What stops the Muslims is that they can’t militarily do it, otherwise they would.
What stops the Jews is that there might be some embarrassment and they could lose some support (or maybe they actually consider it wrong).
There would also be considerable opposition within Israel itself. There are parties within Israel, who have won elections, who would not support mass genocide.
I’d have no objection for any prehistoric religious based tribe to carve out a geographical area in Siberia, or the Chinese desert, or the Australian outback, and call it their land to satisfy their superstitious beliefs that they are entitled to that land.
That’s my “not much”.
That is quite correct from a non religious standpoint, but Arabs were quite happy to have Jews in Spain in the 13th century where they were second class citizens but safe, the “Golden Age” of Judaism, second only to safety in the United States.
They were quite happy to take the Zionists money to buy land in the 20th century, pre statehood, But when they did declare a state and threatened to become equals, eight Arab states declared war on them and have tried to “wipe the Zionist state off the map” ever since.
Thank you for your honesty.
All the rest is self-absorbed ego-gratification religious based bickering on a mass kill scale.
Thanks again.
I don’t quite understand that.
Read your response.
You said that what I said is “quite correct” from a non-religious stand point.
I agree with that too.
Religious stand points have to be dismissed, disregarded and trashed, as the irrelevant self-absorbed trash that they are.
Since the Zionists founders were, almost without exception non-religious, then why do you have such a massive aversion to it?
Do you have such a massive hatred for people who believe in the Ummah or believers in Palestinian nationalism?
LOL!
sorry…
LOL!!!
Please, explain what’s wrong with the statement I made.
The Zionist founders of Israel were, almost without exception, non-religious, unless you want to insist that it’s wrong to classify atheists as non-religious.
Do you honestly think it’s wrong to term socialist atheists as non-religious?
If so, please explain your reasoning.
All religious based claims for anything have to be dismissed as ignorant and worthless.
Claims for ownership of land have been made as old as human societies.
Step back a bit and just consider… why would a biological species claim “ownership” on anything natural on this planet?
Human beings behave in ways that we can already analyze and evaluate.
Human beings are irrelevant to Reality. All our behavior is only the result of the need for ego-gratification.
With all due respect, none of that explains why you responded
to my assertion of a completely non-controversial, non-contested fact that the original Zionist founders of Israel weren’t religious.
You do realize that Israel was founded by socialist atheists aren’t you?
Would you mind explaining that.
I don’t understand what your trying to say and how it’s remotely relevant to the founders of the Labour Party.
Thanks for asking.
Really.
Human beings have a need to gratify themselves. That much is all too obvious.
The claim that some piece of land belongs to some people only is ludicrous, inane, and hypocritical. That much is reasonably true, even with the most basic way of accepting reality.
If some people want to call themselves Label Number 9 and think they are special, then, ok, let them go to a Mongolian desert and live within the boundaries of a new country.
Why do they have to steal the land from other people?
Dude… get with the program. Your arguments may have been relevant a century ago, but they’re utterly pointless here in the 21st Century. We’ve put a lot of time and effort in this place, and nothing you say can ever make us pack our bags and leave. All you’re doing with your insipid line of arguments is proving how disconnected you are from reality.
Unless of course you’re a time traveler from the year 1905, in which case, welcome! Movies have sound, women can vote and the preferred term is “African-American.”
Nice.
Mass kill them as long as we can do it without any consequences.
Maybe - but at least we have a sense of humor.
… and some billions of $$ of financial support from the West.
Keep on killing.
If you insist.
Because all your ranting about taking over parts of Russia have no basis in reality. They are where they are and no one is moving them. There is no other land for them unless they put themselves in the hands of others. And if you don’t understand why they would not want to do that there is no point in talking.
OK.
Now you start talking about the American native tribes and how the European invaders have to give back the land to them.
I’m waiting…