Abbas turns down Egypt offer of “Palestinian” state in Sinai

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: samsamm9

A small percentage of the so called 'palestinians' are descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries.... the rest are just like Mr Spad explained, they are basically descendants of refugees.

Its funny how the only argument anti-zionists end up leaning on is the claim that Jews aren't Jews... lol... and they claim they are not anti-semitic. Laughable.

Know what is laughable? You pull the Anti-Semite trick out yet Palestinians are likely more Semite than most Jews in Israel.

Dont play semantics.....beacause according to you they are not really Jews... classic anti-semitism.

You mean like the Anti-Semitism you and the other Israel supporters spout? How times have they said they have no rights to the land because it was the "Jews" homeland? That Anti-Semitism as well.

Its called sovereignty not 'antisemitism'....

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: combatmaster

Semantics seem quite important in this case.

You wanna talk semantics?

Analyze the word 'Palestinian', see where that takes you....
heres a hint... it has nothing to do with the arabs who live in gaza today!

Palestinian = Palestinian people, an ethnic group native to Palestine, also referred to as Palestinians Palestinian Christians, i.e., Christians with ethnic or family origins in Palestine
Palestinian Jews, Jews of Palestinian descent

Palestinian
Which Palestinians were you talking about you didn't say which.
But I'm sure you have some Israeli based source that will say otherwise.

Just like the word Hebrews has nothing to do with the people living in Israel today.

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: samsamm9

A small percentage of the so called 'palestinians' are descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries.... the rest are just like Mr Spad explained, they are basically descendants of refugees.

Its funny how the only argument anti-zionists end up leaning on is the claim that Jews aren't Jews... lol... and they claim they are not anti-semitic. Laughable.

Know what is laughable? You pull the Anti-Semite trick out yet Palestinians are likely more Semite than most Jews in Israel.

Dont play semantics.....beacause according to you they are not really Jews... classic anti-semitism.

You mean like the Anti-Semitism you and the other Israel supporters spout? How times have they said they have no rights to the land because it was the "Jews" homeland? That Anti-Semitism as well.

Its called sovereignty not 'antisemitism'....

So the people that support Israel can't be antisemitic.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Why not put it to a vote to the Palestinian people to stay or accept the deal? I'll bet the majority want to go to a place where they can live in peace. It would be a modern day exodus. It's happened countless times over the millenia. Hell, we made the native Americans leave their ancestral lands and put them in reservations. All you Palestinian bleeding hearts here in the US, why don't you give your land to a native American. They were here long before us and it is rightfully theirs.

This is probably the reason why (rightfully or wrongly) many people believe anti-Israel views are a mask for anti-Jewish sentiments. The same people who denounce Israel's creation and its existence do not hold any other country/nation to the same standard as they hold Israel.

It seems land acquired via the "might is right" method is acceptable for every other nation, except Israel. Only then is it forbidden. Why is this the case?

originally posted by: buster2010

Well that and they would actually have to prove that the people that lived back then were actually their ancestors which none of them can.

But that's the thing.. Regardless of ancient lineage anyone can convert to Judaism and there is nothing stopping people from doing that. The question is whether they uphold the Jewish Laws after they convert to Judaism. Currently the State of Israel does not and will most likely never will.

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: combatmaster

Semantics seem quite important in this case.

You wanna talk semantics?

Analyze the word 'palestinian', see where that takes you....
heres a hint... it has nothing to do with the arabs who live in gaza today!

Any less than the 'jews' in 'israel'?

originally posted by: combatmaster

Dont play semantics.....beacause according to you they are not really Jews... classic anti-semitism.

That trick doesn't work anymore... How about you show me why they are Jews then? Please, show me what parts of Judaism are upheld by these secular Jews and then I will show you the parts that aren't upheld from the very top of the Israeli structure. It's a shame for you though that well over half of Israel already class themselves as Atheist or Cultural.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Why not put it to a vote to the Palestinian people to stay or accept the deal? I'll bet the majority want to go to a place where they can live in peace. It would be a modern day exodus. It's happened countless times over the millenia. Hell, we made the native Americans leave their ancestral lands and put them in reservations. All you Palestinian bleeding hearts here in the US, why don't you give your land to a native American. They were here long before us and it is rightfully theirs.

This is probably the reason why (rightfully or wrongly) many people believe anti-Israel views are a mask for anti-Jewish sentiments. The same people who denounce Israel's creation and its existence do not hold any other country/nation to the same standard as they hold Israel.

It seems land acquired via the "might is right" method is acceptable for every other nation, except Israel. Only then is it forbidden. Why is this the case?

How many other nations are using American taxpayer money to buy the weapons so they can wipe another nation off the map?

originally posted by: buster2010
How many other nations are using American taxpayer money to buy the weapons so they can wipe another nation off the map?

You are deflecting from the issue raised in my post.

IF what you say is true (that USA is funding Israel's attempts to kill off the Palestinian people), is this the first time in history that one nation has aided funds/arms/support to another nation for the purpose of taking of the land of an indigenous population?

Since it is breathtakingly obvious that it is not - and there are in fact many examples of this taking place throughout history - why is there so much opposition to Israel doing it?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The problem isn't Israel itself.. Think about that.

a reply to: smithjustinb

No.. that is how you interpreted what I said. I meant they would have been justified when it happened (like the Palestinians - i consider 47 to now still happening), but honestly they are still actively having their land stolen like the Palestinians and would probably still be justified.

I am not contradicting myself at all. The land has been Palestinians for longer than it was ever held by any of the Jews that make up Israel now. They stole the land based on A RELIGION and a "right to return" to a land that wasn't really theirs, but phony ancestors from thousands of years ago.

Anyone that buys that garbage is ignorant.

I have not contradicted myself in the least. Palestinians lived there, they were forcefully displaced, they have the right to all of the land honestly, but at the VERY LEAST they should get the land that was agreed upon. Israel immediately broke the rules and took land that was designated for Palestinians.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

So because others have done it before it's okay for Israel to do it?

BTW Israel isn't just taking land, but by definition committing genocide. I guess since the Nazi's rounded up people including Jews and exterminated them that set a precedence and since it's been done in the past like you say, it's cool for Israel to do too if the want.

a reply to: combatmaster

Actually since the Palestinians are a Semitic people it would be considered antisemitism.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: UnBreakable

Why not put it to a vote to the Palestinian people to stay or accept the deal? I'll bet the majority want to go to a place where they can live in peace. It would be a modern day exodus. It's happened countless times over the millenia. Hell, we made the native Americans leave their ancestral lands and put them in reservations. All you Palestinian bleeding hearts here in the US, why don't you give your land to a native American. They were here long before us and it is rightfully theirs.

This is probably the reason why (rightfully or wrongly) many people believe anti-Israel views are a mask for anti-Jewish sentiments. The same people who denounce Israel's creation and its existence do not hold any other country/nation to the same standard as they hold Israel.



It seems land acquired via the "might is right" method is acceptable for every other nation, except Israel. Only then is it forbidden. Why is this the case?

How many other nations are using American taxpayer money to buy the weapons so they can wipe another nation off the map?

Oh, you must be talking about the Palestinians. We gave them 4 billion of taxpayer money and their mantra is to eradicate Israels existence.

"John Kerry To Prop Up Palestinians With $4 Billion Of US Taxpayer Money"
freedomoutpost.com...

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: combatmaster

Actually since the Palestinians are a Semitic people it would be considered antisemitism.

It is well known and widely recognized that Anti-semitism doesnt refer to all semitic peoples, despite what the name would have you think.

Anti-Semitism (also spelled antisemitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group.[1][2] A person who holds such positions is called an "anti-Semite". As Jews are an ethnoreligious group, anti-Semitism is generally considered a form of racism. While the conjunction of the units anti, Semite and ism indicates anti-Semitism as being directed against all Semitic people, the term was in fact coined in Germany in 1873 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[3] and that has been its normal use since then.[4] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, anti-Semitism was considered "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

read up

I'm pretty sure Israel rescued just under a million Jewish people living close by in othe ME countries like Egypt, Syria Iraq, libya etc etc, when they were expelled and stripped of all their assets in 1948 by those states and essentially became refugees. All those people became Israeli citizens and had lived in these countries for centuries.

a reply to: combatmaster

Eh.. I'm not sure if I buy that. Racism against semitic people would be the same thing, definitions change over a hundred years. Seems a bit ironic. Also, wiki..

Regardless opposing Israel isn't anti semitism, neither is opposing zionism.


If it's not anti-semitism than what is the term we should use for Israel's genocide of the semitic Palestinian people?

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
So because others have done it before it's okay for Israel to do it?

BTW Israel isn't just taking land, but by definition committing genocide. I guess since the Nazi's rounded up people including Jews and exterminated them that set a precedence and since it's been done in the past like you say, it's cool for Israel to do too if the want.

Now you are deflecting from the issue and attempting to use emotional reasoning to cement your argument.

Can you still not answer why Israel is the only country to be held to this incredibly high standard when analyzing their acquisition of Palestinian land?

In every case of attempted genocide throughout history, if the aggressor has been the stronger side, the result would be a decreasing population size of the victim population. Since Israel's creation, the number of Palestinians has increased. How can one logically argue, then, that genocide is taking place?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
It seems land acquired via the "might is right" method is acceptable for every other nation, except Israel. Only then is it forbidden. Why is this the case?

Simply because other nations committing genocide dont refer to themselves as "The light unto the nations", the "chosen people", "God's people", "the only democracy in the middle east", a "western nation" (in the east?!), "sharing values" (I agree with this, both the west and Israel bomb innocent people), "the most moral nation", whilst slaughtering innocent people.

We hold them to a higher standard because they quite literally deify their behaviour and act as hypocrites. Ask yourself the inverse question, why is it that Israel gets a pass from so many people when committing war crimes - it because the victims are brown, admit it

Always the same thing. No one will just state the truth. People in the middle east...Muslims know nothing but war and fighting. When there isn't a non-Muslim target, they target each other. If Israel were gone...they would be flocking to other countries to establish their religious war there. Oh yeah...they already are. The poor, stupid civilians (assuming there are any) are caught in the middle with their "leaders" sacrificing them for their "holy war". The dictators in the region know that these people understand nothing but violence and death and rule with a heavy hand for this reason. These people as a whole are killers and murderers by the nature of their religion and, their way of life.

The fact is, these people (generalizing) are animals...rabid dogs to their religion. At least when you compare them to civilized countries. They can only be treated in that way which is why the USA is wrong to think they want peace or freedom. They don't. All they know is religious war and violence and again...even when left alone they kill their own. There is a computer term....WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). Well...take a look at the middle east. The way they conduct themselves, even just within themselves is who they are and what their religion is.

For the good of the Israelis...the Israelis should leave. For the good of America...we should stay out (and should have always stayed out). And for the good of the world, no devout Muslim should ever have been allowed into a non-Muslim country. Their only plan and their meaning of life is to spread their religion through the same violence and force they exhibit in their own countries and among their own people.

They should be left alone in their own little world and if they try to spread...stop them. If they stay in their little cage...let them be. Because when a group of people who know nothing but violence, and practice a religion of violence (yes...as Christians did forever-ago) and when their entire lives (and deaths) are in the name of their religion...there is no dealing with them.

I don't hate Muslims. I'm not against Islam (more than any religion). But I won't fall into politically correct bondage and pretend that logic and facts are to be ignored. Anyone who opens their eyes and looks at who these people are...by their own choice...knows the truth. And the sooner the rest of the world understands that, the better off we will be.