Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 Anything they wanted to. They OWNED them. Most "Palestinian" Arabs were tenant farmers.

I think you have just described colonialism.

 

So lets get this straight, Zionists come from Europe, expand their landholdings by purchase from absentee landlords because they have very deep international pockets. They can do anything they like with any tenant farmers including boot them off the land, not employ them even as laborers, so that they would go elsewhere or starve. The Zionists then create a Jewish only state in which of course there are no Muslims or Christians. Very far from your "we are happy to live in peace" ... provided that you Palestinians clear off. And this you regard as not provocative.

 

And could Zionists establish their Jewish state on 6% land ownership (by 1945) to accommodate millions of world Jewry? There is of course the thorny problem of what do with those who dont want to sell or  move from their ancestral homes.

 

I think we all know the history of what the Zionists did next to overcome this demographics problem.

Edited September 21, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>I cannot off hand recall similar long term predictions serving as basis for current policy. 
.... John Kerry has stated that Israel's present illegal occupation is unsustainable.  Joe Biden is staring into a crytsal ball too.

“I firmly believe that the action Israel’s government has taken over the past several years – the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures – they’re moving us, and more important, they’re moving Israel, in the wrong direction,” the vice president said.
Mr. Biden said those moves were efforts to make a two-state solution impossible logistically. This possibility he called “dangerous,” saying it would not only make peace with the Palestinians impossible, it would push Israel into a dilemma of remaining a Jewish state or remaining a liberal, democratic one."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/18/joe-biden-blasts-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-govern/

Their stated vision is of a two state solution. Mine goes beyond that. After decades of a just peace between two economically dependent states I predict these geographic-neighbors-for-eternity and their populations will meld. Nothing unrealistic about that at all.
It's all very well to focus as you do on "the complex reality of the present", but IMO you lack vision of the bigger picture.

 

>>The same goes for the prediction that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will result in marginalizing extreme elements
...I disagree with you. You are always looking at a glass half empty. Peace in a 100 year old conflict must be good for the region. Extremists have used the Arab Israel conflict as a casus belli for decades. The Arab world is well aware of US hypocrisy ..championing freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while supporting the 50 year illegal Israeli occupation and repression of Palestinians. Sanctioning Iran over possible development of nuclear technology, while they know full well that Israel has 200 nukes pointed at Tehran (according to Colin Powell).

 

>>As posted earlier, if anything, it is more likely that if the same condition persist, then at some point the US may gradually disengage itself from the level of involvement it exerts today.
..the US has just increased its commitment to Israel's defense with a $38 billion package over the next 10 years.

 

I have never denied that people of the Jewish faith lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago. People of other faiths lived there before them and after them. It's using that distant religious connection as a ridiculous tenuous pretext to colonize and ethnically cleanse the resident Palestinian population that I object to.

 

I suggest readers view the excellent 4 part series Al Nackba (on Youtube) if they want to know the full history of Zionists' colonial enterprise with the collusion of UK

"Arab, Israeli and Western intellectuals, historians and eye-witnesses provide the central narrative which is accompanied by archive material and documents, many only recently released for the first time."

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/05/20135612348774619.html

 

If you are still in doubt that Zionism = colonialism, the history of one of Israel's biggest banks may give you a clue.
"The Jewish Colonial Trust, predecessor to the present Bank Leumi was founded at the Second Zionist Congress and incorporated in London in 1899 as the financial instrument of the Zionist Organization."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Leumi#History

 

>> Neither balance, nor truth, are a hallmark of your posts. Said so yourself in your previous attempt. Aware of  both sides "shortcoming" but choose to deny or ignore any such when applies to the Palestinians, just in order to avoid conceding a point.
...it's not my job to do the Zionists' dirty work for them, especially since I regard Zionism as the root cause of the entire conflict. I also said in my previous post, that give Zionist apologists an inch and they will take a mile. You have just proven my point.

 

Biden and Kerry do not envisage nor advocate your version of a one state solution. If anything, their view seems to be that a one state solution is a dubious and risky proposition. They are not using a crystal ball, and their comments revolve around the short-mid term, rather than the "after decades of peace" fantasy appearing in your post. Wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last, in which you attempt to portray other's words, as conforming with your agenda. I will repeat, that as far as I am aware, there is no such long term planning applied to international relations in general, and specifically, with regard to the Middle East. Claiming there is nothing "unrealistic" about this imagined future merely enhances the feeling that it is based on wishful thinking rather than on having a clue. Alternatively, one could assume that it is simply a cop out. 

 

As for the supposed benefits of such a peace, allow me to point out that other than repeating some wishful thinking and US bashing, there is nothing in your reply which explains how such benefits will materialize. Again, not really expecting a coherent or reasoned answer. Most of the ME conflicts got nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian once. The reality which you refer to is somewhat dated. Most relevant ME, Arab and Muslim countries have bigger fish to fry. This is reflected by the level of interest and commitment these countries exhibit with regard to the Palestinian cause. The US involvement in the ME is of a somewhat larger scale than the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. It is unlikely that a peace agreement would radically change the way the US is perceived regionally. For reference consult the previous point.

 

With regard to the inane comment on US military aid - note that I referred possible future changes, as opposed to the way things are currently. Additionally, the new military aid package is not necessarily an improvement from Irael's POV. This has to do with certain conditions being introduced. The issue was addressed in a separate topic.

 

The connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is temporally longer than conveyed in your post, nor is it based just on religious grounds. Obviously, this does not go well with the suggested narrative, but doesn't alter the facts. Somewhat different than other cultures, the Jewish connection to Israel was always present in one form or another. And again, denying these things places you on the fringe. It is certainly unfortunate that realizing the national aspirations of the Jewish people came at the expense of the Palestinians. That by itself, however, does not provide reason enough for denying the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. It is quite possible to acknowledge both.

 

A documentary produced by al Jazeera is not necessarily the most objective or reliable source of information. Concerning your second link, the actual name in Hebrew does not denote quite the same meaning. May I, once more, suggest that you drop the lame attempts to engage in pseudo-history?

 

The last paragraph is rather absurd. The claimed motivation was to introduce balance and present the truth. The admitted practice is a one sided view which denies or ignores any negatives related to your position. And somehow the discrepancy between the two is also someone else's fault. Lets try again, though - being against a certain point of view, does not automatically entail denying or ignoring any faults existing within your own position. Persisting in this while calling others "apologists" is ridiculous at best.

 

[CharlieK]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

I think you have just described colonialism.

 

So lets get this straight, Zionists come from Europe, expand their landholdings by purchase from absentee landlords because they have very deep international pockets. They can do anything they like with any tenant farmers including boot them off the land, not employ them even as laborers, so that they would go elsewhere or starve. The Zionists then create a Jewish only state in which of course there are no Muslims or Christians. Very far from your "we are happy to live in peace" ... provided that you Palestinians clear off. And this you regard as not provocative.

 

And could Zionists establish their Jewish state on 6% land ownership (by 1945) to accommodate millions of world Jewry? There is of course the thorny problem of what do with those who dont want to sell or  move from their ancestral homes.

 

I think we all know the history of what the Zionists did next to overcome this demographics problem.

 

My understanding is that the grand mufti told the arab population to leave the area because the might of the arab armies assembled against Israel were going to push the jews into the sea. However History shows us what happened. 

 

So by and large the arabs made themselves stateless with the help of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Because not only did they tell the Arabs to leave they refused to absorb them when they lost. Leaving Israel with the land Post 1948. 

 

The Arabs ethnically cleansed themselves from the area did they not?

[Jingthing]

That's part of the story, yes. But looking at the situation today, to quote the probably next U.S. president, Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? 

Both sides have their historical narratives and there are elements of truth in both side's narratives.

[CharlieK]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's part of the story, yes. But looking at the situation today, to quote the probably next U.S. president, Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? 

Both sides have their historical narratives and there are elements of truth in both side's narratives.

 

That may be true, but the simplified narrative that some try to portray the situation as being negates the reality of the situation. It would be great if there were peace, but that simplified version shows why there is no peace. The Arabs don't want to take responsibility for their own mess.

 

By and large, Israel was a barren land, the north was swamplands and the south was desert. Yet a million Arabs lived there? That is such BS! Where are all the mosques that show the Arabs were living in those areas? I dare say if it were not for the Jews that area would be as barren today as it was late 1800's-1930's  I doubt even Jerusalem would have been developed and the dome on the rock probably would be derelict today. 

 

It seems the only thing that units arabs is the infighting between Sunni and shia and all the other minor factions who claim to be islamic. So we see the mentality of a people that only know death and destruction. If they can't live side by side as one faith what chance of Peace?

 

 

[dexterm]

Hardly worth responding.

 

You seem to have garnered all your red herrings from the Zionist propaganda cliche book. BS such as the Israelis made the desert bloom,  Palestinians refugees fled due to a call from their leaders have been debunked at length many times on this forum....even the Jewish Virtual Library dismisses that one.

"but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle "

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

 

..the indisputable war crime is not allowing refugees to return to their homes as the Geneva Convention stipulates.

 

Suggest you view the Al Nackba documentary series to familiarize yourself with the history of the conflict. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by dexterm

[JingerBen]

"...what chance of Peace?"

None whatsoever until Israel stops building illegal settlements on Palestinian land.  That is what provokes Palestinian resistance and international condemnation.  The coming weeks will see a challenge to the naval blockade of Gaza.  If moderate Israelis don't prevail soon against the hard line Zionists there will be endless bloodshed and the reality of an apartheid state where Jews will be a minority under siege.

 

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Biden and Kerry do not envisage nor advocate your version of a one state solution. If anything, their view seems to be that a one state solution is a dubious and risky proposition. They are not using a crystal ball, and their comments revolve around the short-mid term, rather than the "after decades of peace" fantasy appearing in your post. Wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last, in which you attempt to portray other's words, as conforming with your agenda. I will repeat, that as far as I am aware, there is no such long term planning applied to international relations in general, and specifically, with regard to the Middle East. Claiming there is nothing "unrealistic" about this imagined future merely enhances the feeling that it is based on wishful thinking rather than on having a clue. Alternatively, one could assume that it is simply a cop out. 

 

As for the supposed benefits of such a peace, allow me to point out that other than repeating some wishful thinking and US bashing, there is nothing in your reply which explains how such benefits will materialize. Again, not really expecting a coherent or reasoned answer. Most of the ME conflicts got nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian once. The reality which you refer to is somewhat dated. Most relevant ME, Arab and Muslim countries have bigger fish to fry. This is reflected by the level of interest and commitment these countries exhibit with regard to the Palestinian cause. The US involvement in the ME is of a somewhat larger scale than the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. It is unlikely that a peace agreement would radically change the way the US is perceived regionally. For reference consult the previous point.

 

With regard to the inane comment on US military aid - note that I referred possible future changes, as opposed to the way things are currently. Additionally, the new military aid package is not necessarily an improvement from Irael's POV. This has to do with certain conditions being introduced. The issue was addressed in a separate topic.

 

The connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is temporally longer than conveyed in your post, nor is it based just on religious grounds. Obviously, this does not go well with the suggested narrative, but doesn't alter the facts. Somewhat different than other cultures, the Jewish connection to Israel was always present in one form or another. And again, denying these things places you on the fringe. It is certainly unfortunate that realizing the national aspirations of the Jewish people came at the expense of the Palestinians. That by itself, however, does not provide reason enough for denying the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. It is quite possible to acknowledge both.

 

A documentary produced by al Jazeera is not necessarily the most objective or reliable source of information. Concerning your second link, the actual name in Hebrew does not denote quite the same meaning. May I, once more, suggest that you drop the lame attempts to engage in pseudo-history?

 

The last paragraph is rather absurd. The claimed motivation was to introduce balance and present the truth. The admitted practice is a one sided view which denies or ignores any negatives related to your position. And somehow the discrepancy between the two is also someone else's fault. Lets try again, though - being against a certain point of view, does not automatically entail denying or ignoring any faults existing within your own position. Persisting in this while calling others "apologists" is ridiculous at best.

 

The usual hot air and semantic acrobatics...I have refuted all the points you mentioned already. You are just rehashing the same arguments.

 

Got better things to do than try the patience of the mods by refuting them yet again in our off topic discussion.

 

Whoever becomes President will have to deal with the current impasse in peace negotiations by allowing Israel to dig a deeper hole for itself, or actually put pressure on Israel to come to terms with reality...they can either have a democratic state or a Jewish State, but they can't have both unless they cease their illegal occupation.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

I think you have just described colonialism.

 

 

Not even close. For starters, there would have to be a country to colonize and - as has been pointed out numerous times - there wasn't one. There has NEVER been an Independent Arab state called "Palestine".

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

I have refuted all the points you mentioned already. 

 

You have TRIED to refute his learned arguments, but never done so successfully. His point about posting pseudo-history is particularly relevant.

[DeaconJohn]

The Zionist narrative is the pseudo-history as any serious study of the subject would make plain.

[SheungWan]

3 minutes ago, DeaconJohn said:

The Zionist narrative is the pseudo-history as any serious study of the subject would make plain.

 

Some people don't know the difference between pseudo and sudoku, but carry on.......

[Jingthing]

 

You have TRIED to refute his learned arguments, but never done so successfully. His point about posting pseudo-history is particularly relevant.

Sorry to say endless loop the same material for years.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

The usual hot air and semantic acrobatics...I have refuted all the points you mentioned already. You are just rehashing the same arguments.

 

Got better things to do than try the patience of the mods by refuting them yet again in our off topic discussion.

 

Whoever becomes President will have to deal with the current impasse in peace negotiations by allowing Israel to dig a deeper hole for itself, or actually put pressure on Israel to come to terms with reality...they can either have a democratic state or a Jewish State, but they can't have both unless they cease their illegal occupation.

 

More like the usual cop out whenever nothing meaningful to say.  Guess you have an idiosyncratic definition of "refute" as well:

 

refute

verb

past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted

prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

 

Non of it in your posts. And that sudden interest in keeping On Topic? Laughable.

 

The impasse is nothing new, nor is the US position that Israel is solely responsible. It is quite likely that the next presidential term would also see Abbas stepping down. How this will effect the dynamics of the conflict, and the situation of the Palestinian is perhaps material for another topic, though. All things considered, it is doubtful out of the ordinary pressure would be directed at Israel from whomever becomes the next US president.

 

 

[Johpa]

1 hour ago, DeaconJohn said:

The Zionist narrative is the pseudo-history as any serious study of the subject would make plain.

 

One could easily conclude, à la Howard Zinn, that all historical narratives are pseudo-history. Another example of historical narrative as pseudo-history are the Thai chronicles, the pongsawadan. Such narratives do not change the implicit brutal nature of historical forces.

 

By the way, the link http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html   shows what a sparsely populated region it was during the mandate and Ottoman years.  Compare the number of refugees that resulted with the 14 million refugees created when the UN divided India and Pakistan around the same time.  Yep, history is brutal, but then people are brutal.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

One could easily conclude, à la Howard Zinn, that all historical narratives are pseudo-history. Another example of historical narrative as pseudo-history are the Thai chronicles, the pongsawadan. Such narratives do not change the implicit brutal nature of historical forces.

 

By the way, the link http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html   shows what a sparsely populated region it was during the mandate and Ottoman years.  Compare the number of refugees that resulted with the 14 million refugees created when the UN divided India and Pakistan around the same time.  Yep, history is brutal, but then people are brutal.

I dispute the fact that Palestine was sparsely populated, and besides "being sparsely populated" does not give European colonialists the right to invade it.

 

Discussing India and Pakistan on a topic about Palestine is irrelevant whataboutery.

Edited September 21, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More like the usual cop out whenever nothing meaningful to say.

Guess you have an idiosyncratic definition of "refute" as well:

 

refute

verb

past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted

prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

 

Non of it in your posts. And that sudden interest in keeping On Topic? Laughable.

 

The impasse is nothing new, nor is the US position that Israel is solely responsible. It is quite likely that the next presidential term would also see Abbas stepping down. How this will effect the dynamics of the conflict, and the situation of the Palestinian is perhaps material for another topic, though. All things considered, it is doubtful out of the ordinary pressure would be directed at Israel from whomever becomes the next US president.

 

 

You wrote "I cannot off hand recall similar long term predictions serving as basis for current policy."
So I give you 2 examples Kerry and Biden who are pushing their current 2 state solution policy,  because they can see Israel drifting into a one state solution, as I also envisage.
You respond ah but that's different "their comments revolve around the short-mid term"...whatever that means? 
See what I mean. All becomes a bit pedantic, and a waste of my valuable time. Maybe you have more available for this hot air semantics nonsense.

 

Then on the off topic issue, I have found that whatever the subject we have the usual Israeli apologists drag out their favorite off topic deflections recipe, as happened on this occasion:

 

Quibbling over the name Palestine.
Jews are supposedly indigenous, although absent for 2,000 yrs
The Palestinians are to blame because they resisted occupation.
The 5 Arab armies meme

....Then we occasionally have the myths..

A land without a people for a people without a land
Jews deserve to occupy Palestine because they win so many Nobel Prizes.
Zionists made the desert bloom.

Add a dash of Muslim bashing and a pinch of whataboutery for flavor  ..then stir.

 

I and others usually let these go, having refuted them in depth many times. But if the mods let these deflections stay and I or others have the time, we rebut them yet again, to prevent TV from becoming a mouthpiece for the Israeli propaganda machine.

[dexterm]

16 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

I think we all can tell who the propagandists are! If indeed it is propaganda?

 

I am curious though. What is your investment in the subject, why the attempts at rewriting  history to suit your narrative. For sure none of what you say or any of us say, will make the slightest bit of difference to the conflict. The most we can hope for is an enduring peace as and when that may happen. But it seems by your language, the Arab Israeli conflict has a deeper meaning for you. As to preventing TV from becoming a mouthpiece! how righteous of you! I really don't think TV has that kind of influence?  Sorry TV 

 

Maybe you should be a moderator???? 

 

Maybe using the word Propaganda shows you have lost the argument. You obviously don't like the opposing comments WHY? 

The short answer is I don't like bullies.

I explained my motivation n more depth earlier in the thread at

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/942673-harder-times-for-palestine-if-clinton-wins-us-election/?page=6#comment-11159598

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by dexterm

[CharlieK]

15 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The short answer is I don't like bullies.

I explained my motivation n more depth earlier in the thread at

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/942673-harder-times-for-palestine-if-clinton-wins-us-election/?page=6#comment-11159598

 

 

No it sounds a lot more personal than that?  you are willing to negate The history of one people in favour of another as long as it gets the result you want. It has no basis of the reality on the ground today. I think if there was peace tomorrow you would still not be satisfied! 

[dexterm]

39 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

No it sounds a lot more personal than that?  you are willing to negate The history of one people in favour of another as long as it gets the result you want. It has no basis of the reality on the ground today. I think if there was peace tomorrow you would still not be satisfied! 

Far from it. If all parties in the conflict agreed on a peace deal tomorrow, I would be one of the first to crack open the champagne.

 

There is not a racist/religionist bone in my body.

I was baptised a Christian and about 5 or 6 generations back have a Latvian Jewish ancestor who married a Scottish Christian ancestor. Not that that means diddly squat because I am an atheist, and believe religion is a mild form of mental illness.

 

I went to a sports presentation for my young nephew the other night. In his side winning medals were Hindus, Muslims(from their names), Chinese, Jews(from their name) and Caucasians. All team mates, not a hint on any prejudice in matches I have watched. And I thought:  Why can't the whole world live like this? It's just the poison of adults that pulls races and religions apart.

 

I also believe it is supporters of the current right wing regime in Israel that are Israel's worst enemies, rewarding them for their occupation of another people, which is only delaying a peace deal which would benefit Israelis and global Jewry too.

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

I think we all can tell who the propagandists are! If indeed it is propaganda?

 

I am curious though. What is your investment in the subject, why the attempts at rewriting  history to suit your narrative. 

 

Because, if he related the actual history of the conflict, he could not blame it all on Israel.

[Johpa]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Discussing India and Pakistan on a topic about Palestine is irrelevant whataboutery.

 

 

Whataboutery?!?  We can debate the relevancy. But I think I will take the whataboutery as a compliment.

[DaddyWarbucks]

One reality that Hillary Clinton - if she becomes president - and other US politicians will have to confront is the changing demographic on American college campuses. This is where support for Palestinian rights and boycotts of Israel are beginning to grow dramatically with the increase in the numbers of Asian, Latino, and African American students.

Even the Black Lives Matter movement has an active and vocal pro-Palestinian faction that takes its inspiration from - among others - Cornel West. It is significant that articulate intellectuals like West are starting to replace rabble-rousers and demagogues like Louis Farrakhan. That is a positive development for supporters of Palestinian rights among African Americans.

Changes in US foreign policy are inevitable and the unquestioned aid for the radical Zionists will be challenged. Israeli moderates are the only hope for an end to this mindless carnage.

Involvement in the Middle East has been a disaster for America and the full consequences are beginning to be felt in the form of economic and social instability aggravated by hostile migrants and acts of terrorism.

Pragmatism in foreign relations will come about as a matter of survival.

[Ulysses G.]

70% of the American public support Israel in contrast to 17% that support the Palestinian's. Harder times for the Palestinians no matter which candidate wins. America will always support the only liberal democracy in the Middle East - one of our closest allies.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

70% of the American public support Israel in contrast to 17% that support the Palestinian's. Harder times for the Palestinians no matter which candidate wins. America will always support the only liberal democracy in the Middle East - one of our closest allies.

>>America will always support the only liberal democracy in the Middle East - one of our closest allies.

..3 myths in one sentence!

 

US policy is already beginning to change, as President Obama warned in a UN address today.

 

Barack Obama tells Israel it 'cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land’
'We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barack-obama-israel-palestine-comments-occupation-settlements-cannot-be-permanent-a7319956.html

 

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

 

US policy is already beginning to change, as President Obama warned in a UN address today.

 

 

Baloney. Obama will be GONE in a few months. Both Hillary and Donald Trump are friends of Israel. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Baloney. Obama will be GONE in a few months. Both Hillary and Donald Trump are friends of Israel. 

I'd give that a like but I can't like any post that touches on the horrific possibility of a President trump. 

[DeaconJohn]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Baloney. Obama will be GONE in a few months. Both Hillary and Donald Trump are friends of Israel. 

With friends like those, they won't need the Palestinians as enemies anymore.

[Morch]

On 9/21/2016 at 8:40 PM, DeaconJohn said:

The Zionist narrative is the pseudo-history as any serious study of the subject would make plain.

 

What "serious study of the subject" is referred to? Can't recall much evidence of such in the repetitive one liners often posted.

[Morch]

On 9/22/2016 at 4:06 AM, dexterm said:

I dispute the fact that Palestine was sparsely populated, and besides "being sparsely populated" does not give European colonialists the right to invade it.

 

Discussing India and Pakistan on a topic about Palestine is irrelevant whataboutery.

 

Seems like mentioning other countries is only acceptable if it supports a negative view of Israel. The topic being, supposedly, about Palestine, one would imagine posters would actually have something to say about Palestine and the Palestinians rather than dealing almost exclusively with Israel.