It's May 23, 2024, 07:16:17 AM
You also have to understand that people don't just let others come and take their land without resistance... the Zionists knew what they were getting into... so everytime you see a bus blow up, to them that's just a few people lost for a greater cause.
the racism that Zionists portrayed emerged after the settlement of the land...
In February 1919, the Emir Faisal, the one recognised Arab leader at the time, then still striving for the creation of Arab political independence in Syria (of which he was briefly king) and Iraq (over which he and his house subsequently ruled for forty years), signed a formal agreement with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing the Zionist Organisation. This provided for co-operation between the projected Arab state and the projected reconstituted Jewish state of Palestine. Borders were still to be negotiated, but Faisal had already described the Zionist proposals as "moderate and proper." The borders proposed by the Zionists included what subsequently became Mandatory Palestine on both banks of the Jordan as well as north-western Galilee up to the Litany River-later included in southern Lebanon -- part of the Golan Heights -- later included in Syria -- and part of Sinai -- left under British administration in Egypt
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.
1. You should ask the Zionists that question... I mean after all, they were the ones who assumed that there weren't any people living there... and if they did, well then you have proven my point in that they knew they were going to displace a population to accomplish their goal.2. It was hostile. It wasn't racist in nature. Hostile isn't synonymous with racist. It was hostile because the Zionists were trying to accomplish their goal... what I mean by there initially not being any racism in their ideology is that to them it didn't matter who was living on the land they wanted to take... if that land were inhabited by Chinese people, the Zionists would've done the same thing... it didn't have anything to do with the people being Palestinian or Arab.. do you get it???3. I can give you plenty of quotes that you seem to be so fond of that will show you how Zionists were the exact opposite of proper and moderate... but if it's anti-Zionist, it must be propaganda, right?4. You lost a long time ago... you're starting to not even make sense anymore. "inconcrete euphemism"... I used it because you don't understand that a TERM used in modern times can be used to describe something that existed in the past, but wasn't referred to by the same term... is it wrong to refer to African-Americans of the 17th century as African-American.. or would I have to use the term nigger simply because the term African-American didn't exist back then?
This is an old school propaganda tactic. You have to put an image to the resistance. It can't be faceless.
The Zionists had no claim to that land.. they were Europeans
Those Jews were much less European(Having lived for centuries in segregation and under persecution and being Jewish- the people who were exiled from the land and had no land for centuries) than ,say, Palestinians were Arab(who had like a number of national states by the time Israel was declared and who left the land to clear the way for Arab armies who were to eliminate their right to a sovereign state )
lol...In one post you call them Europeans then in the next one they are suddenly European Jews maybe you'll even get to a point when they will be simply Jews, no matter what you call them they were once exiled from this land and they have every claim to it.
This and the fact of persecution due to their religion and ethnic origin.And since we're talking about converting now, Judasim is among the hardest if not the hardest religion to convert into, although Judasim was here long before Islam (which is much-much easier to convert into btw).
1.most Jews are descendants of those who were exiled from this land, 2. Arabs weren't threatened with extinction and they had a number of national homes by the time Israel was created, plus, the people who founded Israel agreed to yet another Arab state(on the territory they were hoping to have) while showing great sensitivity to the fact land was naturally being inhabited, especially such a central region.
Is that fact, or a conclusion you have reached?
Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on December 18, 2005, 02:27:59 PM Is that fact, or a conclusion you have reached?It is a fact, and one that you need to know in order to debate on this matter. Zionists had a claim to the land because Jews were persecuted-like you've inferred, if a Jewish State was to be placed at a diffferent location it would cause similar repercussions only that any other location would raise the question of entitlement to the land to an even higher bar(This means you simply oppose the idea of Jewish state anywhere), being that Jews essentially come from Judea as you know. The fact of the Arab People having a number of national homes by the time Israel was created showes Zionism was in no way a threat to the Arab People however it was somewhat of a threat to the Arab Leaderships along the Arab world and their liaisons within Eretz Yisrael, making their political claim to the land merely a ploy also due to the reason of the "indigenous Arab population" in the land undergoing massive European colonization throughout centuries without any opposition.