Middle East Conflict

[BayernMan]

 

[mexico1970]

Yes he's entitled to hold that view. He's entitled to hold views I agree or disagree with.



It's a legitimate claim to the whole of Palestine. Settlers in that context meant the original settlers in the late 19th and 20th century.

It's not a practical solution currently.

They lack the power to carry it out and they don't have support from allies able to carry it out.

But that doesn't mean he isn't entitled to hold that hardline position.

I favour a secular state with strict laws against religious and ethnic discrimination where Arabs and Jews and other groups live along side eachother.

But if that isn't possible I'd favour an Arab majority state in all of Palestine over the innate barbarism and genocidal policies of the Judeo-Nazi state.

Hamas wouldn't be the right people to have positions of power in either state but that doesn't mean they can't hold legitimate views.

Legitimate views is the part I can't get my head around, as I said earlier in the thread some of the rhetoric around all of this is close to the bone.

The human condition knows no bounds.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Legitimate views is the part I can't get my head around, as I said earlier in the thread some of the rhetoric around all of this is close to the bone.

The human condition knows no bounds.

It's quite simple. Mohammed Hadid's family have a legitimate claim on their house.

Palestinian irredentists have a legitimate claim over the whole of Palestine. They can claim all of it but no more.

Most people would move on and give up the claim over the house and not expend any wasted energy on the claim for the house. But that doesn't extinguish your moral rights. Even if a hostile state as approved the property transfer.

Your rights still exist.

 

[mexico1970]

It's quite simple. Mohammed Hadid's family have a legitimate claim on their house.

Palestinian irredentists have a legitimate claim over the whole of Palestine. They can claim all of it but no more.

Most people would move on and give up the claim over the house and not expend any wasted energy on the claim for the house. But that doesn't extinguish your moral rights. Even if a hostile state as approved the property transfer.

Your rights still exist.

Claim on his house I get, but he's asking for someone else's house too IMHO, nasty piece of work and between him and the Israel leadership everyone living there is fucked.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Israeli soldiers sing Hanukkah song in Jenin mosque

Footage appears to show Israeli soldiers using a mosque loudspeaker to mock the call to prayer

www.middleeasteye.net

Murdering innocent people indiscriminately under the guise of "they are terrorists"

Murdering/maiming Journalists reporting in Gaza

Urging the US to appease their genocide actions.

IDF and Netanyahu are acting like the fascist army they are.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Claim on his house I get, but he's asking for someone else's house too IMHO, nasty piece of work and between him and the Israel leadership everyone living there is fucked.

It's was an analogy. He's not asking for anyone else's house.

The house is all of Palestine. Save the territories historically occupied by Jewish, Druze and Bedouin communities, which should have some special protection within whatever form of state they exist in.

Israel isn't a legitimate state. If it was it would have annexed the occupied territories and given equal rights to all, instead of imposing apartheid. But because it was founded on racism it can never abandon that willingly.

 

[mexico1970]

It's was an analogy. He's not asking for anyone else's house.

The house is all of Palestine. Save the territories historically occupied by Jewish, Druze and Bedouin communities, which should have some special protection within whatever form of state they exist in.

Israel isn't a legitimate state. If it was it would have annexed the occupied territories and given equal rights to all, instead of imposing apartheid. But because it was founded on racism it can never abandon that willingly.

I replied to your analogy with an analogy, using an analogy doesn't mask the meaning of it. Israel has a right to exist where it is IMO, and it will exist, moderated yes but exist very much so.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I replied to your analogy with an analogy, using an analogy doesn't mask the meaning of it. Israel has a right to exist where it is IMO, and it will exist, moderated yes but exist very much so.

For now yes. But Israel won't exist forever.

 

[cucumberman]

Meanwhile in Jerusalem, other than around 100 young killed many of which shot at while unarmed.

Israel Forces vs. a photographer.

AbdAlraheem Manassra on LinkedIn: #jerusalem

Israeli occupation forces brutally beating and assaulting the photographer Mostafa Kharouf in Wadi Al Jouz neighborhood in the occupied city of #Jerusalem…

www.linkedin.com

Edit:

The Youtube version has been freeze-framed in portions of the video where the brutal bodily harm is visible. Found the unfiltered video on the LinkedIn link instead. a combat suit armed force no-mark, injuring the photographer. Imagine that if it was our Met.

 

[Vic]

I replied to your analogy with an analogy, using an analogy doesn't mask the meaning of it. Israel has a right to exist where it is IMO, and it will exist, moderated yes but exist very much so.

Why does Israel have a right to exist "where it is"? (Where is "it"?)

For most of the world, it exists because the UN made it so. But Israel now regards the UN as inconvenient or even irrelevant, especially when it tries to occupy then incorporate other territory.

You might not like the view of some Palestinians of Palestine being "free" from the river to the sea. Do you like the view of Israelis who want from the river to the sea, then chunks of Egypt and Iraq?