to be treated as anything but colonizers and interlopers. (A lot of it is crap having to do with "Islam" which is not really relevant. Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Marxists have all fought on the same side for 60 years.) I could accept that virtually all of the content in the link is true, but it would have little relevance to the the Zionist claim on the land.
Third, when people say things like "There are no differences here between Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese" do they actually mean that? In the neighborhood in which I grew up, someone may have said "There are no differences between the Poles, Italians, Germans and WASPs who live here, we're all just Americans." The person saying that would not have meant there are no literal differences whatsoever!
Would you mind? I'd rather have the true, historically correct version.
In 1967, Israel successfully repelled invasion and defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. Israel seized the Sinai (from Egypt, later returned in exchange for recognition of Israel and peace), the Golan Heighta (from Syria, which had used it to shell Israeli cities), and the so-called West Bank and Jerusalem (from Jordan).
Interesting. "Ideal circumstances" for Hamas, then, consist of the destruction of Israel. Great starting point for negotiations. You subtly glide over that point, and move on to describe how friendly Hamas is to those they dominate. Note that none of those friends are Jews. At least, not live ones...
The reality is the reason that there is "pre- and post-1967 territory." You may recall that the Sinai was part of Israel's post-1967 territory, yet it was returned to Egypt, which lives in peace with Israel. Why is that?
Would you like to explain to the Forum why Israeli territory was expanded in 1967, or should I?
Exactly. Ideally, Israel would be destroyed and the Palestinians would get their land back and that's fair. But Hamas knows this is far fetched and therefore settles for a good peace agreement.
Israel exchanged it with Egypt for peace. Hamas has said they'd like the same offer. Israel refuses. It's bad enough you Zionists have taken all of Palestine, but what's good enough for them to give you peace, you refuse. What a shame.
The whole concept of when Palestinian national consciousness emerged is a minor irrelevancy in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In the first place, whether there was Palestinian national consciousness before 1948, there is now, and that is going to remain the case going forward. Great historical traumas do sometimes give birth to a new national consciousness (q.v. the United States.)
In other words, you lied again. And you're squirting out obfuscatory ink like an octopus.
Quote:
Secondly, but following on from the first point, very little in the page you cited contains any rationalization for the Zionist invaders to be treated as anything but colonizers and interlopers. (A lot of it is crap having to do with "Islam" which is not really relevant. Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Marxists have all fought on the same side for 60 years.) I could accept that virtually all of the content in the link is true, but it would have little relevance to the the Zionist claim on the land.
The only rationalization that you need to concern yourself with is the existence of the state of Israel. There is not nor has there ever been any other state on her land. Start with that and work backwards.
Quote:
Third, when people say things like "There are no differences here between Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese" do they actually mean that? In the neighborhood in which I grew up, someone may have said "There are no differences between the Poles, Italians, Germans and WASPs who live here, we're all just Americans." The person saying that would not have meant there are no literal differences whatsoever!
That is a non sequitur, which demonstrates how your confidence in your increasingly obtuse argument has been shaken in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
