Current Events > Do you believe what Rep. Rashida Tlaib said about the Holocaust was antisemitic?

(+) Yeah! (+)

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_of_Palestine_(orthographic_projection).svg

Israel is occupying Palestine now because of security reasons. In the 70s Israel also included the Sinai Peninsula, but they gave that back to Egypt because they made peace with Egypt.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

Quote my entire post

The rest of it is not relevant to what I said. If anything, it agrees with what I said. If you think the Palestinian leadership is horrible (I assume you mean in a humanitarian way), then you should agree that Israel would be foolish to give in to them.

I think the best solution is for Israel to give Palestinians more rights.

If you think I agree then why are you trying to argue?

Because you obviously don't agree, based on your other posts.
---

So youre just making shit up
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

So youre just making shit up

You weren't explicit in the post I quoted, and you haven't been explicit for most of this topic.

Unless you want to have an actual discussion, I'm done talking to you.
---

I was explicit and you erased it from my post and then started making shit up.
---

is this another thing where Republicans took something that someone said out of context so that they could attack someone?
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

is this another thing where Republicans took something that someone said out of context so that they could attack someone?

Yes
---

Firewerx posted...

darkjedilink posted...

You might have a point if at any point in the past 80 years the Palestinians had offered or considered ANY proposal that wasn't literally a second Holocaust.

I've already got a point, and it's that in history, the facts matter.

That's true. One of those facts that matter is that the Palestinian solution has always been mass murder of Jews, and nothing but.
---

darkjedilink posted...

You mean that war the Muslim Palestinians started while being ruled by the British?

There was no eagerness among Palestine's Arabs to go to war in late 1947-48. Most Palestinians were not actively hostile and did not take up arms during the civil war. Those who joined local defence militias or active guerrilla groups comprised only a small minority, maybe less than 4%, of Palestine's adult Muslim and Christian (i.e. Arab) males of military age, while those who actually participated in offensive operations against the Jews -- the shibab, or '[militant] youth' -- were a smaller minority still.

Palestine's Arab community showed very little willingness to finance preparations for war from June 1947 onwards. Dozens of villages refused to fight, defied the militants, and from around December 1947 initiated formal peace agreements with neighbouring Jewish settlements.
---

Firewerx posted...

darkjedilink posted...

You mean that war the Muslim Palestinians started while being ruled by the British?

There was no eagerness among Palestine's Arabs to go to war in late 1947-48. Most Palestinians were not actively hostile and did not take up arms during the civil war. Those who joined local defence militias or active guerrilla groups comprised only a small minority, maybe less than 4%, of Palestine's adult Muslim and Christian (i.e. Arab) males of military age, while those who actually participated in offensive operations against the Jews -- the shibab, or '[militant] youth' -- were a smaller minority still.

Palestine's Arab community showed very little willingness to finance preparations for war from June 1947 onwards. Dozens of villages refused to fight, defied the militants, and from around December 1947 initiated formal peace agreements with neighbouring Jewish settlements.

And that changes the fact that this tiny minority ACTUALLY STARTED THE WAR, how?
---

darkjedilink posted...

And that changes the fact that this tiny minority ACTUALLY STARTED THE WAR, how?

I've no doubt you must find it infuriating that some Palestinian Arabs resisted an unelected international body (the UN General Assembly) giving away half of what they saw as their country to a community largely of recently arrived immigrant settlers from Europe, under a plan that awarded a disproportionate share of the territory of Palestine to the proposed Jewish state -- in which Jews owned only a fraction of the land and were barely in a majority, while the proposed partition boundaries meant that the Arab state would lose approximately 40% of its industry to the Jewish state. (And Zionist policies and practices since 1920 had already been made it plain that in this state, there would be no room for Arabs on Jewish-owned land or in the Jewish-owned economy.)

Yeah, who the hell would want to pick up a gun when faced with that challenge?
---

Firewerx posted...

darkjedilink posted...

And that changes the fact that this tiny minority ACTUALLY STARTED THE WAR, how?

I've no doubt you must find it infuriating that some Palestinian Arabs resisted an unelected international body (the UN General Assembly) giving away half of what they saw as their country to a community largely of recently arrived immigrant settlers from Europe, under a plan that awarded a disproportionate share of the territory of Palestine to the proposed Jewish state -- in which Jews owned only a fraction of the land and were barely in a majority, while the proposed partition boundaries meant that the Arab state would lose approximately 40% of its industry to the Jewish state. (And Zionist policies and practices since 1920 had already been made it plain that in this state, there would be no room for Arabs on Jewish-owned land or in the Jewish-owned economy.)

Yeah, who the hell would want to pick up a gun when faced with that challenge?

So, Jews were in the majority, and Muslims started the war and lost.

Why am I supposed to feel sorry for people who murder civilians, use human shields, recruit child soldiers, and repeatedly call for a second Holocaust against the Jewish people?
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, Jews were in the majority

Again, the point: Jews were in a minority in Palestine, and most were recent arrivals from Europe; and Jews owned only a fraction of the land. Yet under UN General Assembly Resolution 181, roughly half the country was going to be handed over to the Jewish state. Not only that, but the proposed Arab state would lose 40% of its economic potential because this, too, was going to end up behind the Jewish state's borders. (That the Arab state would be worse off after partition was recognised by the majority report of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, the report that formed the basis of the partition plan.)

Palestine's Arabs were well aware that for decades before 1947 Arabs had been systematically evicted from land purchased on behalf of the Jewish National Fund, which amounted to around 70% of all Jewish-owned land in Palestine. Under the JNFs statutes, no non-Jew -- which in practice meant no Arab -- was allowed to buy land, or work on land, owned by the Fund. This was clearly set out in Article 3 (d) and (e) of the Jewish Agencys constitution, adopted in 1920. When new Jewish settlers signed their 49-year lease agreements with the JNF, Article 23 of the agreement stipulated that:

"The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of a compensation of ten Palestinian pounds for each default. The fact of the employment of non-Jewish labour shall constitute adequate proof as to the damages and the amount thereof

The principle of avoda 'ivrit -- that Jewish enterprises should employ only Jewish labour -- had been insisted upon as early as 1905 by the newly founded Hapoel Hatzair party, and it was adopted as a guiding principle by the Zionist labour organizations.

Together, these two policies spelled out what the Zionist project offered the Arabs of Palestine: the loss of their homes and their livelihood. Increasing Jewish land acquisition and immigration shrank the amount of land available for the Arab population to live on, while simultaneously barring Arabs from wage labour in the expanding Jewish economic sector.

So if you were an Arab peasant, your concern was that not only would you be evicted from your home when the land was sold, you wouldnt be able to buy or rent land anywhere else. You feared that not only would you lose the land on which to grow crops to feed your family, but you wouldnt be able to afford to buy food either, because youd be denied the opportunity to earn a wage income as the Jewish sector grew to dominate the Palestinian economy.

Who the fuck wouldn't pick up a gun when faced with half their country being given to a proposed state in which it was made clear there was to be no room for them? If Jews were confronted with the same challenges you'd claim without any hesitation that armed resistance was entirely legitimate, so don't be a fucking hypocrite just because Palestine's Arabs did it.
---

Firewerx posted...

darkjedilink posted...

So, Jews were in the majority

Again, the point: Jews were in a minority in Palestine, and most were recent arrivals from Europe; and Jews owned only a fraction of the land. Yet under UN General Assembly Resolution 181, roughly half the country was going to be handed over to the Jewish state. Not only that, but the proposed Arab state would lose 40% of its economic potential because this, too, was going to end up behind the Jewish state's borders. (That the Arab state would be worse off after partition was recognised by the majority report of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, the report that formed the basis of the partition plan.)

Palestine's Arabs were well aware that for decades before 1947 Arabs had been systematically evicted from land purchased on behalf of the Jewish National Fund, which amounted to around 70% of all Jewish-owned land in Palestine. Under the JNFs statutes, no non-Jew -- which in practice meant no Arab -- was allowed to buy land, or work on land, owned by the Fund. This was clearly set out in Article 3 (d) and (e) of the Jewish Agencys constitution, adopted in 1920. When new Jewish settlers signed their 49-year lease agreements with the JNF, Article 23 of the agreement stipulated that:

"The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of a compensation of ten Palestinian pounds for each default. The fact of the employment of non-Jewish labour shall constitute adequate proof as to the damages and the amount thereof

The principle of avoda 'ivrit -- that Jewish enterprises should employ only Jewish labour -- had been insisted upon as early as 1905 by the newly founded Hapoel Hatzair party, and it was adopted as a guiding principle by the Zionist labour organizations.

Together, these two policies spelled out what the Zionist project offered the Arabs of Palestine: the loss of their homes and their livelihood. Increasing Jewish land acquisition and immigration shrank the amount of land available for the Arab population to live on, while simultaneously barring Arabs from wage labour in the expanding Jewish economic sector.

So if you were an Arab peasant, your concern was that not only would you be evicted from your home when the land was sold, you wouldnt be able to buy or rent land anywhere else. You feared that not only would you lose the land on which to grow crops to feed your family, but you wouldnt be able to afford to buy food either, because youd be denied the opportunity to earn a wage income as the Jewish sector grew to dominate the Palestinian economy.

Who the fuck wouldn't pick up a gun when faced with half their country being given to a proposed state in which it was made clear there was to be no room for them? If Jews were confronted with the same challenges you'd claim without any hesitation that armed resistance was entirely legitimate, so don't be a fucking hypocrite just because Palestine's Arabs did it.

So, you're in the pro-child soldiers camp?
---

Omnislasher posted...

Lol

Hexenherz posted...

I think I get what she was driving at but that phrasing is atrocious

This pretty much. Sign her up for some communications classes plsthnx.
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, you're in the pro-child soldiers camp?

This was so intellectually dishonest my head actually spun
---

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

So, you're in the pro-child soldiers camp?

This was so intellectually dishonest my head actually spun

Wouldnt be DJL if he was being honest
---