Palestinian Sheikh : We Need a Caliph with His Finger on a Nuclear Button, Like Kim Jong-un

Which site was it I lost track of the stupidtocity.

 

The site mentioned in the OP.

 

They are. Palestinian Arabs in Israel live longer, live happier, make more money and are safer than their less fortunate brothers.

 

Palestinian Arab is a politically correct way of saying "Jew" right?

 

Things would be better if Palestine didn't have nukes. But on the other hand, Israel has them...

 

Then Hitler can claim credit for Israel's "success", like I've wrote.

It's not as much so Palestinians Israeli are well-treated (they aren't); it's rather the rest of Palestinians that are martyrized by the apartheid, militaristic state you support.

 

You mean the Palestinians' quest for justice? That's what prevents a two-state "solution"? Perhaps you meant "one state"?

And yet, as we speak, Palestine is now slowly in the UN. Palestine might not develop its nuclear plants industry as of now, but it might get a nuke from some benefactor. And about another "unrealistic" goal, a one-state solution; It looks like demographic will one day do the work.

That will still be an improvement as far as the ME is concerned; As of now, it cannot get much worse, is it? The only ones who think things are fine in the ME are zionists. That's why they push so hard for a war against Iran. And Assad. And Hizbollah. And Palestine. And Lebanon. And every political entity they get in contact with out there.

True, true.

 

Give me a break. Like any other country, Israel does well by taking care of it's own citizens, everyone else being distant secondary. Does "America First" means anything to you?

As for Palestinians being martyrs in their own minds well... there's no honor in blowing oneself together with innocent women and children.

 

In the same sense, Nazi Germany took care of its own citizens too. Jews accepted by the Nazi regime were much, much better faring than the ones in the Warsaw ghetto. Does "Deutschland Uber Alles" means anything to you?

Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were martyrs in their own mind as well then, and... does the fact that the terrorist does not explode with his bomb makes him a hero to you?

 

Of course they are safer that their 'less fortunate' brothers oh and sisters. Their 'less fortunate' 'brothers' and sisters are having their land taken from them, are being attacked by settlers and are regularly shot dead. My God speak of saying the obvious.

 

Years ago Hamas said it would accept a Palestinian State along pre 67 lines. Israel did not get her state from the UN. The UN only made a suggestion and the suggestion she made was that Israel should have 55% of the land even though she only had 33% of the people and owned 6% of the land. The Brits say n their archives that the Palestinians would be prepared to make a deal but that the Zionists are acting like the Nazis - British archives really do say that. They go on to talk about how aggressive they are and how they will only accept a deal which they know is so much in their favour which this one was that it would be impossible for the Palestinians to accept it.

In reality the Zionists never had any intention of settling for that amount of land. That was just to create some sort of 'legitimacy' so they ended up taking not 55% but 78% agreeing that Jordan could keep the west bank 'for the time being'. This they went after in 67 and have been at stealing land ever since so surprised that the people whose families have lived on it from time immemorial protest. Guess it takes all kinds. The Zionists were unfortunate that Colonialism went out of favour but it never held them back.

 

No, I meant the two-state solution that we came close to at Oslo. My understanding is that what made it fall through was the Palestinian insistence on the 'right of return'. A perfectly "just" request, but ...

Let us look at the Palestinians' "quest for justice". Of course the Palestinians were subjected to a monstrous injustice -- their land was taken from them, in many cases literally: not just their homeland but their homes and businesses. This was a knock-on effect from another monstrous injustice, where the Jews were the victims. (Without Hitler's bestial attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe, Zionism would have remained a hobby of eccentrics. Very few Jews wanted to immigrate to Palestine, as it was then called, any more than they'd now want to immigrate to Uganda ((once also considered a possible homeland by the Zionists)).)

The sad reality is that human history is stuffed full of savage injustices, as human groups fight, conquer, enslave, drive out, or exterminate other human groups who don't share enough of the first group's DNA. I am about 1/16th Choctaw Indian: my Choctaw ancestors were living peacefully in what is now Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, when President Andrew Jackson decided he wanted their land (and that of six other Indian nations) for white people. Read about it here. If justice were served, all the whites and Asians in North America would have to return to the continents of their ancestors. The Muhajirs in Pakistan would return to India, and millions of Sikhs and Hindus would return to Pakistan, Greeks driven out of Turkey in 1920 would return home, crossing paths with Turks driven out of Greece then, and similar path-crossing would occur among Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, most of the former Yugoslavia would be criss-crossed by Serbs and Croats and Bosniaks returning home, the millions of ethnic Germans driven out of Eastern Europe would go back, Sinhalese and Tamils would experience some movement in Sri Lanka (and the Tamils would be allowed the right of self determination there), Tibetans would return to Tibet and the Han Chinese settlers there would go back to China proper, the Cajuns in Louisiana, after turning their property over to the original Native American inhabitants would return to Quebec .... and I could go on and on and drearily on.

Bismarck said that all the great questions of mankind are settled by blood and iron. If you've got more of that than the other guy, you can enforce your own Justice on him.

But it's also true that we've come a bit further up from the caves than the time in which Might just made Right. For whatever reason -- maybe because it's better for the victor than having to endlessly defend his conquests -- we now try, sometimes, to mitigate the results of being defeated by the stronger guy. My ancestors weren't exterminated, but given a territory to settle in, which the whites didn't want: in part, I suspect, because of the nasty, stinky, sticky black tarry stuff that was oozing up out of the ground there (Oklahoma).

Or maybe it's as Kipling said: "Man, a bear in most relations, worm and savage otherwise/man propounds negotiations, man accepts the compromise/Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of the fact/to its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act."

Anyway, if the Zionists were smart, they'd issue a million abject apologies to the Palestinians, and their descendants, whose homes they took. They'd offer generous compensation, and perhaps some symbolic returns of people who were actually alive then and who literally had to flee (as opposed to their descendants).

What they wouldn't do, and will not do, is become a minority in a single state with an Arab majority. Hell, they wouldn't even become a minority in a state with a Quaker majority. And this is what a one-state solution would mean, eventually. (Hey, if Sunnis and Kurds aren't happy living in Shia-majority state, how do you expect Jews to consider living in a Muslim-majority state?)

So, it's not just, no. But in the vale of tears that humanity creates for itself, an independent Palestinian state, with apologies from Israel and a few tens of billions of dollars to build schools and roads and hospitals and homes and pay the salaries of Palestinian teachers and doctors and policemen for the next generation or so ... that would seem to me to be not the worst deal on earth, and a hell of a lot better than my Choctaw ancestors got from the whites, or, for that matter, than that which almost any refugee group has gotten anywhere.

A few weeks ago I asked, on this forum or another, for any intelligent Zionist to explain to me what they thought would happen to the millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, if the settlements continued. I only got one reply, and it was to the effect that these settlements are bargaining chips which will eventually lead to a two-state solution.

I'm skeptical about that, given the move of Israel away from secular rationalism and toward ultra-nationalist religious mysticism. I think in his case the wish was parent to the thought. And if he's wrong, and the settlers and the Israeli ruling establishment are just hoping that the Palestinians will finally settle down to their role as Untermenschen in the new Israeli Lebensraum ... one way or the other, eventually, it's going to be bad for everyone in the Middle East and possibly in a lot of the rest of the world.

We could see all the wonderful archeological remains in this cradle of civilization turned into lone and level sands stretching far away, and glowing, not to mention tens of millions of Jews and Arabs and Persians, originators and bearers of civilization, turned into radioactive dust.

 

I see Doug1943 that the only thing you believe in is Might Is Right. Exactly why someone should provide everyone who needs them nukes.

 

There is a difference between seeing reality as it is and believing in it. That statement has to be one of the most colossal misinterpretations of another post that I have seen on here, and speaks more to the nature of the dogmatic mind that made the misinterpretation than to the useful input in that post..

 

well I admit I stopped reading after a while but it still ends up as that and the best response remains to make sure those who need them have nukes. Oppressors are always destroyed eventually, always. Even the US who apparently took the lands of his ancestors and without whom Israel would not have been able to act as she has is going down hill fast. Something in itself to be celebrated. Another oppressor on the way out.

 

and it counts more about someone who has been following this for ten years and who actually knows what is happening. Keep your dogmatism to yourself.

 

Thanks for your elaborate response.

I agree with the last part: as we claim to live in an "enlightened age", we should at least have the wisdom of longer-termed sight. You mentionned Quebec up there; I am a Quebecois, a quite a proud one in the fact that our French ancestrors had an amicable cooperation with natives. The only tribe they made war on - and it was from a position of inferiority - was with the powerful Mohawk nation, who were enemies of about all other natives the French encountered yet. The French lived with and mixed with the "sauvages", they didn't "conquered" them in the classical sense. Jeanne Mance, one of our founders, once said to the King's envoys that it was "easier to make a savage out of a frenchman than a frenchman out of a savage".

Wars between neighbours are one thing: Ancient hatred, proximities, opposing allies etc. But in Palestine's case, it was an invasion that came out of nowhere: There was no bad blood between Palestine and Ukraine that I know of. This invasion was, by consensus, not caused by geo-political causes but by an agreement that didn't include the main concerned people. Maybe it would have been acceptable during the Dark Times between antiquity and the middle-ages, during the Invasions, but this decison isn't even a century old. How did we come to that?

A sign of our age enlightement would have been the end of South African Apartheid. Looks like it was a highpoint and everything had been going down since the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War, the Occident could drape itself into a shroud of civility, but since its end, it's "the ends justifies the means" just like for any mob crew. It the presence of a world abuser more necessary than that of a world protector? Maybe.

In any case, if the system that I support cannot, or will not see to these injustices, there goes all of my confidence in it, as nothing will prevent it from designating me as the enemy at the moment it is convenient for it to do so.

They do are smart: If I were in Israel's position, I'll pray every day for the "war" to continue, as the continuation of war (against an unarmed people) guarantees my international right to steal from them more of Eretz Yisrael, and earns me 3 billions of top US military hardware thanks to the taxpayers out there. Case in point: as we speak the West Bank never has been so tame and as a result, zionists steal their land un-opposed. Every "peace plan" coming from the zionist side is about legitimizing Israeli crimes and insure that the resulting Palestinian state will live under Israel rule and law - and still I believe it would be a bigger tragedy for Israel if Palestinians accepted it, so they make it so that the deal is practically impossible to settle.

The only thing necessary to end this quagmire in the Levant would be zionist will to do it. They could end it up tomorrow if they wished it so; The Palestinians, not so much.

But there will always be more arabs than jews: This is the ME. If the Jews couldn't suffer arabs (AND could suffer the proximity of other goyim), they should have gone somewhere else. It's like going into a lake and finding out that's wet. IMO, in that sense Israel is Utopia. The badly-grafted finger cannot reject the whole host.

I agree once again.

 

No, it is not the "same sense". Your fixation on Nazi Germany and continuous laughable attempt at linking with Israel leaves me stone cold. But I do see, your post' been liked by the usual suspects. Keep at it

 

So your argument against M Victor P is because I liked his post. Now what exactly am I supposed to be a 'usual suspect' for or should I just report your post now.

 

Your surrender is accepted. Go now, and don't sin again!

 

I don't really understand Alexa's point. I see that she is a Palestinian Nationalist, perhaps by proxy. So let's accept her assumptions about the Jews of Israel, for the sake of argument. These assumptions seem to be: here is a textbook case of evil European invaders coming to steal the land of an oppressed people. We should treat them like the Nazis who invaded Poland. Destroy them! How wonderful it will be when a Caliph, or similar, gets nuclear weapons ... ideal for destroying large numbers of people, who deserve it. So, on to an Arab or Persian nuclear arsenal, which can be used .. how, exactly? To vaporize Tel Aviv, as the previous Iranian President hinted at?

In charity, my immediate response is to recall the words of another partisan, of a different national cause, that "too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart"

But even stony hearts should recall that the Israelis already have nuclear weapons. And the history of what happened to them in civilized, cultured Europe, where they had existed in large numbers but without state power (the difference between their situation then and now) while the rest of the world looked on but did nothing (just as it does nothing now for Rohingya Muslims) means that they will not be restrained in using them, and won't wait until Tel Aviv is vaporized before doing so. So if you're sitting in Europe or North America and willing to fight to the last Palestinian ... for shame.

What the Palestinians should do is to have the same attitude towards the Israelis, that the latter have towards the Germans -- who were guilty of far more monstrous crimes than mere eviction and seizure of property.

 

Just a warning it is against forum rules to talk about other people. I think you are new and I know Merwin spoke about yours so I am just letting you know. Your projections however are as fairy tale as what you were writing before. Again it is against the rules to talk about people.

I will tell you why I thought what I wrote though it was a while ago I looked at your post. My first thought. *******n someone who writes more than me. Then you wrote about it happening to everyone so what should we expect, or similar and that was why I wrote just Might is Right seemed to be your position. When Europeans took over your country they were free to do it. It was the world of Might is Right. Along with that there were no laws against what they did so while it was bad and something we should learn from it is not something which can be repeated legally nowadays. Hence the whole argument about Israel is whether you believe in Might is Right or International Law. From how much I read of your post you believe in Might is Right. You do not see any reason why Israel should abide by International Law. Given that, clearly the world is extremely unfair with only the most powerful having rights. Now I do not even agree with anyone having nukes but in such a world giving the poorest the strongest military deterrent would clearly end the Might is Right Philosophy and certainly would explain the man in the OP's reasoning which is what this thread is on - if he is real which is unlikely..

 

Hamas revised their charter in 2017 but didn't change much. In it they say they would "accept" a nation for themselves with the 1967 borders and the return of all displaced people. This in itself would be unacceptable to Israel, but along with that they declare that their goal is still the destruction of Israel. So they consider getting their own state to be only a step in the process.

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-charter-1637794876

 

Whatever tickles your fancy, my winning friend

 

You do know what the "usual suspect" is, alexa? Just in case, from Webster:

"the usual suspects. the people or things you would expect to be present somewhere or doing a particular thing"

All I said was is that I've expected MVictorP's post to be liked by the posters who like these sorts of posts; I was correct. Why' is that upsetting to you?