₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
1. Do Terrorist Groups contest elections.

2. There will be no end to the Palestinian struggle until Palestine is free. Nothing else can end it. This is what history teaches us. Situations of slavery, colonization and other unjust scenarios are simply unsustainable no matter how long they last.

Yes, terrorist groups contest elections and when they win, they cancel all future elections so they can remain in power. Hamas and Hezbollah have both contested for elections in Gaza and Lebanon respectively and we know what happened after they got their members in government.

Yeah there will be no end to the Palestinian struggle until Palestine is free. Let me remind you that Palestine could have been freed in 1937 during the Peel Accords, 1947 based on the UN partition plan, 1948 after the Jews declared their own independence, anytime between 1948 - 1967 when they were occupied by their own Arab brothers, Camp David Summit organised by Bill Clinton and 2008 meeting organised by the Prime Minister of Israel. The Palestinians rejected all these opportunities. The only reason Palestine is not a country today is because their hatred for Jews and their quest to kill Jews is greater than their need for an independent country. Unfortunately for them, the current Israeli Government is not the type that wants to be politically correct like their counterparts in the West. The current Israeli government is ready to take over more than 60% of Judea and Samaria as that area is historic Jewish homeland. The only areas that will be part of a future Palestinian state will be Gaza and Area A of the Judea and Samaria, nothing more, and God help them if another war doesn't breakout before then.

Unbiased1:
Yes, terrorist groups contest elections and when they win, they cancel all future elections so they can remain in power. Hamas and Hezbollah have both contested for elections in Gaza and Lebanon respectively and we know what happened after they got their members in government.

Yeah there will be no end to the Palestinian struggle until Palestine is free. Let me remind you that Palestine could have been freed in 1937 during the Peel Accords, 1947 based on the UN partition plan, 1948 after the Jews declared their own independence, anytime between 1948 - 1967 when they were occupied by their own Arab brothers, Camp David Summit organised by Bill Clinton and 2008 meeting organised by the Prime Minister of Israel. The Palestinians rejected all these opportunities. The only reason Palestine is not a country today is because their hatred for Jews and their quest to kill Jews is greater than their need for an independent country. Unfortunately for them, the current Israeli Government is not the type that wants to be politically correct like their counterparts in the West. The current Israeli government is ready to take over more than 60% of Judea and Samaria as that area is historic Jewish homeland. The only areas that will be part of a future Palestinian state will be Gaza and Area A of the Judea and Samaria, nothing more, and God help them if another war doesn't breakout before then.

1. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also it's unfortunate that some of you have allowed the West and it's allies to appropriate the word terrorist, such that they can describe their enemies as terrorists at will and you will agree. Whereas they do far worse things and you will never describe them as terrorists. I haven't heard you ever describe King Leopold of Belgium as a Terrorist for example. I haven't heard you describe Blair and Bush as terrorists for all the crimes they committed in Iraq through telling lies about weapons of mass destruction which never existed. I haven't heard you describe the CIA as terrorists regardless of the amount of people they have murdered around the world. I haven't heard you describe the apartheid government of South Africa as terrorists. I haven't heard you describe the many imperialist mass murderer governments of Europe which killed millions around the world to steal their lands as terrorists. Yet this same West labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist and I have not heard you question that. You simply agree with whoever they label a terrorist and that's that. Armed resistance is not terrorism but you seem to think only the West and their allies have the right to this. Do you know what this is? It is simply slavery of the mind to white skin.

2. Every single offer of peace to Palestine has been unjust. And they are a people with a spine so they don't just jump at any offer. No one would do to white men what has been done to them and white men would jump at any offer. They would fight and die to the last man to insist on their full rights and even to steal other people's lands and no one would call them terrorists.

As for a place being the Jewish homeland, I have explained to you in detail how movement of people is fluid. Arabs cannot dominate a place for over a millennium and you keep insisting it's not their home as well. That's not the way demographics work.

I even gave you a table from the Jewish Virtual Library showing you the population of Jews there through various key points, and that concluded the point. You never responded to it.

It is absurd that you don't contest America being Caucasian homeland even when they have not been there for up to half the time Arabs have been in Palestine, but you contest the rights of Arabs in Palestine.

Furthermore it is most absurd to think that the Jewish population which returned from Europe remained the same of of 2000 years ago. That is biologically and genetically impossible in human interactions.

tctrills:
You don't know who is innocent but somehow you know they were killing the innocent. What a joke.
And I hope you don't expect me to believe a word that comes out of Hamas even though I understand your need to believe Hamas.

Anyway, I am glad all this is over. Let us rejoice together.
This is ending just the way I hoped.
Israel was already losing the propaganda war so they needed this and we all needed peace in the middle east

It is not over by any stretch of the imagination and only those who worship Trump would even think for a moment it is.

Unbiased1. In response to your insistence on Judea and Samaria being Jewish homeland and your support of the West Bank being taken away from Palestine, I am reposting below my last post to you on the other thread which I never saw a response to.

Because it contains points which are important in this regard. Especially the analysis of population at various points in time.

Unbiased1:
Let me start like this:

1) Who is a Palestinian? A Palestinian is either a Jew or an Arab who lived in the Levant area of the Ottoman Empire and subsequently, the British mandate. Every historic account states this clearly that Jews and Arabs made up the population of Palestine even before the European Jews came there. I started with this because you were almost describing all the Jews in present-day Israel as aliens who came from Europe to reclaim something. There were Jews who never left.

You will note that I acknowledged that there was a remnant of Jews there, nevertheless this was a very small minority.

At the end of the 19th century, the Jewish population in Palestine constituted a small minority, making up about 5-7% of the total population. The majority of the population was Muslim (around 80%) and Christian (around 10%)."

Please look at the table of demographics in the link below which sets out the percentage of population of each group (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) at various points in history.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present

You will note that -

1. From 1517 to 1882 through the rule of the Ottoman empire, the Jewish population varied from 1.7% to 8%. Thus it is clear that the Jews were a distinct minority throughout that period.

2. By the end of the 1st World War, they had become 9.1%.

3. Throughout the period of the British Mandate they grew from 11 percent in 1922 to 32% in 1937. This was the period of the first wave of significant Zionist migration from Europe, and so it is obvious that the majority of Jews in the land were now migrants from Europe.

But hang on, the evidence gets worse -

4. Between 1947 and 1948 - a period of one year only - the year of the creation of the State of Israel, the percentage of Jews jumped from 32% to a staggering 82% - in ONE year only!

This shows conclusively two things -

a. That the migration from Europe formed almost all of the population of Jews by that time as compared to the negligible percent prior to the British Mandate

b.In the same period of ONE year the poulation of non-Jews fell from 1.3 million people to 156, 000 people!

The foregoing discloses conclusively what had transpired. A mass migration of Europeans had flooded the land and there was a mass evacuation/ removal of non-Jews.

Please note that these figures are from the Jewish Virtual Library, lest you claim they are biased.

Therefore the case is firmly made, that the Jews of today are essentially European migrants.

It is also crucial to note that the Arabs had been on that land prior to that time since the time of the Byzantinne Empire for some 1, 300 years.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206581/

And as I have said repeatedly in my last submission, it is absurd to deny a people who have been on a land for over a millenium their indigeneship of that land. I repeatedly used the example of Europeans in America who have only been there for a few centuries and yet no one questions their right to be there.

2) Did you know that Palestine, before the British took over, never had an actual boundary

This is false. Both the Romans and Ottomans had clear boundaries of their territories there, for example. But the fact still remains that Arbas had occupied the land in question for over a millenium. And that speaks for itself.

In one of my previous responses to you, I begged you to mention the names of Arab villages and communities taken over by the Jews before or in 1948, but you didn't mention any, so your claim that Jews not acknowledging the presence of Arabs on the land is utterly false. Also note that these lands purchased were completely different from communities already occupied by the Jews, who never left the Levant.

This is a meaningless point. Even today American States and cities bear Native American names. Where do you think names like Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachussets, Michigan, Minnessota, Missisipi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, North/ South Dakota, Tenessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming - all come from?

All these are Native American names or derive from them and this shows you that it is normal and natural for the old names of a place can and are often retained and this does not then mean that the current white population should all be chased away from America does it? As I have said before, as a purist, I dont mind that happening if the scanty Native Americans can muster the might, but I acknowledged that the time which has passed and the length for which the current population has dwelt there already renders the point quite meaningless as that length of time has effectively made those places their genuine homeland.

How much more for Arabs who have been in Palestine for over 1, 300 years? ? ? ?

Now to hammer this point home and show just how meaningless it is for you, where do you think the so called Jewish names of most of the old towns and cities came from? Thats right - they were old Canaanite names that preceded the time of the Jewish invasion of the land! Examples -

----------------

Jerusalem (Yerushalayim)
Original Name: The earliest known name for the city is Urusalim, found in ancient Egyptian texts from the 14th century BCE. The name is believed to be of Canaanite origin, possibly meaning "foundation of the god Shalim" (a Canaanite deity) or "city of peace."

Hebron (Hebron)
Original Name: The ancient name of the city was likely Hebron, as it is referred to in the Hebrew Bible. The name's origin is debated, but some scholars suggest it may be related to the root ḥbr, meaning "to be joined" or "alliance." The name has been in use since the Canaanite period.

Beth She'an (Beit She'an)
Original Name: The city was known as Beth-shean or Beth-shan in ancient times. The name is a Semitic term meaning "house of comfort" or possibly "house of the god She'an." It was a significant Canaanite city-state.

Jaffa (Yafo)
Original Name: The city's name, Jaffa, is one of the oldest port city names in the world and is mentioned in ancient Egyptian texts and the Hebrew Bible.

Tel Megiddo (Megiddo)
Original Name: The ancient city, a site of numerous historical battles, was known as Megiddo to the Canaanites.

Gezer (Gezer)
Original Name: Gezer was a major Canaanite city-state, frequently mentioned in the Amarna Letters (ancient Egyptian correspondence). Its name likely means "a separated place" or "a cutting."

- - - Culled.

There we go. So summarily you can see how meaningless your point on the names of villages and towns is!

Now as to your question as to what Arab towns and villages were taken over, the radical change in demography by ethnic percentages between 1922 and 1948 suffices without mentioning any list of towns. From a Jewish population of 11 % in 1922 to 80 per cent in 1948 (fifty per cent of which came from Europe in the last one year before 1948) -is enough to prove the point!

3) Did you know that when the British officially called the area "British Mandate of Palestine", the Arabs were not comfortable with the name "Palestine" as they claimed that it was an attempt to erase the Arab identity of the area? Today, these same people have embraced that name as a tool for political warfare against Israel. As stated by a PLO commander, Zuhair Mohsen and member of the PLO's executive committee, in an interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw on March 31, 1977:

"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Frankly the name is not important. That is looking at form over substance. The substance is the fact that you had a local population of Arabs, Christians and Jews (majority being Arabs) for centuries. Indeed as late as the 16th century the evidence above shows that only 1.7% of that population was Jewish. So you can bicker about names, but an apple by any other name will still remain what is known as an apple.

When the UN created the partition plan of 1947, the plan was to create a Jewish state and an Arab state, not a Palestinian state, because both parties were identified by their ethnicities, not as Palestinians.

So why is there a Jewish State today which is resisting the existence of an Arab State, even after occupying the little land left to them, cornering them and oppresing them?

There were no "Palestinian people". The only Palestinian people were the ones newly invented by the British after they defeated the Ottoman Empire.

As I have said, the name is inconsiquential.

Were there people called "Americans" at a point in history? No.

The key thing with reference to the area called Palestine is that there was a local population of different ethnicities, simple. Attempting to say that "Palestinians do not exist" today is a racist statement geared at extermination and ethnic cleansing.

4) You mentioned the biblical claim of land by the Jews and even went ahead to call the Jewish God barbaric, and you also spoke about compromises. I'll address both. When the Jews in diaspora returned, they were hoping to get all of Palestine for their Jewish state. The British dealt a big blow to that plan by cutting a huge chunk of the land, a whopping 78% of it, to create Transjordan. At this point, it became clear to the Jews that the promised land their God offered them was no longer feasible in modern times.

We agreed to leave out the promises of any imaginary God from this discussion as anyone can do that. Nonetheless, nowhere in Jewish history did the state of Israel extend to cover all of that country today known as Jordan. Parts of that land were conquered by Israel and given to the tribes of Reuben and Gaad, but much of it remained with Canaanite tribes such as the Moabites, Edomites and Ammonites. But this is irrelevant because the table detailing the population of the current land at issue through the centuries (the link from the Jewish Virtual Library which I gave above) discloses that the current land being discussed - not Jordan - was populated up till 1948 by a Muslim majority.

Following the creation of Transjordan in 1920, the Jews thought the remaining 22% of the land would be the Jewish state since the Arabs had gotten 78% already. That thought was dead on arrival as the Peel accords of 1937 carved out a small chunk of that 22% to be the Jewish state. The Jewish state was 17% of that small piece of land, largely made up of the old Jewish communities and the newly purchased Jewish lands, Jerusalem, and to extent, Bethlehem were to remain under the British Mandate due to their religious importance to both Jews and Arabs and this part made up 8% of the land, while he rest of the land, about 75% of the land was to be an Arab state. Despite the projections of the Jews, their Biblical beliefs and to their great disappointment, they accepted the deal nonetheless. That right there is the COMPROMISE you spoke of. What did the Arabs do? They rejected the idea of having a separate Jewish state and insisted on having just 1 country where Arabs will be the majority. That right there is NOT COMPROMISE. In this war, Israel has compromised by agreeing to release Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were charged with Murder and other crimes, including Hamas members. One of the youths who took part in the famous Ramallah lynching of 2000 was also released by Israel. This is a huge COMPROMISE as Israel is putting itself at risk by releasing these criminals to society, who can attack Israel in the future. On the other hand, one would expect Hamas, whose people are dying to also compromise by releasing all the hostages to stop these frequent Israeli attacks and the complete takeover of Gaza City, but no, Hamas and the Arabs never compromise, and unfortunately, no one is forcing them to, as everyone is focused on Israel.

This is utterly fraudulent hogwash. To attempt to claim that since Arabs had already got Jordan, then that should have been that is fraud. The land at issue, Palestine, at the time concerned has already been disclosed as being predominatly Muslim. Thus any division of that land concerned should have been proportional to the existing population. However as it turned out mass migrations to and from the territory occurred under the pressure of international powers, and no one would suggest that given what occured in 1947-48 (I have already highlighted the drastic change of population above - which was nothing short of ethnic replacement) - no one would suggest that the local population and their ethnic Arab allies were not entitled to resist this scenario.

Whilst Israel turned out to be the stronger military power with Western backing, the fair truth remains that those lands left to the Arabs today, as small as they are, (Gaza and the West Bank) should be accorded the right of sovereignty and self determination - just the same as the Jewish State of Israel enjoys. And most countries of the world today recognise them as such, and it frankly is only being resisted by Israel backed by the USA today. Indeed I just heard in the news today that the US has revoked the visas of the entire Palestinian delegation to the next UN General Assembly meeting. They dont have a right to do that, but that just shows you how far they would go to suppress the Palestinian voice. Their duty as the host country of the UN does not extend to unilaterally banning states from attending meetings of that multilateral organization. The last time this happened the UN relocated the meeting to Geneva. One hopes they will have the balls to do that this time around.

In this matter, the abominable attitude of Israel and supporters of Israel to international Law cannot be excused. Israel is the ONLY country in the world which routinely disregards International Law with the support of the USA. If other countries did that, they would be called rogue nations. Israel goes about routinely bombing its neighbours such as Iran, Lebanon and Syria, including attacking embassies and the premises of international organizations like the United Nations and its sub-bodies - ALL they time. No other nation operates with such a complete disregard of international law but all that supporters of Israel like you can say is simply, to hell with the UN, to hell with international law (as you alluded in your subsequent post). Of course to hell with everyone else and all treaties and laws because Israel is a supreme master race chosen by God and subject to no laws whatsoever, not even laws of decency.

No wonder it is meaningless to people like you that Benjamin Netanyahu has been indicted of war crimes by the International Criminal Court and as such cannot currently travel to most countries in the world. While you will claim that the entire UN and ICC are "antisemitic" it is noteworthy that even two former Israeli Prime-Ministers, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barack have condemned the so caled war as involving war crimes and being a war of deception. Various international expert bodies have also conclusively called it a genocide.

I will find some time to address the ethnic supremacist worship of Israel in your second post.

cc:

Kukutente23
Tctrills

DeepSight:
1. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also it's unfortunate that some of you have allowed the West and it's allies to appropriate the word terrorist, such that they can describe their enemies as terrorists at will and you will agree. Whereas they do far worse things and you will never describe them as terrorists. I haven't heard you ever describe King Leopold of Belgium as a Terrorist for example. I haven't heard you describe Blair and Bush as terrorists for all the crimes they committed in Iraq through telling lies about weapons of mass destruction which never existed. I haven't heard you describe the CIA as terrorists regardless of the amount of people they have murdered around the world. I haven't heard you describe the apartheid government of South Africa as terrorists. I haven't heard you describe the many imperialist mass murderer governments of Europe which killed millions around the world to steal their lands as terrorists. Yet this same West labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist and I have not heard you question that. You simply agree with whoever they label a terrorist and that's that. Armed resistance is not terrorism but you seem to think only the West and their allies have the right to this. Do you know what this is? It is simply slavery of the mind to white skin.

2. Every single offer of peace to Palestine has been unjust. And they are a people with a spine so they don't just jump at any offer. No one would do to white men what has been done to them and white men would jump at any offer. They would fight and die to the last man to insist on their full rights and even to steal other people's lands and no one would call them terrorists.

As for a place being the Jewish homeland, I have explained to you in detail how movement of people is fluid. Arabs cannot dominate a place for over a millennium and you keep insisting it's not their home as well. That's not the way demographics work.

I even gave you a table from the Jewish Virtual Library showing you the population of Jews there through various key points, and that concluded the point. You never responded to it.

It is absurd that you don't contest America being Caucasian homeland even when they have not been there for up to half the time Arabs have been in Palestine, but you contest the rights of Arabs in Palestine.

Furthermore it is most absurd to think that the Jewish population which returned from Europe remained the same of of 2000 years ago. That is biologically and genetically impossible in human interactions.

You said I haven't called all those people and groups you mentioned terrorists. Well, remind me of our topic of discussion. Last time I checked, we were talking about Israel and Palestine not Belgium and CIA. The fact remains that calling those guys terrorists doesn't absolve Hamas of also being a terrorist.

Unbiased1:
You said I haven't called all those people and groups you mentioned terrorists. Well, remind me of our topic of discussion. Last time I checked, we were talking about Israel and Palestine not Belgium and CIA. The fact remains that calling those guys terrorists doesn't absolve Hamas of also being a terrorist.

The point is you only see one side as terrorists. You will never for example, see Israel as terrorists no matter that they do.

Even murderer settlers in West Bank, you will not agree.

That's enough for me to know and infer that for you, oyibos are not terrorists. Only Arabs and blacks probably are, in your estimation.

I mean, you dismiss the ICC. You dismiss the UN. So I can quite infer.

If you didn't, I would know that you have a balanced view. Not everything must be said openly before one can tell.

It's because one can see from a distance that to you, terrorists are whoever white people say they are.

As such, you can't see Hamas as freedom fighters matter what. Don't you know the ANC once had an armed wing?

Unbiased1 before I digest everything note that I have never claimed Jews are not indigenes of the land. My claim is that movement is fluid and once people have inhabited a place for over a millennium you can't exclude them from being indigenes too. So you can't exclude Arabs.

This is why it was also wrong for Europeans to exclude Jews from Europe for almost two millennia. This is why Hitler was wrong as well.

Will digest the rest later.

PS: How would Peters line remain Jewish for 2000 years in Europe. Do you think you can even identify them with all the genetic mixture? That would be absurd.

I have told Kukutente23 that is possible for a black man today to descend from a Mongolian. He still disputes something so obvious.

Unbiased1 why do you say Jews "supplanted" Canaanites? Can you see? That a euphemism for conquest and extermination.

E.g: Jericho.

Same way white Americans will talk about Native Americans when the truth is they exterminated them.

DeepSight:
Unbiased1 why do you say Jews "supplanted" Canaanites? Can you see? That a euphemism for conquest and extermination.

E.g: Jericho.

Same way white Americans will talk about Native Americans when the truth is they exterminated them.

Didn't Arabs conquer the land before becoming majority? Wasn't it an act of conquest for the Arabs to build their Islamic Dome on the Rock on the foundation of the Temple Mount? Which empire after the fall of the Kingdom of Israel didn't try to exterminate the Jews? The Romans even went as far as renaming the land to a useless godforsaken name called Syria Palestina.

Unbiased1:
Didn't Arabs conquer the land before becoming majority? Wasn't it an act of conquest for the Arabs to build their Islamic Dome on the Rock on the foundation of the Temple Mount? Which empire after the fall of the Kingdom of Israel didn't try to exterminate the Jews? The Romans even went as far as renaming the land to a useless godforsaken name called Syria Palestina.

So you see the point? Just dont try to use euphemisms like "supplant" when you know the ancient world was full of conquest. That is intellectual dishonesty and and shows your terrible bias.

I have heard Caucasians saying that they only settled in America when the truth is that they conquered it and aggressively exterminated its native population.

Will you say today those Caucasians should leave? I keep asking you this and your silence is one of the hints that for you, white conquest of others is okay.

My own point remains that after 1, 300 years in the area NO ONE can say Arabs are not indigenous as well.

Rather you will say Jews were there before as if they didnt brutally wipe out the Cannanites there as well!

What was the offense of the people in Jericho?

Jerusalem nko that David took, were there not others there before? Did he go to beg them and purchase it amicably?

2 Sam 5:6-10 - David captured Jerusalem from the fiercely independent Canaanite tribe of Jebusites in c. 1004BC.

cc Kukutente23 / Tctrills

DeepSight:
So you see the point? Just dont try to use euphemisms like "supplant" when you know the ancient world was full of conquest. That is intellectual dishonesty and and shows your terrible bias.

I have heard Caucasians saying that they only settled in America when the truth is that they conquered it and aggressively exterminated its native population.

Will you say today those Caucasians should leave? I keep asking you this and your silence is one of the hints that for you, white conquest of others is okay.

My own point remains that after 1, 300 years in the area NO ONE can say Arabs are not indigenous as well.

Rather you will say Jews were there before as if they didnt brutally wipe out the Cannanites there as well!

What was the offense of the people in Jericho?

Jerusalem nko that David took, were there not others there before? Did he go to beg them and purchase it amicably?

2 Sam 5:6-10 - David captured Jerusalem from the fiercely independent Canaanite tribe of Jebusites in c. 1004BC.

cc Kukutente23 / Tctrills

Lol. Now we are getting to the point I love. We now both agree that both parties are indigenous to the land. Can you remember one of my responses to you where I spoke about compromise? The Jews where ready to compromise to share that land with the Arabs despite having a greater connection to the land. The Arabs on the other hand choose war to exterminate the Jews. The only reason why there is no Palestinian state today is because the Palestinians were more interested in destroying the Jews and the only Jewish state in the world than getting their own independence. Do you know how many people would have gotten their independence if they got the same opportunities those savages in Palestine got from 1937 - 2008?

Unbiased1:
Lol. Now we are getting to the point I love. We now both agree that both parties are indigenous to the land. Can you remember one of my responses to you where I spoke about compromise? The Jews where ready to compromise to share that land with the Arabs despite having a greater connection to the land. The Arabs on the other hand choose war to exterminate the Jews. The only reason why there is no Palestinian state today is because the Palestinians were more interested in destroying the Jews and the only Jewish state in the world than getting their own independence. Do you know how many people would have gotten their independence if they got the same opportunities those savages in Palestine got from 1937 - 2008?

If you can show me where I have ever said Jew were not indigenous, I will be happy. European Zionist replacement Jews cannot be proven to be indigenous - that one we all know. Thats why you run away from the word Ashkenazi. Netanyahu, is a Polish man with a Polish name who only changed his name to appear Jewish. So are most Zionists from everywhere including Argentina. And Netanyahu says there will NEVER be a Palestinian State. This is the leader of the country you say is always ready to make compromises. Also you know very well that the settling in the West Bank didnt start today. And the mission has been clear - to ensure that there will be no Palestian place whatsoever. Same with Gaza.

Its a great pity that anyone who saw what the Afrikaner Dutch did in South Africa (same strategy of banishing blacks to tiny tibelands and taking everything for themselves - which is why up till today they own over 70 per cent of the land) - can support what Europeans are doing to Arabs. Its a real pity. Especially for black men like you to support it.

I repeat: they called the ANC and Mandela terrorists. I repeat, the USA left Mandela on its terrorist watch list till 2008 even after he had been president and left for ten years. Black men will never learn.

Unbiased1:
Lol. Now we are getting to the point I love. We now both agree that both parties are indigenous to the land. Can you remember one of my responses to you where I spoke about compromise? The Jews where ready to compromise to share that land with the Arabs despite having a greater connection to the land. The Arabs on the other hand choose war to exterminate the Jews. The only reason why there is no Palestinian state today is because the Palestinians were more interested in destroying the Jews and the only Jewish state in the world than getting their own independence. Do you know how many people would have gotten their independence if they got the same opportunities those savages in Palestine got from 1937 - 2008?

So let's go back in history.
1. We both know that the Arabs came to Palestine ln about 600bc. They met Jews in the the land. It was not theirs. They were colonizers.
They forcibly moved in to the land grew their population and dominated and taxed the owners of the land.
Now, when the European Jews began to return home, the only people who had a moral right to stop them were the indigenous Jews not the colonizing Arabs. The indigenous Jews loved and encouraged the return of their brother but again the colonizers believed it was their right to decide who buys land or owns property.
This is a simplified summary of the Israeli Palestine conflict.
Please let's know if you differ.
DeepSight what say you.

tctrills:
So let's go back in history.
1. We both know that the Arabs came to Palestine ln about 600bc. They met Jews in the the land. It was not theirs. They were colonizers.
They forcibly moved in to the land grew their population and dominated and taxed the owners of the land.
Now, when the European Jews began to return home, the only people who had a moral right to stop them were the indigenous Jews not the colonizing Arabs. The indigenous Jews loved and encouraged the return of their brother but again the colonizers believed it was their right to decide who buys land or owns property.
This is a simplified summary of the Israeli Palestine conflict.
Please let's know if you differ.
DeepSight what say you.

I repeat for the umpteenth time. You are the one reasoning as if the Jews fell from heaven directly to that land. They did not. They found others there and exterminated them.

Arabs also found others there and colonized them (they didn't exterminate the Jews though).

Each has become indigenous one way or the other. You can't say only the remnant Jews had a right.

I have been asking since whether Native Americans can wake up to send Caucasians packing from America today and that question is taboo for both you and Unbiased1.

I don't know why you also imagine there there are no remnants of Canaanite descendants anywhere.

Who will give them a "right of return."

You have to both stop the reasoning that that land belonged to the Jews magically from heaven.

For Christ's sake Abraham came from Iraq.
He was no Jew.

And his descendants were scattered into Egypt. 400 years later they wandered back and started decimating everyone there in the claim that their God promised the land to them.

DeepSight:
Question.

For Supernatural Degree in Human Political Relations. Select from the options below.
Question: What has brought the ceasefire in Gaza. Options (You may select more than one).

As long as we realise there may well be other influences or factors here not listed - but let's go with what we have shall we

DeepSight:
1. The recognition of the State of Palestine by European Powers.

Nope. In my esteem, this meant diddly squat. Not Cossack squat, not deep squat, diddly squat. There has been extant recognition of the "Palestinian state" by various actors for a while now. To be frank, I see it as more of a slogan. Lacking real intent or desire. The recognition by "European Powers" was at best mere virtue signalling. It's telling that there hasn't been a squeak from any of the EuroPowers about actual state lines or borders. Moreso, since they have all lauded the Trump ceasefire, which I read as designed to hamstring any efforts to implement a 2SS. At worst, I could read conspiracy. The recognition followed by the lauding, could have served to wrong-foot Hamas.

DeepSight:
2. The singular effort of the President of the United States.

Whilst President Trumps part was likely determinant, he couldn't have done it alone. The timing was also questionable. The Israelis had literally pounded everything poundable. The ref had to step in at this point.

DeepSight:
3. The singular effort of the Prime Minister of Israel.

It wasn't his effort, or even about that. For Beni it was a good deal. His stated aim of freeing the hostages and seriously denuding the threat posed by hamas (and bonus points for the hezzies, houthis and Iran, not to mention a sideswipe at the Qatari. Plus, it seems that Israel can resume hostilities with very little pretext.

DeepSight:
4. Global moral pressure.

Really? How far up your fundament did you go to dig that one out. Global is actually the right word - in an existential sense. Israel at least realise that.

DeepSight:
5. The conscience of humanity.

Stop already. Who has issue with non-muslims treating muslims the way muslims would treat non-muslims if they were so opportuned? And spare me the women and babies trope. The truth is muslims hate the Jews more than they love their children and the ideology clearly hates women .

DeepSight:
6. The efforts of Arab Powers.

The so called Arab powers are effete. Moreso than their Euro counterparts. The Arab\Islamic world is riven by rival claims for dominance. The Turks would love to revive the Ottoman empire, the Iranians impose their shia strain, while the Saudis claim to be islamic Ife . Compounded by Saudis realisation that Islams regressive nature will impoverish them faster than a drug habit - hence the push for modernisation and a move away from Islams fundamentl tenets - which lot's of muslims are unsettled by and aghast at, but confused as to what to do .

DeepSight:
7. The IDF.

Quite superb as a fighting force and they proved it militarily by engaging on a number of fronts simultaneously. I would however nominate Mossad for the frankly spirit sapping offensives. Their pager booby trap gambit was like whoa - legendary. With layered follow-up. Straight up!

DeepSight:
8. Hamas.

The Hamas charter (akin to the Iranian constitution and along with core Islam) is to erase Israel and obliterate Jewry. A ceasefire without that happening is at best an interregnum. First they want the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.

DeepSight:
9. The efforts of scholars and thinkers.

Please.

DeepSight:
10. The efforts of responsible journalists.

Journalists report on events. Very few covered themselves with any glory here. The propaganda was off the charts. With staged events and paid influencers. I watched BBC and AL-Jazeera to name 2 - the bias was dripping bro' .

DeepSight:
11. The flotilla.

That was a totally farcical sideshow and utterly irrelevant.

DeepSight:
12. The unique efforts of South Africa.

You could have expatiated on these efforts. I personally stopped taking SA seriously when Jacob Zuma took a 4th wife whist in office. That's just me. I'm sure there are those who can make sense of that.

I posted my thoughts about the conflict here - https://www.nairaland.com/8532379/breaking-news-statement-hamas/1#137012005

Cheers

TV

By the way I watched Trumps speech. He says for the first time in three thousand years he has brought peace to the Middle East. So this means King David brought none. The Babylonians brought none. The Assyrians brought none. Greece and Alexander brought none. The Muslims brought none. The Ottomans brought none. Britain brought none. But in less than two weeks of a ceasefire, he says he has done what could not be done in 3000 years.

Na wah oh. Sadly, many Trumpists will agree already.

TV01:
As long as we realise there may well be other influences or factors here not listed - but let's go with what we have shall we

This is the second nuanced post on this thread. First was Lukuluku69.

Nope. In my esteem, this meant diddly squat. Not Cossack squat, not deep squat, diddly squat. There has been extant recognition of the "Palestinian state" by various actors for a while now. To be frank, I see it as more of a slogan. Lacking real intent or desire. The recognition by "European Powers" was at best mere virtue signalling. It's telling that there hasn't been a squeak from any of the EuroPowers about actual state lines or borders. Moreso, since they have all lauded the Trump ceasefire, which I read as designed to hamstring any efforts to implement a 2SS. At worst, I could read conspiracy. The recognition followed by the lauding, could have served to wrong-foot Hamas.

Alright. Dont agree, but alright.

Whilst President Trumps part was likely determinant, he couldn't have done it alone. The timing was also questionable. The Israelis had literally pounded everything poundable. The ref had to step in at this point.

Far more nuanced than many here.

It wasn't his effort, or even about that. For Beni it was a good deal. His stated aim of freeing the hostages and seriously denuding the threat posed by hamas (and bonus points for the hezzies, houthis and Iran, not to mention a sideswipe at the Qatari. Plus, it seems that Israel can resume hostilities with very little pretext.

Again, Far more nuanced than many here.

Really? How far up your fundament did you go to dig that one out. Global is actually the right word - in an existential sense. Israel at least realise that.

It counts. Israel was losing the propaganda war and becoming a pariah.

Stop already. Who has issue with non-muslims treating muslims the way muslims would treat non-muslims if they were so opportuned? And spare me the women and babies trope. The truth is muslims hate the Jews more than they love their children and the ideology clearly hates women .

Ah well.

The so called Arab powers are effete. Moreso than their Euro counterparts. The Arab\Islamic world is riven by rival claims for dominance. The Turks would love to revive the Ottoman empire, the Iranians impose their shia strain, while the Saudis claim to be islamic Ife . Compounded by Saudis realisation that Islams regressive nature will impoverish them faster than a drug habit - hence the push for modernisation and a move away from Islams fundamentl tenets - which lot's of muslims are unsettled by and aghast at, but confused as to what to do .

Sensible and agreed.

Quite superb as a fighting force and they proved it militarily by engaging on a number of fronts simultaneously. I would however nominate Mossad for the frankly spirit sapping offensives. Their pager booby trap gambit was like whoa - legendary. With layered follow-up. Straight up!

Fair enough.

The Hamas charter (akin to the Iranian constitution and along with core Islam) is to erase Israel and obliterate Jewry. A ceasefire without that happening is at best an interregnum. First they want the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.

What many miss is that it takes two to tango.

Please.

Journalists report on events. Very few covered themselves with any glory here. The propaganda was off the charts. With staged events and paid influencers. I watched BBC and AL-Jazeera to name 2 - the bias was dripping bro' .

Role still key to propaganda.

That was a totally farcical sideshow and utterly irrelevant.

Still builds pressure when the world begins to see you as starving babies - whether it is true or false.
Israel excuse was that food was going to Hamas.
Rings a bell. That was the excuse of the Nigerian Govt for the food blockade on Biafra.

You could have expatiated on these efforts. I personally stopped taking SA seriously when Jacob Zuma took a 4th wife whist in office. That's just me. I'm sure there are those who can make sense of that.

Taking a legal and principled stance based on their own history was admirable.
BUT Zuma na joker.

I posted my thoughts about the conflict here - https://www.nairaland.com/8532379/breaking-news-statement-hamas/1#137012005

Cheers

TV

Will have a look.

WHILE I dont agree with all you said, your comment is easily a 9/10.

Thanks.

DeepSight:
I repeat for the umpteenth time. You are the one reasoning as if the Jews fell from heaven directly to that land. They did not. They found others there and exterminated them.

Arabs also found others there and colonized them (they didn't exterminate the Jews though).

Each has become indigenous one way or the other. You can't say only the remnant Jews had a right.

I have been asking since whether Native Americans can wake up to send Caucasians packing from America today and that question is taboo for both you and Unbiased1.

I don't know why you also imagine there there are no remnants of Canaanite descendants anywhere.

Who will give them a "right of return."

You have to both stop the reasoning that that land belonged to the Jews magically from heaven.

For Christ's sake Abraham came from Iraq.
He was no Jew.

And his descendants were scattered into Egypt. 400 years later they wandered back and started decimating everyone there in the claim that their God promised the land to them.

So you agree that the Arabs are the colonizers. Great.
We at least agree that the problem with the land of Palestinian is Arab supremacy.
Now lets move on from there.
Based on what we both agree on, the Jews have a right to the land.
So what was wrong in splitting the land into 2 as was done in 1948. Between the Jews are the Arabs.
Why did the Arabs refuse.
Why did the Arabs do everything to stop the Jews from returning to the land including killing them in multiple riots from the 1800s to the early 1900s. They passed laws to prevent the sale of land specifically to the Jews. As someone who is always talking about racism, a racist land sale law should get to you.
If the Arabs had accepted the Jews in 1948, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions by now.
Please make the case for the Arabs, I dey hear you.
Again coming from someone who claims not to be religious, it's hypocrisy to claim that the Jews exterminated those they found in the land.
There is zero historical basic for that. It only appears in religious text.
So we either discuss this topic off religion or we make it a religious discussion. Which do you want?

tctrills:
So you agree that the Arabs are the colonizers. Great.
We at least agree that the problem with the land of Palestinian is Arab supremacy.
Now lets move on from there.
Based on what we both agree on, the Jews have a right to the land.
So what was wrong in splitting the land into 2 as was done in 1948. Between the Jews are the Arabs.
Why did the Arabs refuse.
Why did the Arabs do everything to stop the Jews from returning to the land including killing them in multiple riots from the 1800s to the early 1900s. They passed laws to prevent the sale of land specifically to the Jews. As someone who is always talking about racism, a racist land sale law should get to you.
If the Arabs had accepted the Jews in 1948, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions by now.
Please make the case for the Arabs, I dey hear you.
Again coming from someone who claims not to be religious, it's hypocrisy to claim that the Jews exterminated those they found in the land.
There is zero historical basic for that. It only appears in religious text.
So we either discuss this topic off religion or we make it a religious discussion. Which do you want?

Was the so called division of 1947-48 fair? Which people in the world, having already been there for 1, 300 years as a majority would suddenly accept that? Mind you, in one year, Jewish population jumped to 80 per cent. Who then was evicting and eliminating who?

You guys just dont want to accept that at that time the world powers (Britain and the US) were fimly behind the Jews. So no way it was an equal battle. It was an elephant against an ant.

Based on what we both agree on, the Jews have a right to the land.

BOTH DO. WITH REALISTIC FAIRNESS!

DeepSight:
Was the so called division of 1947-48 fair? Which people in the world, having already been there for 1, 300 years as a majority would suddenly accept that? Mind you, in one year, Jewish population jumped to 80 per cent. Who then was evicting and eliminating who?

You guys just dont want to accept that at that time the world powers (Britain and the US) were fimly behind the Jews. So no way it was an equal battle. It was an elephant against an ant.



BOTH DO. WITH REALISTIC FAIRNESS!

Your point is that the Jews lost the right to return to their ancestral home? But somehow, you are fighting for the right of Arabs to return to their colonized land. Please make it make sense.
Just because it takes 1300 years for justice to be done doesn't make it wrong.
The only reason why the population of the Jews jumped to 80% was because your people started a war and lost. So how can you pity the troublemaker?
As for the 1948 battle, but the Brits and Americas were 100% neutral. Please go and read your history.

Again coming from someone who claims not to be religious, it's hypocrisy to claim that the Jews exterminated those they found in the land.
There is zero historical basic for that. It only appears in religious text.
So we either discuss this topic off religion or we make it a religious discussion. Which do you want?

Tctrill's your modification above:

It is not hypocrisy because that is the very ancient claim of the Jews WHICH THEY HAVE RESTED ALL OTHER CLAIMS ON UP TILL TODAY.

So it is fair to interrogate that claim by showing them exactly what they themselves say the did in their own so called scripture. Which is what they rely on for legitimacy.

Mind you, secular history cannot prove alot of their claims. Nonetheless it , makes sense to use their claims to show their hypocrisy. A person cannot say that this land belongs to me because my God told me to murder everyone there and seize it, and then we cannot point out, that well, then obviously you are saying you committed genocide and then complaining that others colonized you after that. Understood?

Now, rather than say I am a hypocrite I am sure you know my scathing condemnation of Islam. So you should give me kudos for being objective enough to defend the rights of Muslims despite not sending an iota of their religion.

tctrills:
Your point is that the Jews lost the right to return to their ancestral home?

It is not true that the generality of European Jews were someone the singular owners of Palestine.

Just because it takes 1300 years for justice to be done doesn't make it wrong.

I hope you will not have any issues if black Americans return to West Africa 2000 years from now and insist on taking most of the land.

The only reason why the population of the Jews jumped to 80% was because your people started a war and lost. So how can you pity the troublemaker?

It is wrong to call any one resisting a relocation of foreigners on unfair terms as the ones starting a war.

Again, if Native Americans wake up today and take up arms against Europeans will you say they started the war?

As for the 1948 battle, but the Brits and Americas were 100% neutral. Please go and read your history.

Come on this is a joke.

DeepSight:
It is not true that the generality of European Jews were someone the singular owners of Palestine. But somehow, you are fighting for the right of Arabs to return to their colonized land. Please make it make sense.



I hope you will not have any issues if black Americans return to West Africa 2000 years from now and insist on taking most of the land.



It is wrong to call any one resisting a relocation of foreigners on unfair terms as the ones starting a war.

Again, if Native Americans wake up today and take up arms against Europeans will you say they started the war?



Come on this is a joke.

You are confusing many things. Unlike the Arabs are are colonizers, the black Africans are the original owners of the land so there is no comparison.

The Jews owned the land before the Arabs invaded. The Black Americans did not own the land before the black Africans.
And yes, I will be open to assimilating African American back to Africa.

Remember, cities like Lagos and Freetown were built by these returnees.

Again, if you would not support native Americans to fight and reclaim the land, why are you supporting the Arabs to do the same.
Please explain.

tctrills:
You are confusing many things. Unlike the Arabs are are colonizers, the black Africans are the original owners of the land so their is no comparison.

Do you think the people here on the West Coast of Africa also didnt come from elsewhere? There is almost nothing like "original owner" in this matter. Movements are fluid.

Again, if you would not support native Americans to fight and reclaim the land, why are you supporting the Arabs to do the same.
Please explain.

Oh I have actually said before that I would support Native Americans in such a bid, its just that frankly they lack the power. They are a minority of a minority of a minority - they were almost completely wiped off. Secondly, I also said the argument would be tenuous because Caucasians have also spent too long now. Get it?

DeepSight:
Do you think the people here on the West Coast of Africa also didnt come from elsewhere? There is almost nothing like "original owner" in this matter. Movements are fluid.



Oh I have actually said before that I would support Native Americans in such a bid, its just that frankly they lack the power. They are a minority of a minority of a minority - they were almost completely wiped off. Secondly, I also said the argument would be tenuous because Caucasians have also spent too long now. Get it?

Ok, you will support the native American, that's why I support the Jews, does it make sense to you now.?
But then, both the whites, blacks latin and native Americans are alll living together and growing their country.

The Arabs refused the Jews to live peacefully with them.
Even by your sense of justice, the Arabs are at fault.

tctrills:
Ok, you will support the native American, that's why I support the Jews, does it make sense to you now.?
But then, both the whites, blacks latin and native Americans are alll living together and growing their country.

The Arabs refused the Jews to live peacefully with them.
Even by your sense of justice, the Arabs are at fault.

It is debatable who refused fairness and frankly it is that party that up till today is still expanding in the West Bank and caging tiny Gaza.

DeepSight:
It is debatable who refused fairness and frankly it is that party that up till today is still expanding in the West Bank and caging tiny Gaza.

Why do I feel like you are going round in circles.
You want the native American to chase away the rest of the inheritance. You want the Arabs to take over Israel but the only people you don't support in recovering their land are the Jews.

tctrills:
Why do I feel like you are going round in circles.
You want the native American to chase away the rest of the inheritance. You want the Arabs to take over Israel but the only people you don't support in recovering their land are the Jews.

Pls get me right: I have ALWAYS qualified my statement on Native Americans with the caveat that there is no point since Caucasians have been there too long already. I only say that if they raise they matter now, who can deny that they have a point? No serious or fair person. But the caveat is Europeans are 500 years in. So best to live together.

Same with Jews and Arabs. On fair terms, I repeat.

Its just that is an open secret that most of the so called European Jews there today are simply Caucasians.
Nevertheless it is far too late for either side to say the other side should go away entirely.

Fair terms is all.
But the Jews up till today have a stranglehold on the otherside which is still apartheid and colonization till this day.

DeepSight:
Pls get me right: I have ALWAYS qualified my statement on Native Americans with the caveat that there is no point since Caucasians have been there too long already. I only say that if they raise they matter now, who can deny that they have a point? No serious or fair person. But the caveat is Europeans are 500 years in. So best to live together.

Same with Jews and Arabs. On fair terms, I repeat.

Its just that is an open secret that most of the so called European Jews there today are simply Caucasians.
Nevertheless it is far too late for either side to say the other side should go away entirely.

Fair terms is all.
But the Jews up till today have a stranglehold on the otherside which is still apartheid and colonization till this day.

Oga, you have a weird sense of justice.
So according to your timetable, how much longer do the Jews need to retain the land before the Arabs lose the right to fight for it?
It's been over 70 years already. How much longer do the Jews have before you begin to blame the Arabs
Again it's funny you come without proof when you state that European Jews are not real Jews.
Please say only what you have proof of not beer parlour gossip.
They were Jews when for over a thousand years, you guys persecuted them. But the moment the gained power and established their own country, they stopped being Jews.
Don't you realize how racist you are?

tctrills:
Oga, you have a weird sense of justice.
So according to your timetable, how much longer do the Jews need to retain the land before the Arabs lose the right to fight for it?
It's been over 70 years already. How much longer do the Jews have before you begin to blame the Arabs

I have been saying forever they should just share fairly regardless.

Again it's funny you come without proof when you state that European Jews are not real Jews.
Please say only what you have proof of not beer parlour gossip.
They were Jews when for over a thousand years, you guys persecuted them. But the moment the gained power and established their own country, they stopped being Jews.
Don't you realize how racist you are?

This one is an open secret. Mind you, there are other Jews - the remnant inclusive. But the preponderance of European returnees are well and truly Caucasian/ Eastern Europeans. Spending 2000 years somewhere is not beans. Go and spend 2000 years in Europe (I dont know where you live) and let your descendants at that time claim to be Igbo. When you see them all you will understand that whatever Igbo you have in you has been well diluted and naturalized.