- Sep 16, 2000
- Basic Beliefs
Just look at the Hamas charter. Not your fantasy about how they believe, but what they actually say they want.Even if you could substantiate the claim that some Palestinians have been calling for ethnic cleansing (which I doubt since you rarely can substantiate anything you claim), you'd still be unable to show how they'd be able to carry out such a campaign.You choose to ignore that the Palestinians have been calling for ethnic cleansing for decades. They'll suddenly give up that goal if they get in a position to actually do it??
There is nothing inevitable about ethnic cleansing. It's a choice bigoted assholes make and indifferent assholes allow, not the destiny of Semitic people to either give or receive.
If the people were mixed together how would the Jews avoid the genocide? Remember, they would outnumber the Jews.Hamas couldn't do it. They don't have enough fighters or enough international support. Fatah can't even get illegal settlers out of the West Bank. But somehow declaring borders and building sustainable communities can make ethnic cleansing happen?
I'm sure it's a lot easier for you to think that than to pay attention to what's really going on.Your argument here is nothing but racist fear mongering and fantasy.
Just because there was coexistence doesn't change what happened when they got independence. The Muslims were not willing to accept a non-Muslim government, the bloodshed was a far larger scale than in Israel and continues to this day.I was comparing the situation. We have two places that were divided between Muslim and non-Muslim after the colonial powers left. It's the logical thing to compare to!I was pointing out India. The India/Pakistan partition makes Israel/Palestine look benign.Your idea of peaceful coexistence isn't going to work. It didn't work in India, either--and that was bloodier and more displacement than anything around Israel.
It worked for centuries before the British took over and Europeans began flooding into the area. It worked so well that Palestinian Jews were willing to risk their lives by confronting Zionist terrorists carrying out Plan Dalet to make them stop murdering Palestinian Muslims and Christians. It worked so well that Palestinian Muslims and Christians fleeing murderous Zionists gave the keys to their houses to Palestinian Jews in the nearby towns because they trusted their friends and longtime neighbors to look after their property until they could return.
Yes, I saw. I presume you want to talk about India because
Apples and oranges are both fruits.
Did the Hindu and Muslim citizens of the various kingdoms that became vassal states of the British Raj have peaceful relations for centuries before armed Europeans showed up? Were their relations so friendly that Hindus sheltered Muslims and Muslims sheltered Hindus when violent bigoted assholes were murdering people?
Do you want to examine the history of the region or just make shit up?
I never said they were enslaved. They were second class citizens. That's how it is as a non-Muslim in Muslim lands.It was bloody on both sides and continues to be a problem to this day.1. you want to bash Muslims and you think you can portray Hindus as victims, and
The peace of blacks under Jim Crow.2. you don't want to talk about the centuries of friendly, peaceful relations between Palestinian Jews and their Muslim and Christian neighbors.
I know you want to use that line about a slave rebellion because it makes the Zionist invasion sound noble, but it's akin to Lost Cause mythology. Palestinian Jews weren't enslaved and didn't live under Jim Crow laws. And even if they had, it wasn't the Palestinians who made the laws or enforced them. It was the Ottoman Turks.
That wasn't the only difference.Palestinian Christians, Druze, Baha'i, and adherents of other non-Muslim religions all paid an extra tax. That was it. That was the only difference between them and the Shiite and Sunni Muslims under Ottoman rule.
The forcing was done by the Muslims--it's just they failed to accomplish it.And I will remind you once again, the Palestinian Jews weren't the ones forcing their neighbors out. It was the European immigrants who did that. Yet another difference between the Levant and the Indian subcontinent.
I believe it's relevant to this thread--I'm showing that the common element is Muslims aren't willing to not be above non-Muslims. In a moderate Muslim government this shows up as the tax you mentioned and that the legal system is tilted towards the Muslims. In a more radical Muslim government non-Muslims aren't remotely safe. Or even Muslims that are seen as second class citizens. (There are plenty of de-facto slaves in the Middle East these days.)I was comparing the post-colonial events.If you really want to talk about India before, during, and after the British Raj, go ahead and start a new thread. Don't forget to mention the burning people alive part, though. It's an important part of the story.
Then start a new thread and show your sources.
Yeah, you say so but you only care when a non-Jew is hurt. The killing of lost Jews is not considered newsworthy.You act as if it's only Israel who does wrong. I'm pointing out that a Jew who takes a wrong turn very well might end up dead and you don't think that matters.
Equal treatment under the law is the issue.
Human rights and not being shitty towards people who have different ideas about Biblegod is the issue.
Racism and religious bigotry enshrined as national policy is the issue.
There's also greed and cultural chauvinism at work, but first things first.
I do think it matters.
It always matters when people are attacked, harassed, bullied, and murdered, and I have always said so.
But you pay no attention to whether your plans would actually accomplish your objective.I have also said that I believe working toward a just and fair society where the equal rights of all persons are respected regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, religion, or creed is the best way to proceed, whereas supporting a society in which racism and bigotry are enshrined is the worst.
I've already provided the quote from the Hamas spokesman that says they are fighting because Israel exists. Not because of anything Israel has done.Also, that stealing from other people makes them angry, and beating and imprisoning them because they're angry makes them angrier.
To cooperate with the police the police would first have to dare go there. And people would have to feel free to tell them the truth (hint: if you were a Palestinian who showed up in court and said the Jews didn't do X you would be signing your own death warrant.)All of it is bullshit.I'm making two claims here, which are you calling bullshit?And how does it make a difference? Yes, settler crimes against Palestinians are effectively ignored because they're impossible to prosecute, not because they're above the law. With no cooperation from the Palestinians the police can't even determine if a crime was committed, let alone who did it. (Many of the allegations are clearly false.)How about taking race, religion, and ethnic origin out of the equation when considering what should be done when crimes are committed?
^This is bullshit.^
The reason you give for why crimes committed by settlers are effectively ignored is bullshit, your claim that the Palestinians don't cooperate with the police is bullshit, and your claim that many of the allegations are "clearly false" is clearly bullshit.
Because you can't comprehend blasphemy. No surprise, most people can't.Off the top of my head: Many of the pictures of ripping out "olive" trees aren't olive trees at all and not a tree anyone would cultivate.
In other words, you have no actual rebuttal.
^This is bullshit plus racism.^
That's the nature of bullshit. There's nothing of substance to rebut. It's just words.
The thing is your approach is not going to produce remotely the result you imagine it will.What I said applies equally to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, and any and all religious and ethnic groups.
What don't you like about working towards a fair and just society and away from a society where bigotry is enshrined and racist assholes are protected? Be specific.
When have they ever proposed a viable two-state solution? What you conveniently can't remember is that Arafat offered 67 borders + right of return. You pretend that would be a token but that's not how they see it--all the "Palestinian" (by now many are as little as 1/8th Palestinian) "refugees" (they've lived their whole lives elsewhere) would be forced into Israel whether they want to go or not.Nope, they never demonstrated their willingness. At no point have they presented a viable two-state solution.Fatah never tried diplomacy. Sham talks to see what they could get but no willingness to agree to a partition of the territory. Oslo was a case of can-kicking, not a true partition.
^This is an unsupported assertion that appears to be a perfect blend of bullshit, racism, ignorance, and handwaving.^
The Palestinians want their State. They jumped through enough hoops to demonstrate their willingness to jump through hoops to get it. Now it's the Israelis turn to prove their willingness. They can start by letting everyone know where Israel ends and Not-Israel begins.
Goal post shifting noted.
Prove your claims. You can start with the claim that Fatah never tried diplomacy. Show us the history of Fatah political strategy and policies.
There's no point to it because you're not going to trust any source I provide. A prime source is not an option because it won't be in English.Has nothing to do with who they are. It has to do with their own laws.I'd like it if they succeeded but they inherently can't.You and the Israelis should want Fatah to succeed in their diplomacy. I think on some level you do. It's just that Israel wants all of the land it calls Eretz Israel under Israeli control more than it wants Fatah to succeed in defending the Palestinians.
They "inherently" can't?
How very anti-Semitic of you to think so.
Which laws are those?
Support your claims. Show us the links.