Every accusation is a confession.What they want is for Israel to not have a state.
Israel wiped Palestine off the maps, its what you've wanted, isn't it?
Every accusation is a confession.What they want is for Israel to not have a state.
I'm not interested in your faulty rationalizations for colonization, apartheid and genocide.shack said:
How much of Syria, Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza did Israel occupy in 1966?
You don't want to say the answer is ZERO.
So instead, you change the topic and post about hostages. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. It's not a good look.
Your inability to refute my claim is proof that the only expansion Israel darried out after its' creation was after 1967/the 6 Day War and in direct relation to Arab aggressions which resulted in losses for them. Throughout their history, Arabs (and their aggressive behaviour) have been their own worst enemy.
Even if it was a bad deal, they should have taken the land offered to them in 1947. They wouldn't still be stateless refugees.
You have repeatedly stated you don't think the state of Palestine exists, meaning you think Israel has wiped it off the maps.I won't respond to posts and get into arguments where you (intentionally and very wrongly) attempt to put words in my mouth.
Palestinians fought for the UK in WWII under the promise that they would be given their homeland back.The Arabs were sooo stupid to decline the land offered to them in 1947
You just cited "since 1948". That was when the state of Israel was created and its' borders at that time were established and recognized as such as can be seen on world maps and globes from then. One has to accept that because before then, there was no Israel.I'm not interested in your faulty rationalizations for colonization, apartheid and genocide.
I really don't care about your incredibly wrong version of history.
Bravo, you really take you time lol a lot of doctors would be less patientYou just cited "since 1948". That was when the state of Israel was created and its' borders at that time were established and recognized as such as can be seen on world maps and globes from then. One has to accept that because before then, there was no Israel.
Those borders remained the same until 1967 and the 6 Day war. It was only then, and following future aggressions against Israel that one can argue that Israel's legal borders possibly expanded.
As such, my original point stands.
Let's say that you're 100% correct, that they got a raw deal.Palestinians fought for the UK in WWII under the promise that they would be given their homeland back.
The UK lied to them.
In light of recent rulings, I am really trying hard to keep my posts measured and rationally composed instead of allowing myself to get emotionally triggered. Sometimes it takes more verbiage to accomplish that.Bravo, you really take you time lol a lot of doctors would be less patient
How can one measure how much they like wallowing in self pity and being martyrs to their own misery?Straight question: Suppose that the Arab leaders at that time had accepted what was offered and formed the State of Palestine. Do you think that those people and their descendants would be better off or worse off than they are now. Better or worse.
TBH, It's basically a rhetorical question but I suspect that you won't give a straight answer. I'm expecting some kind of deflections or spinning.
You're now bragging about the Nabka?You just cited "since 1948". That was when the state of Israel was created
Is that like arguing that Ukraine should just hand over half of the country to Russia because.....Let's say that you're 100% correct, that they got a raw deal.
But the fact remains that even that raw deal included more than enough land for an actual State of Palestine for 5 or 6 million Palestinians to live and develop instead of still being stateless refugees almost 80 years later.
Straight question: Suppose that the Arab leaders at that time had accepted what was offered and formed the State of Palestine. Do you think that those people and their descendants would be better off or worse off than they are now. Better or worse.
TBH, It's basically a rhetorical question but I suspect that you won't give a straight answer. I'm expecting some kind of deflections or spinning.
Always the victims.How can one measure how much they like wallowing in self pity and being martyrs to their own misery?
Like in another post today when you attempt to put words in my mouth, I will not engage.You're now bragging about the Nabka?
You're putting words in my mouth again.Is that like arguing that Ukraine should just hand over half of the country to Russia because.....
You are claiming that Israel achieved peace in 1948, after they committed the Nabka.Like in another post today when you attempt to put words in my mouth, I will not engage.
If you want to debate honourably, I'm ready to listen.
Its a fair comparison, you argue that you think Palestinians should have allowed foreign colonialists to just take half of their country the way Putin wants to take Ukraine.You're putting words in my mouth again.
You keep putting words in my mouth.You are claiming that Israel achieved peace in 1948, after they committed the Nabka.
Or geography. In 1966, it was Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. A year later POS Nation would launch an invasion of 3 of those countries.What kind of education does he have?How much of Syria, Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza did Israel occupy in 1966?
You will not bait me and I'm not going down your rabbit hole.Its a fair comparison, you argue that you think Palestinians should have allowed foreign colonialists to just take half of their country the way Putin wants to take Ukraine.
Feel free to tell me why you think that's different.
You specifically claimed that Israel was the most peaceful after 1948, just after the Nabka.You keep putting words in my mouth.
I clearly stated my claim several times and you are not accurately quoting me.