Israel PM plans to annex much of West Bank

A personal insult when unprovoked, shows you to be intellectually bankrupt in this matter.

He does not have a huge thread regarding his idiocy like you do.

That donkey is not going to fuck itself, so off with you to the barn to feed your wife and then back to the bedroom for your donkey.

I prefer to think of it as what your boy Stalin did multiple times.Or come to think of it what the UN did during the division of north and south Vietnam and what they tried to do in 1948 in Israel.

It is very clear the Arabs will never make peace so it is time to return them to the Muslim side of the mandate line.

Well at least I don't go around the internet telling people to have their daughters look me up

I'm loyal to and respect my wife

Never hit her either, for that matter

Neither did I.

I didn't start the thread.

Нет, товарищ.

Nice try NotDayton.

Just to be clear, you do understand that this was Arab territory before we decided it wasn't and started a Jewish nation amongst them, a Jewish nation which has been militarily expanding ever since?

I agree, it's awful, but it isn't without provocation and the Isrealis have mounted an ongoing campaign of violence against the people whose land they have co opted.

No one's exactly coming out of this basking in glory but to call the Palestinians unilateral aggressors is way off the mark.

He's "my boy", yet you're the one identifying these as his methods and proposing to use them.

Advocating collective punishment of a people, identified by their racial origin. Forced relocation.

Liar. It was Ottoman territory legally ceded to the British who designated the portion of the territory east of the Jordan river for Arab savages and west of the Jordan river as the future Jewish Homeland.

During Ottoman times it experience frequent famine, disease, and then the fighting of WW1 had massively depopulated the area so that most of it really was empty. After WW1 Arab Syrians flooded in to take advantage of the improvements, better Administration by the British, growing economy which the British aided and Jewish people mostly built. Those Arab illegal aliens then claimed the land was some how theirs even though virtually none could produce Any legal documents proving their families had been there during Ottoman times much less that they owned any land.

Their proper places are either in Syria (where they came from) or in Jordan (the portion of the mandate designated for Muslims) but not in the Jewish Homeland.

Lying liars will lie. Try again, comrade Rick.

Your boy Stalin? Really? Is anyone around here wanting Stalin's leadership?

what is really sad is that Stalin is probably better than Trump, and some around here want trump's leadership.

Dude, @Dayton Kitchens is agreeing with you an awful lot. That should tell you something very important about the direction of your thought processes.

I assume you are just trolling as Stalin is directly responsible for the murder of at least 20 million people. Probably many, many more.

And what was the dominant religion in the Ottoman Empire?

We know that in 1919 the population was estimated to between 200,000 and 300,000 and that by the 1922 census it was about 720,000. Around 200,000 of that growth was Jewish immigration with most of the rest of the immigration being Arab largely from Syria and locally from Egypt in Gaza. Even in 1922 the vast majority of Arabs in what was designated the Jewish homeland were Arab illegal aliens. So, no, your claims of some how ancient claims are just hog wash.

We do know that in 1882 the Muslim population was as high as 450,000 but that was before a series of droughts, famines, disease outbreaks, failed insurrections (which included forced population relocations conducted by the Ottomans), WW1 which repeated all of those things and people leaving of their own accord from what was a pretty terrible place to be. Thus why the population was so low by 1919. The population, however, surged after 1920 when the British officially took over largely because war and drought were over, there was free land for the taking, and the British were financing large infrastructure improvements promising a better future.

Arguments about who was where and when, or who did what to whom in the past are irrelevant. None of that overrides the situation that exists now.

"We should have this land because my ancestors were here first!"



"Yeah, well, you don't."

I'm still reminded from a moment in the western "The High Chaparral"

A visiting army officer refers to the Cannon family (that owns and runs the ranch, High Chaparral, as "thieves".

Buck Cannon: "My brother bought this ranch!"
Army officer: "Who did he buy it from?"
Buck Cannon: "The Spanish"
Army officer: "Did the Spanish pay the Apache for it?"

When Buck doesn't answer the Army officer directs that question to Wind, the Indian ranch hand.

Wind: "Not that I recall. But then again, the Apache didn't pay the Navaho for it either".

We often promised a better future. It rarely worked out, case in point.

We often improved infrastructure in the places we took control of and fucked up on every other level for our own ends.

Let's not mince words here, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim Empire consisting largely of Arab tribes. It didn't merely "cede" that territory, it was occupied post WW1.

The fact that it was the Allies doing the occupying doesn't alter the fact that it was occupied, occupied and partitioned by hostile foreign powers (ie, us). When we placed Jewish settlers (ie their sworn enemy) in that territory to establish a new nation that was a blatant provocation which was always going to lead to violence. That violence has since been characterised by good old asymmetric warfare where the weaker party gets to be labelled either terrorists or freedom fighters depending which side you are on, violence in which the expansionist party has been Isreal.

Isreali expansionism which is exactly why we are having this discussion.

Which is a common theme throughout history and isn't going to stop happening just because we see it as irrational. Then again, we're talking now about current affairs and specifically the current potential annexation.

That happens when you're on the losing side. The fortunes(mis) of war.

Indeed, which has no bearing on the point being made that the very existence of Isreal is an act of occupation and it has been expanding militarily ever since.

Under such conditions resistance is to be expected quite simply because it almost always happens.

Yes, there is a potential change in the status quo, and that's the issue at hand.

One which will not play out in a vacuum. You're right it makes no logical sense to dredge up history, but if people were that logical we would be living in a very different world.

National security = shooting kids and bulldozing houses.

Neither side is fucking innocent here, but Israel keeps fucking pushing it when it comes to basically land-stealing and then cries foul when other nations condemn it and the Palestinians get angry.

When they could be taking their finger off the trigger or even lowering the gun a tad, they are opening up on full-auto into the fucking crowd.

You are profoundly ignorant to the point of disgrace. Israel has always been the party to deescalate (when deescalation occurs) and seek peace. The Arabs have never once done so unless forced to do so on the battle field or under US pressure/bribes (examples: Peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan). In fact, by far the biggest problem is Israel has been too nice and kind and accommodating to the violent savages who always take that as a weakness.

There are two big reasons some in the U.S. in particular and the west in general support the Palestinian cause.

1) Israel in their minds is a stand in for the United States. So they can give action to their innate hatred of the United States by supporting the Palestinians.

2) In their mind the Palestinians are victims. And "victim deification" is a big deal in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Well, you sound totally unbiased and worth listening to.