I never claimed it was a serious track.
Because you haven’t convinced me I was wrong.
Yes, 62 years ago. For 28 years of Helen’s life, Palistine was Palistine. For the next 20 years Israel was more commonly described as Palistine than Israel. Her age suggests that she’s keenly aware that the world really fucked up with allowing Jewish immigration into the region. There have been a lot of wars conflicts and genocide during her lifetime but I can’t think of any other conflict that continues so endlessly without any reasonable prospect of resolution.
Forgive her if she wishes for a better past she remembers.
Better past my ass. That sounds worse than what Thomas said.
You’re still unable to show me, anywhere, saying that you advocated violence. And yet you refuse to be “convinced” that even though I didn’t actually say it, that I didn’t say it.
Tell that to the Palistinians.
Of course… the world[sup]tm[/sup] “really fucked up” by not instituting racist policies to keep Jews out. The fuckup wasn’t the niggling campaign to exterminate the Jews and prevent the formation of Israel, it was not putting up a “No Jews Allowed!” sign.
Obviously she wishes for a better past, when Palestine was an administrative district or a Mandate territory and not a state, and Jews had been immigrating for decades but there were racist objections to their presence that should have been upheld, and the nominal head of Palestinian nationalism was allied with the Nazis in order to extend the German program of genocide to the region. Can’t we just go back to a simpler time?
So when I said I would not have a problem with a one-state solution under peaceful and you said the one-state solution is a backdoor call for the destruction of Israel, you were making a general comment about the solution and nothing else. Yes?
Absolutely braindead stupid bitch. About time somebody put this hag out of her misery. Good grief!
Actually, no, I didn’t.
We’ve been through this. This is how the dance seems to go:
-I point out that calls for a one state “solution” are not a serious resolution of the problem and serve as a back door method for calling for the end of the state of Israel.
-You claim that I’m accusing you of advocating Israel’s destruction.
-I point out that you’re the one who brought up destroying a country, presumably by military force.
-You accuse me of lying and/or not reading your post.
-I point out that, really, you were the first person to bring us destroying Israel, presumably by military force, and I was not. I elaborate and point out that it’s not a serious solution, neither side actually wants it, and it is simply a path to ending a sovereign nation and having it absorbed by a new entity.
-You ramble on about “walls of text” and such.
-Rinse and repeat.
Are you sure?
That sounds a lot like what I just said you said unless you are making a distinction between “the destruction of Israel” and “the end of the state of Israel.” Are you making a distinction between those things?
Think about it. No WW I, so no British mandate, no Hitler and all is peaceful on the Palistinian territory.
What possible connection does allowing Jewish immigration have to WWI ?
I’m keeping you boys alive here [/Christopher Walken]. All the while, ones you think your own are driving you to extinction via the gutter.
It’d make a better impression if you wipe the anticipatory drool off your chin.
I think what Finn is saying is that a “single state solution” = “destroying Israel” because israel will no longer be a Jewish state.
If Israel wanted to be a large minority in a Pelestinian state, they wouldn’t have needed the state of Israel to begin with.
You sure about that? Because i think youa re projecting the Chirstian version of God onto the Jewish and Muslim versions of God. The jewish and muslim versions of God seems to be much less of a hippie than the Jesus version of God.
Is any critic of israel a bigot (or varying intensity)?
And if blacks in America had staged a revolution that successfully shoved most of the rest of the country into refugee camps in Rhode Island, engaged in military excursions into those refugee camps and blockaded Rhode Island to prevent them from getting grubby paws on coriander, confiscated all the land that was no longer occupied because the owners were now in refugee camps in Rhode Island, etc. then you would have a good point. But seeing as thats not the case…
And the inability to view criticism of israel as anything but bigotry (of varying intensities), the outlook for a just settlement and peace would also be enhanced.
BTW, I think part of the problem is that there may be irreconcilable differences in what the parties consider just. The Israeli position on just settlement these days too frequently boils down to “they should be grateful to get what we give them” or “they can have some of what they want after we get all of what we want”
Reread my post. Read all the threads on Israel/the Mideast that have appeared on the Dope for the past ten years or so, paying attention to the great rarity of any critic being accused of bigotry.
Get back to me once you’ve done that. It should only take you a few months.
I’ll pass on your remarks re American blacks, as they’re so incoherent that no response is appropriate. The point you miss is that bigotry should not be tolerated against any group. Pointing out that self-evident truth does not make you a victim in any way, shape or form.
What does that mean? What true colors are being shown?
I guess marley can’t win for losing. I posted a thread based entirely on the premise that Marley treated you preferentially relative to other posters.