Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?

You call legal immigration based on the law of the land at the time invasion? Do you think muslims are invading Europe when they legally immigrate to France of the UK?

 

On the contrary, it is a historical fact and not 'childish nonsense.' Now, how about you address every point of post #78 (as well as those of creations), and stop your trollish evading.

 

The historical fact was not in dispute, the pathetic attempts to blame the war on Israel is indeed childish nonsense. Nasser had already repeatedly broken the armistice agreement and committed acts that were explicitly regarded as acts of war by the armistice agreement. A preemptive strike when you are surrounded by enemies and an attack is imminent does not change the defensive nature of the country which enemies are committed to wiping it off the map.

 

He cannot (IMO), he is OBSESSED with Israel.

Every time he enters or starts a thread about it, all he does is bait and insult anyone who disagrees with him.

He is clearly biased beyond reason on this subject.

Rather strange for a Muslim who lives in the ex-Soviet Union.

 

I support the underdog. Is it wrong? Don't you agree that a tiny country occupying less than 0.2% of the regional land, surrounded by enemies outnumbering them 75 to 1 (and that's just arabs, before we count hostile Persians and other non-arab muslims) is the underdog even if it's armed to their teeth?

You think muslims don't support underdogs? You are a f*ing racist

 

And you need to get a hobby...badly.


Btw - racist refers to race, not religion...DUH.

And I think ALL major religions are nuts...Christian, Muslim, Jewish...ALL of them.


Have a less ignorant day.

 

Tice try, but Israel too violated the armistice agreements.

First, list these acts of war. Second, it is important to note here that reactions to acts of war have to be proportional in their response.

Again, it's best that you tackle all points advanced in post #78 (as well as those of creations) before spreading your regurgitated BS. "An attack is imminent"- what nonsense!

 

Perhaps you can explain why it is not then.

Stubborn Facts are they? Lets examine these facts;

It was at war with the arabs of palestine who objected to their aims, and taking their villages. Someone had to defend them from the Israelis. The arabs were only doing what NATO and the west has done throughout the latter 20th cent.

They didnt attack in 67. Not one arab soldier was on Israeli land. Israelis were already crossing into enemy territory even before the six day war. Actions in the Golan and Operation Samu demonstrate this.

Israel was at war with Egypt. A ceasefire is not an end to war. Especially when its settling egyptian land. It wasnt cowardly it was brave.

Indeed these facts are also stubborn things.

The defensive nature of wars is determined simply by who is on who's territory at the time and on who is firing the first shots. Its not determined at all by who wants to exterminate who as this is easy straw man propaganda, for example any side can claim that the other side wants to exterminate or take the land of the other. Hitler tried the same dirty tricks, didnt work then doesnt work now.

 

Of course, British were not native to the land, they were an imperial power. Their writ only ran by force of arms, not the will of the majority.

To think otherwise gives every dictator ever all the legitimacy they need, including the Nazis.

If the French people are voting to allow it then they arent being invaded, if they are stridently against it then they are. Problem with that?

 

Israel was established on May 14, 1948 the state of Israel did not have a chance to be at war with anyone, it was 1 day old when on May 15 seven arab countries invaded it. Besides if you take sides in someone else's conflict and invade a country you are committing an undisputed act of aggression.

So we agree that in both cases acts of aggression were committed, right? Thanks.

 

So that's your fault then? That's fine with me, just take responsibility for your actions and stop accusing people who moved there legally based on the law of the land at the time. If you think you screwed up, why don't you start paying reparations to the Arabs then?

 

I wasnt born for another 30 years. And reparations are no good if you dont have any land on which to spend it.

The people who moved there did so despite the known objections of the natives. And the people who encouraged them there did the same.

Therefore the arabs in this situation are entirely blameless. Why? Because they did what everyone else, including you Borat, would do, oppose the immigration of a minority for the purposes of setting up their own state in your own Khazakstan or whereever it is you live.

 

It was at war with arabs long before May 48.

If you intervene to save an unarmed populace from ethnic cleansing youve committed a defensive act. Undisputedly.

Yes, in both cases it was the Israelis. Your welcome.

 

IT did not exist long before May 48, IT was established on May 14 and invaded on May 15. The Arab states invaded Israel to carry out a genocide of unarmed jewish population. They were quite honest about it:
Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first secretary-general: "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

LOL, so Israel is in NATO now? You are getting lost in your own lies, deflections and excuses.

 

Jewish terrorist groups existed in Palestine before Israel was created and the people in those groups went on to be in various Israeli governments. They butchered many Arabs and British,Jews a like. You trying to rewrite history yet again borat? Not working out for you is it really.

 

So were the jews who followed the law of the land at the time. It was your country's law, you are fully responsible.

 

Arab terrorist groups existed in Palestine for decades, in fact arab terror attacks outnumbered jewish attacks by 10:1 ratio. They butchered many Jews, Brits and Arabs alike. What does it have to do with our discussion? Israel was established and when it was 1 day old it was invaded by 7 arab states. The invasion was an undisputed act of aggression.

 

Obviously it has plenty to do with the discussion,it is just that you do not want to talk about it as it defeats your silly pro israeli arguments. You should really get a grip on reality instead of living in zionist fantasy land. No one believe a word you post.

 

Here is the list of killings and massacres in Mandate Palestine. It's predominantly Arab and British by far. During the first months of the 1948, right before the partition the terrorism became all arab all the time. On May 13, just 1 day before the independence 160 Jews were slaughtered in Kfar Etzion. Who was cleansing who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_the_British_Mandate_for_Palestine

 

Oh the wikipedia that is run by zionist monkeys. Not a credible source at all but I certainly know why you use it. The Irgun committed at least 60 terrorist attacks and they are not all listed in your bogus link,I wonder why? On top of that you have various other Jewish terrorist groups,stern gang.haganah

 

Yawn. It's just a list of massacres in Palestine prior to the partition, 90% of them were carried out but Arabs. Wake me one when you disprove a single item on that list.

 

Your list as I have stated does not include all the attacks by Jewish terrorist organisation and is therefore incomplete. You use wikipedia because it is full of zionist monkey editors,I know I used to edit there and have seen them at work. If you cannot come up with a non biased source of info then do not bother posting bollocks. I am not claiming they are wrong,I am saying that the list is incomplete in listing Jewish terrorist group attacks,I thought I made myself perfectly clear but it seems you just ignore it and make stuff up. Your link includes only 8 attacks by Irgun when they actually were responsible for 65 attacks. So it is clear that the Jewish terrorist were far ahead in the murdering people stakes.

 

Nonsense. The list states that it's restricted to attacks in which 3 or more people were deliberately killed. Moreover the entire period between 1936 and 1939 is lumped together as 'the Arab revolt' with joint culpability. That's when most 'unlisted' Irgun attacks took place. They are not listed individually, thousands of arab attacks during that period are not listed individually either. It's called the Arab revolt for a reason, you know.

Frankly you disgust me. What kind of a low life would quote Juan Cole (well known anti-Israel hack) as an objective source of informatin and then whine about 'zionist wikipedia' without even trying to understand what the page says.

 

Not nonsense at all. You have just posted up a list to try and prove that the Arabs were responsible for more attacks than the Jewish terrorist organisations and it is in complete. The Irgun were responsible for 65 attacks and only 8 of them are on your BS list. You have yet again failed in your attempt to rewrite history as you always do. If you like wikipedia so much then here is a list of Irgun attacks from there that lists 65 attacks but only 8 of them appear on the list you provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

 

As I said, they did not list individual attacks during the Arab revolt. They did not list a few dozens Irgun attacks, they did not list hundreds of Arab attacks between 1936 and 1939. The arabs were responsible for the overwheliming majority of attacks before, after and during the Arab revolt. And in the run up to Israel's independence in May 1948 terrorism in Palestine became all arab.

LOL, who knew, a complete list of Irgun attacks on 'zionist wikipedia'? Do you ever stop and look at the crap you are spewing? Nah, I doubt it.