Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?

Is that a real question?

I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?

Is that a real question?

I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.

Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?

Is that a real question?

I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.

They'd probably be happy to if the land wasn't used as staging areas for invading and attacking Israel.

 Ustrello wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?

Is that a real question?

I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.

Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.

What a great argument, and you should give the land back to the indians your government almost exterminated.

 Ustrello wrote:
Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you have no clue about the on-going land rights negotiations in Australia, a process that’s seen land rights restored to Aboriginal peoples, and billions paid for use of that land.

I’m also going to guess you haven’t spent one second considering the difference between land taken 200 years ago, and land under occupation where the original occupier is still alive.

Relapse wrote:
They'd probably be happy to if the land wasn't used as staging areas for invading and attacking Israel.

Ah yes, and now we’re seeing old Auschwitz Borders defence. The central premise of which is that because Israel needs to be bigger to guarantee it’s people’s security, then another people don’t get to have a country.

The argument is also pretty much incomprehensible bs in the modern day, where the IDF is utterly dominant regional power, before you factor in US support.

Yep, all those times Israel was attacked, total figments of the imagination. You keep on believing that.

So you're saying that if Israel holds on to that land a few years more it's cool?

 Ustrello wrote:
When people win wars they gain territory? Well color me surprised

Not surprising at all - but they're not willing to give citizenship to the people that live on that land. Palestinians are lesser beings to be trampled under mighty Israeli army boots and tried in Israeli military courts with harsher sentences than Israelis get for the same crimes in Israeli civil courts. Not to mention collective punishments carried out by the IDF on a regular basis. Guy suspected of taking a shot at an Israeli? Demolish his home, even if it leaves his whole extended family without a place to stay. True, Israel could sweep the whole area clear. But that would make them the real bad guys. Instead they settle for slowly making life in the Palestinian areas so bad that people will want to leave while also providing plentiful reasons for people to hate them and do something desperate.

Not that the Palestinian leadership is any better - after all, if there was no Israel to hate (or gods forbid an Israel to regard as a nice neighbor!) they'd be out of a job too. The place could use a neutral third party kicking them both into shape.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?

Is that a real question?

I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.

The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.

They are far too disorganized and fractured to have a cohesive government without having the common enemy of Israel.

They would also immediately get invaded by all the other neighboring countries who only barely hate them less than the Israelis. If Israel disappeared tomorrow there wouldn't be a Palestine, it would just get divided between Syria, Egypt, etc... And they'd still be an oppressed people.

And frankly, if they weren't such racists and actually tried for peace they might actually have a future. Israel is the more advanced nation, and thus the better one to be a citizen of, in the area. A Palestinian state would just become another third world country. They should get absorbed into Israel and deal with it. It would be the best for everyone involved if it was just Israel. It would elevate them above the devolving societies around them.

Relapse wrote:


Yep, all those times Israel was attacked, total figments of the imagination. You keep on believing that.

What are you talking about? Who said Israel was never attacked? Why are making things up?

So you're saying that if Israel holds on to that land a few years more it's cool?

And that's probably even sillier than the above comment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel,

That was a pretty fair summary in 1948, but it's complete gibberish today. Things have changed a lot. Palestinian national identity and connection to the land is basically why the original plan, hoping they'd just wander off and join the surrounding Arab populations didn't work.

are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.

Holy gak. You actually said that. Wow.

There is no viable government because they are occupied by another government. There's really nothing more to it than that.

They would also immediately get invaded by all the other neighboring countries who only barely hate them less than the Israelis. If Israel disappeared tomorrow there wouldn't be a Palestine, it would just get divided between Syria, Egypt, etc... And they'd still be an oppressed people.

While the surrounding Arab nations hold the Palestinians in contempt, and only really pretend to be concerned for them

And frankly, if they weren't such racists and actually tried for peace they might actually have a future.

That’s so far from reality it’s ridiculous. Have you read a single Palestinian proposal in the last decade?

Just as one example, one of the more interesting wikileaks was the private Palestinian offering put to Israel in the mid-2000s – the abandoned the previous position of the 1967 borders, and in fact letting Israel keep all land they’d taken up until that day. Israel rejected it without discussion.

Israel is the more advanced nation, and thus the better one to be a citizen of, in the area.

Heh, a lot of people fall for the trappings of wealth and power in assuming who must be right, but this is probably the first time I’ve seen someone outright state that being richer and stronger means you’re right.

A Palestinian state would just become another third world country. They should get absorbed into Israel and deal with it. It would be the best for everyone involved if it was just Israel. It would elevate them above the devolving societies around them.

Okay, just to put this bluntly – this isn’t going to happen and you have no idea what you’re talking about. If the Palestinians were brought in to Israel then they’d be the majority population. The Israelis will not accept being a minority in their own country, for very obvious and very good reasons.

As such the two state solution is the only viable solution.

Lol. The casual racism on display here.

Why not just come out and call the Palestinians savages, Templar?

Sad thread makes me sad.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And Israel, in turn, came about as a result of a terror campaign in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. The right of conquest really shouldn't have any bearing in a modern setting.

I bet you're even serious with that statement. Thats the whole point of warfare.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?

Is that a real question?

I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.

Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.

What a great argument, and you should give the land back to the indians your government almost exterminated.

Which is entirely the point of course - these "they should pack up and leave" arguments are completely ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Lol. The casual racism on display here.

Why not just come out and call the Palestinians savages, Templar?

Not sure where you get racism from someone criticizing a nationality (if you can even call it that). "Palestinian" is not a race, nor is it a distinct ethnicity or culture in any way. These people are Syrio-Jordanians, and different in no way from other Syrians and Jordanians in their ethnicity, culture, and history prior to about 60 years ago.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Lol. The casual racism on display here.

Why not just come out and call the Palestinians savages, Templar?

Palestinian is not a ethnicity, nationality, race, or anything else. Its a complete fabrication of terrorists and their supporters to try and give legitimacy where there is none.

The only "2 state solution" that would really work is for the so called "Palestinians" to move into the countries bordering Israel. Any Palestinian state created will just be at eternal war with Israel, causing continual pain and suffering. Whereas if they left the area it would only be a decade or so of issues, assuming the countries that brought them in weren't themselves oppressive to their own people. And I would wager that most of these people would jump at the chance to get away, but these other countries keep them boxed in between a rock and a hard place because they just want to let 2 of their hated enemies duke it out among themselves.

Palestine was the name given to Israel after the Romans destroyed the country, it was a biblical slur, referring to Philistines who the Israeli's utterly destroyed in an earlier war. After this the Jews were basically exterminated until finally only a small percent of actual jews remained, the Irony here is that if a lot of the current "Palestinians" traced their heritage back far enough they would find out they were in fact jews who converted to save their lives from Shariah Law.

The current invention of "Palestinians" is a blatant attempt to create negative publicity for Israel, in fact Hamas has even said as such in interviews. Most Palestinians are actually Jordanians and until about 30 years ago most of them held Dual Citizenship as "Palestinians" and Jordanians.

The British Mandate would have made Israel and turned over about 80% of the land into what was then called "Trans-Jordan". Instead the Arabs fought a war against the Jews in an attempt to destroy a jewish state before it could be created in what they consider to be sacred Muslim lands. The only reason that Israel exists at all is because they won their War of Independence, the Six Day War and the surprise Yom Kippur War. In each of these wars Israel fought more then 3 countries and still prevailed through sheer willpower.

If you think for a second that Israel has survived because America has supplied it with weapons/munitions and money then you need to go research how Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Iraq and Jordan acquired their armies. All of them except for Jordan were supplied by the Soviets with more tanks, planes and RPG's then anything the USA gave to Israel, and then Jordan was supplied directly by the US and had more advanced tanks then Israel for the longest time.

Israel has fought for its right to exist and at this point nothing is going to take it away from them.

 Frazzled wrote:
I bet you're even serious with that statement. Thats the whole point of warfare.

? Is that why Iraq and Afghanistan just became the 51st and 52nd states in the Union?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure where you get racism from someone criticizing a nationality (if you can even call it that). "Palestinian" is not a race, nor is it a distinct ethnicity or culture in any way. These people are Syrio-Jordanians, and different in no way from other Syrians and Jordanians in their ethnicity, culture, and history prior to about 60 years ago.

They identify as Palestinian today, and that is the only measure of identity. They didn't identify as such 60 years ago, but it's funny what 60 years of hardship will do.

Probably the bigger point, though, is that you can’t sidestep accusations of racism by claiming the target isn’t one of the universally accepted racial groups. That kind of small minded literalism misses the point completely. When a person forms in their own mind a group, and then decides that group always behaves that way, he’s being racist. Whether that group is a commonly understand racial group or something you just made up is irrelevant. The point and the problem is that it’s a fundamentally stupid way of thinking about how people work.

 whembly wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Sure the israelians with their superior weaponry are only defending themselves

Dude...

Israel was attacked. Not like some low level gang-banging incursion, but FULL. OUT. WAR.

As such, territories are acquired.

Israel started the war and sunk a US navy ship while they were doing it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Sure the israelians with their superior weaponry are only defending themselves

Dude...

Israel was attacked. Not like some low level gang-banging incursion, but FULL. OUT. WAR.

As such, territories are acquired.

Israel started the war and sunk a US navy ship while they were doing it.

Israel pre-empted the 6 day war. Released Egyptian/syrian documents prove that they were about to launch an invasion of Israel, furthermore, when you position 9/10ths of 2 countries army along a border that small its pretty obvious what your intentions are. Furthermore, by denying freedom of the seas Eygpt started the war. But lets not let facts stand in the way of your assessment. As for the USS Liberty incident. Israel has officially apologized for that.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The current invention of "Palestinians" is a blatant attempt to create negative publicity for Israel, in fact Hamas has even said as such in interviews. Most Palestinians are actually Jordanians and until about 30 years ago most of them held Dual Citizenship as "Palestinians" and Jordanians.

Most everyone involved expected the Palestinians would drift away in to the surrounding Arab countries. They didn’t, and instead formed a national identity. Such is life, and the only moral response is to find a way to incorporate that belief in to a long term solution that leaves no-one stateless or incapable of prosperity.

The British Mandate would have made Israel and turned over about 80% of the land into what was then called "Trans-Jordan". Instead the Arabs fought a war against the Jews in an attempt to destroy a jewish state before it could be created in what they consider to be sacred Muslim lands.

And when the Jews didn’t have the land they wanted, they fought a terror campaign to get it. And now they have the power to take land without overt use of force, they simply take it. Trying to read history to justify one side or the other is bs.

The only reason that Israel exists at all is because they won their War of Independence, the Six Day War and the surprise Yom Kippur War. In each of these wars Israel fought more then 3 countries and still prevailed through sheer willpower.

And technical and military skill, and series of poor decisions among the Arab nations compounded by poor co-ordination. Putting it down to willpower makes it sound like one of RE Howard’s crappier stories.

"They fought a terror Campaign" so the hundreds of jews who were killed in a similar "terror campaign" were what? militants? Both sides fought with what they had, and the british played the roll of police. Don't try to play up one sides short comings while completely forgetting the other sides atrocities.

The arabs had as much "technical skill" and "Military Skill" as the Jews during the yom kippur war and still lost.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
"They fought a terror Campaign" so the hundreds of jews who were killed in a similar "terror campaign" were what? militants? Both sides fought with what they had, and the british played the roll of police. Don't try to play up one sides short comings while completely forgetting the other sides atrocities.

So you didn’t read what I said… “Trying to read history to justify one side or the other is bs.”

I mean fething hell, my reply to you had less words than The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and you still couldn’t get to the end. Incredible.

The arabs had as much "technical skill" and "Military Skill" as the Jews during the yom kippur war and still lost.

No, they didn’t. They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
"They fought a terror Campaign" so the hundreds of jews who were killed in a similar "terror campaign" were what? militants? Both sides fought with what they had, and the british played the roll of police. Don't try to play up one sides short comings while completely forgetting the other sides atrocities.

So you didn’t read what I said… “Trying to read history to justify one side or the other is bs.”

I mean fething hell, my reply to you had less words than The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and you still couldn’t get to the end. Incredible.

The arabs had as much "technical skill" and "Military Skill" as the Jews during the yom kippur war and still lost.

No, they didn’t. They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked.

On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. That was what faced the Egyptian/Syrian alliance when they launched a surprise attack against the Israeli's. So please, tell me how 150 tanks fought 1,400 tanks to a standstill long enough for Israeli's reserves to be called up, armed and deployed? Common military math says that for an attacking force to have a reasonable chance of success when attacking a fortified position the attacker needs 3 to 1 superiority in manpower. the syrians had almost 10 to 1 and the egyptians had 160 to 1 and still Israel won in the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as training, then egyptian leader, anwar Sadat performed sweeping changes and upgrades across the board for his military, gone were the peasant conscripts. The general staff was thoroughly trained and the equipment was so well ingrained within their units that the Egyptians had more anti tank weapons in a single regiment then the Israelis did in their entire army.

Because it doesn't fit his grrr israel grr narrative

Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany... Incidentally, I think he's forgotten all those times that the Israelis have offered all the lands they've taken back to their respective countries, on the condition that they sign a peace treaty and recognize Israel as a legitimate, Jewish nation. In each instance, said nation has refused and reaffirmed their desire to basically utterly destroy Israel at the first opportunity, so Israel maintains the lands they've seized as a buffer zone.

And conveniently forgets that most of the arab world hates the palestinians as much as the jews. See the no donations fulfilled by the arab nations, and why they are kept in refugee camps and not allowed to assimilate into the country, see black september in jordan.

I'd be very, very wary of calling another user a Nazi. Especially when that user isn't actually espousing that view, but rather trying to highlight the issue with the arguments given by one side. If you read his posts and the entire thread thoroughly, rather than going off half cocked, you'll see the context of his statements. It is incredibly rude to call another user a Nazi for their posting, especially when it is for views they do not hold. And rule #1 is politeness, so keep that in mind.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. That was what faced the Egyptian/Syrian alliance when they launched a surprise attack against the Israeli's. So please, tell me how 150 tanks fought 1,400 tanks to a standstill long enough for Israeli's reserves to be called up, armed and deployed? Common military math says that for an attacking force to have a reasonable chance of success when attacking a fortified position the attacker needs 3 to 1 superiority in manpower. the syrians had almost 10 to 1 and the egyptians had 160 to 1 and still Israel won in the end.

So you could summarise that with "(the Arab forces) They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked."

 DarkLink wrote:
Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...

Holy gak, what a ridiculous thing to say. I mean, I’d claim to be offended, but you’re just some clown on the internet so how can anyone be offended by what you mashed in to a keyboard?

Anyhow, just to go through the entirely pointless exercise of showing why your statement was wrong and based on nothing typed in this thread, here’s the first thing I said in this thread;
“I believe in the importance of a Jewish state because they have a long history of persecution at the hands of other groups. It would be nice if we didn’t need ethnic homelands, but this world isn’t a nice place in a whole lot of ways.”

If you could promise that in future you’ll read and think and learn, and try to avoid just jumping in to threads with silly accusations, I think we’d all be better off.

In each instance, said nation has refused and reaffirmed their desire to basically utterly destroy Israel at the first opportunity, so Israel maintains the lands they've seized as a buffer zone.

That argument basically collapses when you actually think about both sides, because it basically amounts to saying the Palestinians have to be stateless so Israel can better defend its own state.

 Ustrello wrote:
And conveniently forgets that most of the arab world hates the palestinians as much as the jews.

Uurgh. That’s a non-point rolled up in to a baseless accusation. Good job, way to maintain the gakky tone in this thread.

Anyhow, there’s no shortage of contempt for the Palestinians among the Arab nations. They complain about the treatment of the Palestinians, but those are crocodile tears and their only real aim is to make Israel look bad.

But so what? How does that mean the Palestinians should continue to be kept stateless, and with no chance for prosperity?

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. That was what faced the Egyptian/Syrian alliance when they launched a surprise attack against the Israeli's. So please, tell me how 150 tanks fought 1,400 tanks to a standstill long enough for Israeli's reserves to be called up, armed and deployed? Common military math says that for an attacking force to have a reasonable chance of success when attacking a fortified position the attacker needs 3 to 1 superiority in manpower. the syrians had almost 10 to 1 and the egyptians had 160 to 1 and still Israel won in the end.

So you could summarise that with "(the Arab forces) They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked."

 DarkLink wrote:
Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...

Holy gak, what a ridiculous thing to say. I mean, I’d claim to be offended, but you’re just some clown on the internet so how can anyone be offended by what you mashed in to a keyboard?

Anyhow, just to go through the entirely pointless exercise of showing why your statement was wrong and based on nothing typed in this thread, here’s the first thing I said in this thread;
“I believe in the importance of a Jewish state because they have a long history of persecution at the hands of other groups. It would be nice if we didn’t need ethnic homelands, but this world isn’t a nice place in a whole lot of ways.”

If you could promise that in future you’ll read and think and learn, and try to avoid just jumping in to threads with silly accusations, I think we’d all be better off.

In each instance, said nation has refused and reaffirmed their desire to basically utterly destroy Israel at the first opportunity, so Israel maintains the lands they've seized as a buffer zone.

That argument basically collapses when you actually think about both sides, because it basically amounts to saying the Palestinians have to be stateless so Israel can better defend its own state.

 Ustrello wrote:
And conveniently forgets that most of the arab world hates the palestinians as much as the jews.

Uurgh. That’s a non-point rolled up in to a baseless accusation. Good job, way to maintain the gakky tone in this thread.

Anyhow, there’s no shortage of contempt for the Palestinians among the Arab nations. They complain about the treatment of the Palestinians, but those are crocodile tears and their only real aim is to make Israel look bad.

But so what? How does that mean the Palestinians should continue to be kept stateless, and with no chance for prosperity?

I specifically said that the Israeli's won because of force of will, and you claimed it was not that, I showed you how the odds were stacked against them and instead of saying "Yes the israeli's fought harder" you say that the Arabs threw away their advantages. Your basically saying everything except "yep your right the Jews fought harder".

As far as the Palestinians have to be a stateless people...No, no they don't. Any Palestinian who wishes to join Israel is welcome to, after a back ground check to make sure they aren't hamas agents these Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel and hold all the same rights as the Jewish citizens. The Palestinians CHOOSE to be a stateless people because they don't want to live under any government except one that they invent specifically for their little group of former Jordanian citizens. Fathers and mothers are still alive right now as well as grand parents who held Jordanian citizenship and threw it away to make Israel look bad.

So in the end does that mean that the Palestinians should be kept as a stateless people with no chance for prosperity? yes if they ignore the chances that are presented to them.


Lastly, only one country has negotiated a lasting peace with Israel, Egypt. In return for a lasting peace, Israel gave back the entire Sinai Peninsula, which Israel captured TWICE from the Egyptians in two different wars. If Syria Promised a lasting peace they would have been given the Golan Heights, instead they choose to fund terrorism and allow the to live in their country. Look what good that has done them recently.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I specifically said that the Israeli's won because of force of will, and you claimed it was not that, I showed you how the odds were stacked against them and instead of saying "Yes the israeli's fought harder" you say that the Arabs threw away their advantages. Your basically saying everything except "yep your right the Jews fought harder".

You’ve misunderstood completely. I said claiming it was will alone was like something out of a gakky RE Howard novel. This is because will alone means jack. You need skill, co-ordination, strong leadership and all the other things that turn a bunch of people who want something in to an army of real quality. Talking just about will mythologises the establishment of Israel but also patronises the people who actually won the Israeli’s their country.

As far as the Palestinians have to be a stateless people...No, no they don't. Any Palestinian who wishes to join Israel is welcome to, after a back ground check to make sure they aren't hamas agents these Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel and hold all the same rights as the Jewish citizens.

First up, it is incredibly difficult for anyone born in the West Bank or Gaza to gain Israeli citizenship. So trying to claim that’s a plausible solution for a couple of million Palestinians is pretty silly.

But it’s also kind of meaningless, because it simply isn’t ever going to be the solution for the Palestinian population as a whole. If they absorbed Palestine in to Israel, then within a generation they’d be a minority in their own country. For very obvious and very good reasons Israel is simply never going to accept that.

Lastly, only one country has negotiated a lasting peace with Israel, Egypt. In return for a lasting peace, Israel gave back the entire Sinai Peninsula, which Israel captured TWICE from the Egyptians in two different wars. If Syria Promised a lasting peace they would have been given the Golan Heights, instead they choose to fund terrorism and allow the to live in their country. Look what good that has done them recently.

And now we’re back to this crap about how the surrounding Arab countries are bad. First up, who in the feth thinks this is news? Syria did something bad… say it ain’t so!

Second up, what in the hell does it have to do with the Palestinian’s having a right to belong to a state? The surrounding countries could be ruled by satan, and the people in them could consist entirely of paedophiles and people who answer their phone during the movies, and it wouldn’t mean gak for what the Palestinians, like all people, deserve – to belong to a country.

 Grey Templar wrote:


The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.

The hell man?
The Palestinians have been there as long if not longer than the Jews. Remember the Caananites and their god Baal? (which hilariously just means lord) Yep, that's the forebears of Palestinians. They had the same religion as the other Phonecian types in the area who were trading as far as most of the mediterranean circa 900 bc. So whilst the Jews were wandering around being nomads, the Phonecians had cities with trading empires.

Mythical people my arse.