TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Innocent People in the Middle East, Victimized by Fascist Theocrats

  1. #1
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN

    Innocent People in the Middle East, Victimized by Fascist Theocrats

    For decades, if not millennia, two factions (with identical and impossible goals of exterminating the other) have engaged in violent conflict over lands around shores of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each faction purports to have deep, irrefutable, ancestral claims to the land, supported by the unconditional blessings of an almighty and merciful god, yet each think nothing of committing crimes of cruelty against their enemy or subjecting their own people to danger, deprivation and death, in order to advance their political and religious aspirations.

    One side is wealthy, has superior military might and can afford a go-slow strategy of gradual strangulation. It says little and does much; expanding aggressively, disproportionately retaliating against any resistance, punishing entire families and villages for the alleged crimes of individuals, fighting rocks with tanks and enforcing a casualty ratio well above twenty-to-one.

    The other faction is impoverished, out gunned and stupidly relies on desperate, cynical acts of provocation, which dependably result in a worsening of conditions for the very people they claim to protect. They hide fighters in homes, hospitals and schools, then complain about the inhumanity of civilian casualties. They repeatedly ignite armed conflicts which they have no hope of winning and which they must know will only add to the devastation of their lands and people. They use overt savagery against foes and friends alike, then wonder why they cannot elicit universal sympathy for their cause.


    On October 7, 2023, after years of grinding and intensifying oppression by the former, the latter again provoked a hopeless war, expecting a preposterous, novel outcome (an enduring victory) despite no change in initial conditions or tactics. The stronger faction unleashed its predictable, amplified and deadly response, demanding that millions of people flee their war machine or accept responsibility for being trapped in its path.

    Misery, disease, pain and death. A necessary price that others must pay, so that the two factions can assert the authenticity of their claims and the justification of their evil deeds. While neither side has any hope of annihilating the other, they pursue this goal with gluttonous delight, until exhaustion forces them to negotiate a peace, which both are already planning to violate.

    Like furious toddlers, they cannot imagine a world where they do not get their way. Neither do they understand that, while they cling to the robes of their vengeful Father God, they will never, ever grow into adult human beings.

    ---------

    How that other thread should have opened, IMO.

  2. #2
    New Member
    Registered: Nov 2023
    40% of Welsh farmers say they like to pee standing in the middle of country roads in the rain.

  3. #3
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    For decades, if not millennia, two factions (with identical and impossible goals of exterminating the other) have engaged in violent conflict over lands around shores of the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
    That hasn't been happening for millennia, it's just silly to claim that these two factions have been at it for millennia.

    First, Israel was a historic nation that ceased to exist around 720 BC. Israel as an entity predates the Athenian democracy, Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire. So it barely even overlaps what we usually call classical antiquity.

    The kingdom of Judah still existed but was assimilated into the Roman Empire, rebelled and was basically destroyed by the Romans from roughly 70AD-130AD.

    Then, Islam didn't even exist until the 600s, so there was no overlap whatsoever between Islam and any Jewish-lead political entity, as far as I am aware, and there was about a 1300 year gap between historic Israel and Mohammed,

    Zionism itself dates from the late 19th Century. So these being in direct conflict is 100% a 20th century issue. And there were even Palestinian Jews who lived perfectly peacefully in Palestine from BEFORE Zionism:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jews

    When the First Palestinian Congress of February 1919 issued its anti-Zionist manifesto rejecting Zionist immigration, it extended a welcome to those Jews "among us who have been Arabicized, who have been living in our province since before the war; they are as we are, and their loyalties are our own."
    It was clear that what they were rejecting were basically foreigners who's entire public platform said they were going to replace the local population and turn it into their own ethno-state. The pre-existing Arab and Jewish populations had co-existed in the Ottoman Empire for centuries.

    The whole "they've been at it for millennia" thing is actually classic both-sides-ism, when it is pretty clear that the whole thing happened because of external colonists coming in with a specific plan of replacing everyone with their own people.

    Hamas are not nice people, but they are not nice people in the same sense that American Indians who massacred white settlers were not nice people. The same logic that says Americans had to genocide the American Indians because of attacks on settlers is the logic of Israel bombing Gaza because of Hamas.

    So finally, saying this is about "competing religions" is BS. What's playing out in Israel/Palestine is NOT a clash of religions. It's the same pattern that played out with the colonization of the Americas, with Apartheid in South Africa. It's the same as Northern Ireland where there was a component of religion, but ... that was not about "theocracy" at all, it was about a colonial power who had spent centuries trying to replace the local culture with an imported one.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 11th Dec 2023 at 05:35.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Colonial power uses theocracies, see Afghanistan in USA vs URSS times.....not-heavy-armed fascism is really convenient for capitalism, regardless the anticapitalistic claims of every fascism.

    In B4 "So Putin is right about USA and Ukraine!!1111" (no, because it's Putin the one using Ilyin-inspired russofascism after the communism evaporation to consolidate the "Ruski Mir", just like it happened here in Italy when the monarchic system was about to end and we got proper fascism in the "authentic" form of a militant spiritualistic idealism to consolidate a not-yet-existent "italian civilisation" thanks to Savoia complete political and social incompetence - just see how they "managed" WW1 front and troops)
    Last edited by lowenz; 11th Dec 2023 at 08:07.

  5. #5
    Hamas are not nice people, but they are not nice people in the same sense that American Indians who massacred white settlers were not nice people.
    See what I mean about how Leftists will always excuse murder (and mass murder) as long as it's against the "right kind of people?"

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    My point was mostly that the title and premise of that other thread was already prejudicial and was treating the conflict like it arose almost spontaneously and that the blame was all on one side. Also that the conflict is not between Palestinians and Israelis but between Hamas and Likud, between two fascist factions.

    On many points I agree with you and since you took the time...

    That hasn't been happening for millennia, it's just silly to claim that these two factions have been at it for millennia.
    Semite factions have been waring over those lands for millennia. Your rationalization of one claim over another is the misreading of history. The fact that various factions have identified under different names and have had varying degrees of success and failure, does not change the other fact, that this is a continuation of tribal conflicts going back thousands of years. Just because the factions assume new robes and faith doctrines, doesn't change the tribal and historical nature of this war. The history is so deep and entangled and obfuse, assigning blame or claim based upon a particular reading of it is absurd.

    "Bothsidesism" is entirely appropriate in this case because justifications for cruelty on both sides are made based largely on the above mangled history and their common, malignant intentions. Likud and Hamas are the problem.

    "Bothsidesism" is also appropriate because there is no "one state" solution, only a two party agreement. Even if Likud totally eliminated all Arabs from the region, they would still be surrounded by hostile nations with cause to be furious and suspicious. In addition, the savagery of such actions would turn Israel into a pariah. Similarly if Hamas managed the impossible, the repercussions from the West and Jews around the world would be devastating to the entire Middle East.

    Yes this round was ultimately rekindled by colonialism (European and Jewish) but ancient tribal hatreds feed the fire and Abrahamic fervour breaths hot life into it.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    See what I mean about how Leftists will always excuse murder (and mass murder) as long as it's against the "right kind of people?"
    No. Nobody sees what you see. Now fuck off.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    Hamas are not nice people, but they are not nice people in the same sense that American Indians who massacred white settlers were not nice people. The same logic that says Americans had to genocide the American Indians because of attacks on settlers is the logic of Israel bombing Gaza because of Hamas.
    Seems ass-backwards to compare Hamas to Native Americans, when it's Jews who are the indigenous population in Israel.

    You're right that it's not a clash between religions, however. It's a conflict between a secular democracy of native people in Israel, and theocratic Islamic imperialists in Hamas, who are really just a proxy for Iran.

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Likud and Hamas are the problem.
    I don't disagree, but for example Ben-Gvir is from Jewish Power and Smotrich is from Religious Zionist Party. Believe it or not, there are worse organisations and people out there than even Hamas or Likud have to offer.

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    It was clear that what they were rejecting were basically foreigners who's entire public platform said they were going to replace the local population and turn it into their own ethno-state. The pre-existing Arab and Jewish populations had co-existed in the Ottoman Empire for centuries.
    Several omissions from history I found amusing, like how Islam was founded at the point of a sword in the first place and how the Romans occupied the Jews (LOL assimilated) but did not wipe them out as indicated. It's as if nobody lived there from 130 AD until 600 AD when the point of sword began swinging.

    Another part I liked was the ignoring of how Islam sided with Hitler and found it an excellent idea to carry out slaughters of Jews in the area. Then when their side lost comparing it with an invasion despite getting over 90% of the Ottoman Empire designated to them. That less than 10% irked them into trying to eradicate it for decades after but they failed.

    Eh. At least it shows how one can one side history deftly.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Point Nemo
    The Hatfields and McCoys have been going at each other for about 4,000 years so why is everyone so upset about it now? Muslim culture says those who die for Palestine are martyrs. So it's reasonable to assume that the current propaganda campaign against Israel is likely to garner support for them to push all of Israel into the sea. The bulk of support for Palestine is coming from white female saviors and Arab countries that are known to support terrorist operations directed at the West. I wouldn't claim that Israel's actions over the years are very saintly but given that Palestinian Arabs would like to eradicate them doesn't give them many options.

  12. #12
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Several omissions from history I found amusing, like how Islam was founded at the point of a sword in the first place and how the Romans occupied the Jews (LOL assimilated) but did not wipe them out as indicated. It's as if nobody lived there from 130 AD until 600 AD when the point of sword began swinging.

    Another part I liked was the ignoring of how Islam sided with Hitler and found it an excellent idea to carry out slaughters of Jews in the area. Then when their side lost comparing it with an invasion despite getting over 90% of the Ottoman Empire designated to them. That less than 10% irked them into trying to eradicate it for decades after but they failed.

    Eh. At least it shows how one can one side history deftly.
    That's always the case, history gets nicely whitewashed. Happened in India: Colonialist Mughal conquerors are praised in school textbooks, and their genocides and other crimes (e.g. library burnings, rapes, enslavement) craftily left out

  13. #13
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by Azaran View Post
    Happened in India: Colonialist Mughal conquerors are praised in school textbooks, and their genocides and other crimes (e.g. library burnings, rapes, enslavement) craftily left out
    Speaking as an Indian, while this is partly true, the prescribed school textbooks for schools following the CBSE syllabus are now shifting in the other direction, outright erasing sections of Mughal empire history and their achievements. One of my favourite memories from school was my history teacher regaling us with stories of Mohammed bin Tughlaq's rule and his emptying of the treasury, which led to the incredible decision to mint coins with base metals, resulting in a tsunami of counterfeit copper coins. Guess that's going to be lost to the wind now, with the prevailing fanatical right-wing erasure of things that make the BJP nationalists insecure.

  14. #14
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    I happen to like the title BTW. Religion has been victimizing logical man since it's inception. It's a mass delusion. It's hypnosis by those who would control. Collectively it's the worst thing to happen to mankind. It comforts those who cannot accept death but the cost is too great. Anything that asks one to give up their mind is asking too much. And freedom too? Can't eat what you want? Can't dress how you want? Can't even enjoy sex? GTFO.

  15. #15
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Restricting joy is a hallmark of monotheism. And denying female power. And exploiting the fear of death.

    I can understand how belief in an afterlife gave us emotional resilience when we became sentient, a million years ago or so, but it's time to get over it. When our knowledge was bounded by our short lives, the earth and the heavens seemed immutable. But we know that everything that has form will change. Even things that mark their lives in billions of years. Why should we be different?

    Hubris.

  16. #16
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Location: OldDark Detox Clinic
    Maybe killing en masse would be harder if people believed that they are taking away someone's thoughts and emotions, and their entire consciousness, and any future they had left, rather than thinking they weren't "really" killing anyone.

    When I was in Montreal as a teenager, visiting my sister, one bronze statue depicted an angel flying straight heavenward carrying a dead soldier. Really bugged me to the pit of my stomach.

  17. #17
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    You're right that it's not a clash between religions, however. It's a conflict between a secular democracy of native people in Israel, and theocratic Islamic imperialists in Hamas, who are really just a proxy for Iran.
    As usual, SD, you are less than half right.

    Wars are rarely just a clash of religions. Even the Crusades had strong currents of personal and political gain flowing through them. But those who stood to gain the most convinced the rank and file that god was on their side and demanded their fealty. AND that they all had a quick pass to paradise if god chose them for martyrdom. Of course the same tactic was used on both sides.

    While Israel is technically a secular democracy, at this moment it is behaving no better than a theocracy. It is presently under the control of an autocrat. Benjamin Netanyahu is still under indictment for crimes but, more importantly, is very much under the thumb of powerful orthodox religious zealots, who have previously, repeatedly and violently scuttled genuine secular peace efforts by reasonable people. People who don't believe they have the divine permission of an invisible demiurge to behave like savages. You can vote all you like but when the scripture thumpers violently veto your choices and you can't stop them, you are effectively in a theocracy.

    Your willingness to ignore this and to ascribe superstitious ignorance only to Hamas, is again noted.

    And "native people in Israel"? Seriously? How exactly do you define that? Naturalised citizens? First generation? Seventh generation? And aren't the Arab Semites living there also "native people"? Please explain the difference and why nativeness even matters? Is it primacy of territorial claims? God's chosenness? Do tell.

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Seems ass-backwards to compare Hamas to Native Americans, when it's Jews who are the indigenous population in Israel..
    The Zionist settlers hadn't lived there for 2000 years. Someone who hasn't lived there for thousands of years isn't the "indigenous population" of the region, just because some very distant relatives once lived there.

    Functionally, the people who active live in a country are the natives, and the people coming into to take it over are the colonists. Where people lived hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't change the situation today.

    Additionally, there's no DNA evidence to show that Palestinians were invaders. There was never an ethnically homogeneous nation which was just Jews. The bible constantly talks about non-Jewish residents and neighbors living among them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin...e_Palestinians

    Historical records as well as genetic studies indicate that modern Palestinians mostly descend from local ancient levantines who converted from judaism and other levantine mythologies to christianity and later to islam.

    ...

    Southern Palestine had a large Edomite and Arab population by the 4th century BCE. Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Persian period, 550-330 BCE onwards.
    Literally the locals.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 12th Dec 2023 at 06:17.

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    While Israel is technically a secular democracy, at this moment it is behaving no better than a theocracy. It is presently under the control of an autocrat. Benjamin Netanyahu is still under indictment for crimes but, more importantly, is very much under the thumb of powerful orthodox religious zealots, who have previously, repeatedly and violently scuttled genuine secular peace efforts by reasonable people. People who don't believe they have the divine permission of an invisible demiurge to behave like savages. You can vote all you like but when the scripture thumpers violently veto your choices and you can't stop them, you are effectively in a theocracy.

    Your willingness to ignore this and to ascribe superstitious ignorance only to Hamas, is again noted.

    And "native people in Israel"? Seriously? How exactly do you define that? Naturalised citizens? First generation? Seventh generation? And aren't the Arab Semites living there also "native people"? Please explain the difference and why nativeness even matters? Is it primacy of territorial claims? God's chosenness? Do tell.
    Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

    If Israel ever becomes a theocracy as opposed to being a democracy with a few theocrats in it, then you may be justified in claiming some kind of equivalence with the likes of Iran and their proxies. Until then...

    Sorry, I don't know what "Arab Semites" are. Semite is a language family, not a people.

    Native people in Judea are Judeans. We call them Jews in English.

  20. #20
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    The Zionist settlers hadn't lived there for 2000 years. Someone who hasn't lived there for thousands of years isn't the "indigenous population" of the region, just because some very distant relatives once lived there.

    Functionally, the people who active live in a country are the natives, and the people coming into to take it over are the colonists. Where people lived hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't change the situation today.

    Additionally, there's no DNA evidence to show that Palestinians were invaders. There was never an ethnically homogeneous nation which was just Jews. The bible constantly talks about non-Jewish residents and neighbors living among them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin...e_Palestinians

    Literally the locals.
    Sorry, you're plain wrong. People don't stop being indigenous to a region just because most of them have been kicked out. This isn't musical chairs.

    We know who the colonisers in the region are. They're the ones who built a mosque on top of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and now claim ownership over the lot.

    You've cherry-picked that Wikipedia article somewhat, haven't you? The Haber et al study with attendant PCA map, for instance, shows Palestinian people clustering genetically with their fellow Arabs in Arabia, while all Jewish populations cluster in the Levant with the Lebanese, who are also descended from the Canaanites.

    Regardless, I don't know what your argument is. Nobody's proposing that Palestinians should be kicked out of their adopted home in Palestine, just that the Jews, who are native to the region, be allowed to live there too.

  21. #21
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Regardless, I don't know what your argument is. Nobody's proposing that Palestinians should be kicked out of their adopted home in Palestine, just that the Jews, who are native to the region, be allowed to live there too.
    Smotrich's Decisive Plan proposes pretty much that, though. Either swear loyalty to Israel and give up your identity and your rights, be forcibly relocated, or be killed if you resist.

  22. #22
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    If Israel ever becomes a theocracy as opposed to being a democracy with a few theocrats in it, then you may be justified in claiming some kind of equivalence with the likes of Iran and their proxies. Until then...
    When the smattering of theocrats make all the important decisions or subvert secular politics on a regular basis, you have a functioning theocracy. When your country goes to war inspired by a myth, you are a theocracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Sorry, I don't know what "Arab Semites" are. Semite is a language family, not a people.
    And yet you called everyone who disagreed with you, anti-Semites. Were you calling us anti-Arab or anti-Jewish? Or language snobs?

    The Semitic language family is a group of languages spoken by the Semitic peoples, which include Jews and Arabs. That's how nested hierarchies work.

    And while all Arabs have genetic ancestors in the Middle East, not all Jews do. Ashkenazi Jews share a small part of their paternal DNA with Near Eastern ancestors, while their maternal DNA is European. Not that DNA matters unless you want to argue ancestral claims. Ashkenazi Jews migrated to Israel after WW2. Were they natives? How about their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Native people in Judea are Judeans. We call them Jews in English.
    Circular semantics. You still have not defined "native". The vast majority of North Americans were born here and in one sense of the word, they are natives but they aren't Natives (i.e. Aboriginal).

    Words are slippery fishies.

  23. #23
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    When the smattering of theocrats make all the important decisions or subvert secular politics on a regular basis, you have a functioning theocracy. When your country goes to war inspired by a myth, you are a theocracy.
    Okay, well when Netanyahu gets voted out at the earliest opportunity, you'll see that it is in fact a democracy, won't you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    And yet you called everyone who disagreed with you, anti-Semites. Were you calling us anti-Arab or anti-Jewish? Or language snobs?

    The Semitic language family is a group of languages spoken by the Semitic peoples, which include Jews and Arabs. That's how nested hierarchies work.
    First off, I'm quite sure I didn't call everyone who disagreed with me an antisemite.

    Secondly, I don't like the term "antisemitism", but it has, and has only ever had, one single meaning. It was a term popularised in the 19th century as an alternative to "Jew-hatred" in order to make anti-Jewish racism sound more scientific.

    As I say, there are only Semitic languages, not Semitic peoples. People who are ignorant of the origins of the word "antisemitism" often try to conflate Arabs under the antisemitism banner ("Arabs are Semites too!!!111" and suchlike) but it only relates to Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    And while all Arabs have genetic ancestors in the Middle East, not all Jews do. Ashkenazi Jews share a small part of their paternal DNA with Near Eastern ancestors, while their maternal DNA is European. Not that DNA matters unless you want to argue ancestral claims. Ashkenazi Jews migrated to Israel after WW2. Were they natives? How about their children?

    Circular semantics. You still have not defined "native". The vast majority of North Americans were born here and in one sense of the word, they are natives but they aren't Natives (i.e. Aboriginal).

    Words are slippery fishies.
    I'd like to think we're past notions of blood purity here; however all Jews have genetic roots in Judea. And I think it's quite clear that I'm using native as a synonym for aboriginal and indigenous.

  24. #24
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Okay, well when Netanyahu gets voted out at the earliest opportunity, you'll see that it is in fact a democracy, won't you.
    If he doesn't get to the courts first and install himself as a dictator. Nevertheless, it is how the Likud are behaving in THIS moment that matters, and under a state of emergency, his de-facto theocracy/autocracy will continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    First off, I'm quite sure I didn't call everyone who disagreed with me an antisemite.
    You, from #199 of the other thread; "If people can't accept that settlements and Likud and the rest of it are flimsy post hoc excuses to justify pre-existing antisemitism, then there's no reasoning with them."

    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    As I say, there are only Semitic languages, not Semitic peoples.
    Oh... my bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    I'd like to think we're past notions of blood purity here; however all Jews have genetic roots in Judea. And I think it's quite clear that I'm using native as a synonym for aboriginal and indigenous.
    Then stop making the blood purity argument. Stop asserting that only Jews have sole claim to ancestry in that region.

    Regardless, the region is presently cohabited by Jewish and Arab descendants of tribes which have intertwined claims and neither side is going anywhere, despite the best efforts of partisan fascist theists from both factions, to enforce a One State Solution.

    Meanwhile the lopsided murder continues.

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    You, from #199 of the other thread; "If people can't accept that settlements and Likud and the rest of it are flimsy post hoc excuses to justify pre-existing antisemitism, then there's no reasoning with them."
    That's a post about Arab violence against Jews. What, other than wishful thinking, made you think I was talking about everyone who disagreed with me, rather than Arabs who are violent against Jews?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

    Semitic people or Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Then stop making the blood purity argument. Stop asserting that only Jews have sole claim to ancestry in that region.

    Regardless, the region is presently cohabited by Jewish and Arab descendants of tribes which have intertwined claims and neither side is going anywhere, despite the best efforts of partisan fascist theists from both factions, to enforce a One State Solution.
    I said that Jews were indigenous inhabitants of that region, as are Bedouins and Samaritans. Most Palestinians have ancestry from further afield. All well-attested facts.

    As I made clear in post #327 of that thread, the Palestinians are there now, so they also have a legitimate territorial claim. If only they'd not rejected the chance to have their own state on half a dozen occasions, they may have one now.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •