The debate "Israel owns the whole of palestine" was started by
March 5, 2017, 6:57 am.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
blue_rayy posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 13 arguments, thereal posted 15 arguments to the disagreers part.
Ematio, blue_rayy, UnderdogMike and 6 visitors agree.
thereal, Suco_169, Nemiroff and 10 visitors disagree.
senseless logic disproves itself
Historybuff, im not even going to bother arguing with that because youre too much of a retard to even know the basic knowledge on the debate you are engaging in.
Nemiroff, Nemiroff, you are impotent and you know it. If my logic is so senseless, why were you unable to disprove it? is it because you are too stupid? or is it because youre an atheist and by nature you support it? id say its both in your case but the latter in the case of anybody with a decent IQ. The whole point of those debates was to show that you are completely moral-less and i succeeded in that goal. You were clearly too stupid to see that that was the purpose of the debates. Regardless, you lost so it is irrelevant now.
no. the Palestinians formed militias and attacked the Jews first. the Jewish militias grew in response to Palestinian attacks. the Jews were just much better at it.
and you can cite these acts of violence?
and why can't I quote you from other threads? do your words become invalid or are you posts just trolling with no consistency of views?
don't be such a wuss cause your senseless logic contradicts itself.
youre also completely retarded and uneducated in the matter just like you are with everything else. When "Jews" started migrating to Palestine, many of them committed acts of violence against the Arabs and the Arabs simply retaliated. Thats why Jewish immigration was then limited by the British. In response to this, the Jews committed more acts of violence by creating militias. So where are these "peaceful families living in uninhabittec lands" you speak of? uneducated fool.
Nemiroff, its not a double standard. Dont be salty and bring in other debates where you were too stupid to contradict my points. i pity you, peasant.
thereal, considering your posts about dictators and mass murder, I'm surprised your not for Israel on the sole justification that there was a war and they won.
might makes right, name any nation that was not created the same way or worse? why the double standard for israel?
they didn't declare it a separate nation until decades of violence against them and an escalation into war.... once again, 1 similarity and then your brain shuts off.
no I would not mind if migrants came and built a city in an uninhabited area if they were peaceful. they would have no reason to declare independence if we don't respond to their presence with violence.
they are under occupation for consistent violence against civilians... your analogy is ignorant of reality. you just take the first similarity you see and run with it blindly. lol
Once again, you ignored my question of whether you would or wouldnt support a group of people building cities in the middle of the american countryside where it is UNINHABITTED and declaring it a seperate nation. Youre officially retarded.
Nemiroff, how do you expect them to be peaceful when they have been living under occupation for decades? Are you saying that they should love their occupier? Are you saying that the slaves in America shouldve loved their masters? You have officially divorced with common sense
they considered it their promised land. key point. the settled in an uninhabited area that had no claim to any nation hood.
they have always been a group of people with a distinct culture and tradition... therefore they were always an ethnicity. black people were not considered people at one point, does that mean they weren't human?
your logic is as flawed as your brain.
If youre going to be a hypocrite and get biblical on it, the bible specifically mentions that when Mosed showed the real Jews the "promised land", there were already people living there and guess what the bible very specifically refers to them as? Phillistines. Dumbass.
Lmao nemiroff, you said many times that the bible was fiction so where did this talk of "their promised land" come from? on top of that, white "jews" arent even jews you moronic tool. Also, "Jew" was never even comsidered to be am ethnicity before WW2. Your argument is void.
deescalation has been shown to work in a few small tests, but the whole issue rests on Palestinian restraint. violence, especially against civilians, won't bring peace.
I support the israelis too. But since i'm pro life, i got pity for the palestanians. Since we can let these riots , Stabbings, arrests , rocket blasts , etc go on forever, we have to take up the issue seriously and have to work out a solution for the problem.
I don't think anyone here is saying that. why would you ask that?
So you want palestanians to suffer and die? just because they dont belong to the jewish state? there has to be a Solution.
they most certainly own and are entitled to the areas where they owned land, unless they sold it without coercion. however, that doesn't make it a nation.
the Jewish settlers moved to uninhabited areas and started building lives. on free land. land that also happened to be their promised land. so outside of world governments, and master manipulators, people went to the place they called home, found an empty plot of land, and started building. aint nothing wrong with that.
"Palestinians" didn't even exist until after WW 1. prior to this they were just Arabs living in the Ottoman empire. they were not an independent identify. saying the Palestinians owned Palestine makes no sense. they were not a group and they never owned it. The Ottoman Turks did, and then the British did.
the idea of what a Palestinian is grew up because of Zionism. it is only in the collapse of the Ottomans and the rise of Zionism that they began to think of themselves as a distinct group.
"a land in the middle east which was already inhabited? Why didnt they put it in America? In Britain? Somewhere in Europe? They couldve given them a plot of land in West Germany "
you didn't bring up america, you brought up several areas, stressing germany, but the main point was "an uninhabited land". Palestine was much more % uninhabitable than Europe and america. it's mostly desert! so they took an uninhabited plot of land, like you asked, and settled.
The Jews ran away from the land, and then returned centuries later with an imaginary claim to the land when a colonial power handed it to them on silver platter. The Palestinians stayed and are still fighting for their land to this day.
It was always their land, before occupation, and during occupation so they have more claim to it than anyone else because they stayed. They didnt run away like the Jews.
Nemiroff, i gave you an example of an empty plot of land in America and whether you would support it if a group of people built a city there and declared it an independent nation and what did you do? repeat that they settled in an empty plot of land without answering the question. now you know why i call you stupid. Youre a f***ing moron. I gave you a hypothetical example of France invading Spain as well and you also chose to ignore that. Its simole,its because both of those branches dismantke your entire argument. Yes it was British but guess what? The UN stated that all colonies of nations had to be given up amd granted independence and guess what? Palestine was a colony, which mwans they should have also been granted independence. Also because they have been occupied for centuries you are saying that they dont deserve land which was originally their now that they SHOULD be out of occupation? youre f***ing stupid. just stop.
you do realize Palestine wasn't a nation, and didn't belong to the Palestinians for over 500 years right? they certainly had a right to their individual plots of land, which no one took until hell broke loose. but the land? that was british. before that? ottoman. not even sure if Palestinians had any say in it before the ottomans either, but half a millenia is no short time.
lol. you want to talk about immorality? your promoting mass murder as a viable option in another thread. and logic? lmao.
they were fending off migrants, not invaders. the settlers came with families not tanks.
and they did settle in uninhabitable lands. empty plots of desserts mostly.
Also the reason Israel was concocted is because they wanted to give "Jews" a state after WW2. Fine, no problem with that. But why did they put it in the middle of Palestine, a land in the middle east which was already inhabited? Why didnt they put it in America? In Britain? Somewhere in Europe? They couldve given them a plot of land in West Germany If you injured somebody in a car accident and that person wanted compensation would it make sense to go ask somebody halfway across town, who has no affiliation to that person, amd ask them to pay?
They were fending off invaders. simple as. If France decided to invade Spain and then Spain retaliated but lost, would you then support Spain becoming a part of greater France? your logic has so much immorality and illogic to it, its almost as if youre.. .atheist.
Nemiroff, so because they settled in the land they have claim to it? no because that land was already inhabited by palestinians. Most of America is empty plots of desert or greenery so are you saying that if some Hindus settled their and created their own cities, they have the right to claim it as an independent nation? you make no sense whatsoever. How do people that know you in real life deal with you?
do you agree the Israeli settlers of the pre israel days did nothing wrong by simply migrating there with their familes and taking up residence in newly built cities where nothing was or buying land fairly without coercion or force?
assuming you won't disagee, I'll continue.
those Jewish settlers eventually came under attack by the local population consistently, and for an entire decade never even retaliated hoping for peace. even when they did retaliated, it was a splinter group that was denounced by the rest of the settelers. (and that was after the whole decade of no retaliation)
there were also several talks arranged by the British to settle issues, but it's impossible to know how hard lined or cooperative the early Jewish settlers wanted to be, because planestinians never showed up to any of the talks while they believed they were stronger.
after many years of escalation and militarization the conflict exploded into an all out war that the Jews didn't start, but most certainly finished. they won, therefore their nation is legitamete. the fact that they didn't start the war makes them even more legitamete.
because they originally moved in and settled on uninhabited land. the few times they took land before the conflict started, they paid for it with out any coercion. as individuals, the people who settled the brand new cities like tel aviv have every right to be there.
wait, why am I responding to you? your just going to go on an obscenity crying tirade.
why do they have claim to the land? it is a modern day colony.
they definitely have claim to the nation, whether on an individual and national level. I'm mostly questioning why it has claim to ALL the land, especially since an agreement was never reached.
yeah, you really need to lay out some kind of argument for why Israel owns a country full of people they will never give citizenship to.
if they wanted to give the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship that would be different. but they will never do that because then they would actually have to give them rights to the land they have been stealing and putting settlements on illegally.