nuts
What's gonna happen when the unqualified DIRTY declares Jerusalem the Cap of Israel??
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
nuts
sure he is an idiot,lets see he is a billionaire and president of the UNITED STATES and you are ? sure mr TRUMP is an idiot ,not.
just like a dumb liberal,you have not argument so you accuse others of being dumb,when you are the one with nothing but insults.
moon
Satire for Sanity
'Jerusalem is not for sale’: Palestine to Trump after US threatens to cut $300mn aid
https://www.rt.com/news/414878-jerusalem-not-for-sale/
OOOooops !!
Trumpy is used to having his underlings buckle . Too late to understand the world outside now Donald. You are, of course, just a temporary president. Jerusalem and Palestine are permanent and inseparable fixtures.
https://www.rt.com/news/414878-jerusalem-not-for-sale/
OOOooops !!
Trumpy is used to having his underlings buckle . Too late to understand the world outside now Donald. You are, of course, just a temporary president. Jerusalem and Palestine are permanent and inseparable fixtures.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Bloody good idea, why should they anything to the ungrateful bastards?
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
At least spell it correctly, maggot. It is pro-Semitic! Oh and remember what happened to Lord Haw Haw, he ended his days dangling from a rope for the crime of treason. You deserve no less.
pro-Semitism
The ideology that:
1) The Nation of Israel a) has the right to exist, b) as a Jewish state if it so choses, and c) in peace and harmony with its neighbours.
2) Jews are inherently equal to all other persons and groups of persons and therefore should be treated as such.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
moon
Satire for Sanity
Trump: Jerusalem is off negotiation table
US President Donald Trump has reiterated that the issue of Jerusalem is off the negotiating table after his decision to declare the city as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy to the holy city from Tel Aviv.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/trump-jerusalem-negotiation-table-180212052249924.html
OOoooooops !
Temporary president Trump hasn't ' taken Jerusalem off the table ' at all.
He's destroyed the table.
Fat white American evangelists have no understanding of Islam whatsoever.
Donald Trump has not expanded on his vision for the Israel-Palestine peace process. He has however noted that neither side appears to be “looking to make peace” since he officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
https://www.rt.com/usa/418500-trump-unsure-israel-palestinians-peace/
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
does Palestine still think its on the table?......
moon
Satire for Sanity
There is no table. Do you actually have a measurable IQ ?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
/shrugs.....there could be a table if the Palestinians wanted a table........if they don't want a table who needs a table?......
by the way, is your photo just old or do the Palestinians really think that Trump wears blue jeans and a denim shirt like Bush did?......
by the way, is your photo just old or do the Palestinians really think that Trump wears blue jeans and a denim shirt like Bush did?......
moon
Satire for Sanity
No table is now required. The destruction of neoZionism will happen without one.
It's beyond your understanding that poverty-stricken prisoners would not burn good clothes ? Yes, I think it is.
It's temporary president Trump's face on the effigy, incidentally. You should get that political blindness treated.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I suspect they had leftover Bush effigies and simply recycled them.......they probably used them for Obama as well......here's a question for you.....if Hillary had been elected would she have to be burned in a burka?......
moon
Satire for Sanity
Go review your definition of ' question '. See you, Jiminy.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Washington no more: Palestine turns to Moscow for future Israel talks
And given the Trump administration’s reckless, not to mention illegal, decision to declare Washington’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017, who can blame them?
This historic rupture with Washington on the part of the Palestinian Authority was articulated by President Mahmoud Abbas, at the start of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow.
“We [the Palestinians] state that from now on we refuse to cooperate in any form with the US in its status of a mediator, as we stand against its actions,” he said.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/418798-palestine-us-israel-abbas/
Ooooops !!
moon
Satire for Sanity
Nikki Haley says Israel won’t ‘love’ peace plan drafted by pro-Israel Trump advisers
https://www.rt.com/news/419650-haley-us-israel-peace-plan/
Of COURSE they're going to ' love ' it. It will be a plan for fascists devised by morons.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You might want to read this incredibly insightful article from Haaretz, it certainly sets the Nakba into its correct historical context.
The Nakba According to Haaretz
Reality is always complex, and we do need to teach it in Israels schools - but not the unilateral Palestinian narrative that was adopted in the Haaretz editorial from April 29.
It's been a long time since I read an editorial as confused as that of Haaretz from April 29 (Recognize the Nakba), with its blend of correct and just assertions together with half-truths and its stunning disregard of quite a few fundamental and indisputable historical facts.
On the one hand, the editorial, which on the surface seems insightful and sensitive, states: The dispute over the degree of Israels responsibility for the emigration, expulsion and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the War of Independence is a matter for historians. What could be more fair than that? But one need not be a historian to know that there will continue to be more than one school of thought on this dispute, and that proposing that it be left to historians is actually an evasion — a refusal to deal, here and now, with indisputable historical truths. Even the cautious (not to say euphemistic) language of this sentence, which speaks of emigration, expulsion and displacement and avoids using the word flee, which was certainly part of the complex reality of Israels War of Independence, already demonstrates that the editorial does not exactly leave the decision to historians.
Some facts of history really ought not to be left to historians. The attempt to ignore them is morally flawed — and morality is, rightfully, the driving spirit behind the editorial. It is a fact — one that should not be a matter for historians — that in September 1939, Germany invaded Poland and not the other way around. It is a fact that on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the United States and not vice versa. It is also true that what is called the Nakba is the result of a political decision by the Palestinian leadership and the Arab states to reject the United Nations partition resolution, to try to prevent its implementation by force and to attack the Jewish community in the Land of Israel before and after the states establishment. Of this, the editorial says nothing.
Thus, the context of the founding of the State of Israel is presented in the editorial exactly as it is presented in Palestinian and Arab political discourse — with total disregard of the political and historical reality in 1947 and 1948. Usually, Arab discourse simply never mentions the partition resolution, just as it never mentions the violent opposition to its implementation. Such denial from the Arab side might be understandable — but in Haaretz? In case anyone forgot or does not know, I suggest going to the newspapers archives and reading the headlines from November 30, 1947 and the daily news from the subsequent months. They are full of reports of Arab violence and the beginnings of armed Arab resistance to the establishment of the State of Israel, first by the Arab militias (the gangs) inside the country and later via the coordinated invasion by Arab armies when the British Mandate ended on May 15, 1948. The editorial says not a word about that, just as Arab discourse prefers simply to wipe those historical facts from memory.
After leaving the question of Israels responsibility to historians, the editorial goes on to state that the dispute over this responsibility does not negate the fact that a national and human disaster befell the Palestinians. A disaster? Was the Nakba an earthquake? A tornado? A tsunami? It was the tragic result of an Arab political decision to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in the portion of the Land of Israel that had been under the British Mandate, just as the expulsion of 12 million ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary after 1945 was the tragic result of German aggression in 1939 and later in 1941, when it invaded the Soviet Union. In both cases, masses of innocent civilians paid the price of their leaders aggression. But if anyone today tried to describe the expulsion of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe as a disaster that had nothing to do with the Third Reichs aggression, he would rightly be called a neo-Nazi.
To the credit of the Palestinian community, it should be said that the membership of the Palestinian Communist Party, which at the time numbered a few hundred, accepted the partition plan and opposed Arab aggression, in compliance with the position of the Soviet Union in those days. A few later joined the Israeli Communist Party. The members of the communist parties in Egypt and Iraq, most of whom were jailed by their countries regimes, did the same. But together these added up to a mere handful.
Ironically, the Haaretz editorial adopts the victimization narrative that is often typical of political discourse in Israel. Some groups in Israel and abroad are only too happy to depict the Jews and Israel only as victims. It seems that the writers of the editorial never liberated themselves from this traditional Jewish perception — only they chose to describe the Palestinians, not the Jews, as victims who bore no responsibility for their actions or those of their leaders.
One can certainly understand, but not justify, the general Palestinian and Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise. That is the nature of national conflicts, although this opposition had more aspects of murder and terrorism than other national movements did. Palestinian terrorism against Jewish civilians is not the result of the post-1967 years of occupation. It was part of the 1929 riots and the Arab uprising of 1936. It is true that on the one hand, we cannot conclude from the grand muftis presence in Berlin during World War II that Arab opposition to Zionism was identical to Nazism. But on the other hand, to ignore this fact and leave it to historians is a distortion of history. It is part of the concrete historical consciousness of both Jews and Arabs.
Just as intelligent discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict must free itself from the sense of self-righteousness that accompanies some of Zionist ideology, it must also free itself from the sense of victimization and of absolute rightness that accompanies Palestinian nationalism. Decisions and policies that had terrible ramifications in 1948 should not be left to historians either. S. Yizhar brought them to Israeli historical awareness — and into the Israeli school system — in his novel Khirbet Khizeh as far back as the War of Independence. Reality is always complex, and we do need to teach it in Israels schools — but not the unilateral Palestinian narrative that has been adopted by the editorial board of Haaretz.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-nakba-according-to-haaretz-1.5247509
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
The Nakba According to Haaretz
Reality is always complex, and we do need to teach it in Israels schools - but not the unilateral Palestinian narrative that was adopted in the Haaretz editorial from April 29.
It's been a long time since I read an editorial as confused as that of Haaretz from April 29 (Recognize the Nakba), with its blend of correct and just assertions together with half-truths and its stunning disregard of quite a few fundamental and indisputable historical facts.
On the one hand, the editorial, which on the surface seems insightful and sensitive, states: The dispute over the degree of Israels responsibility for the emigration, expulsion and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the War of Independence is a matter for historians. What could be more fair than that? But one need not be a historian to know that there will continue to be more than one school of thought on this dispute, and that proposing that it be left to historians is actually an evasion — a refusal to deal, here and now, with indisputable historical truths. Even the cautious (not to say euphemistic) language of this sentence, which speaks of emigration, expulsion and displacement and avoids using the word flee, which was certainly part of the complex reality of Israels War of Independence, already demonstrates that the editorial does not exactly leave the decision to historians.
Some facts of history really ought not to be left to historians. The attempt to ignore them is morally flawed — and morality is, rightfully, the driving spirit behind the editorial. It is a fact — one that should not be a matter for historians — that in September 1939, Germany invaded Poland and not the other way around. It is a fact that on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the United States and not vice versa. It is also true that what is called the Nakba is the result of a political decision by the Palestinian leadership and the Arab states to reject the United Nations partition resolution, to try to prevent its implementation by force and to attack the Jewish community in the Land of Israel before and after the states establishment. Of this, the editorial says nothing.
Thus, the context of the founding of the State of Israel is presented in the editorial exactly as it is presented in Palestinian and Arab political discourse — with total disregard of the political and historical reality in 1947 and 1948. Usually, Arab discourse simply never mentions the partition resolution, just as it never mentions the violent opposition to its implementation. Such denial from the Arab side might be understandable — but in Haaretz? In case anyone forgot or does not know, I suggest going to the newspapers archives and reading the headlines from November 30, 1947 and the daily news from the subsequent months. They are full of reports of Arab violence and the beginnings of armed Arab resistance to the establishment of the State of Israel, first by the Arab militias (the gangs) inside the country and later via the coordinated invasion by Arab armies when the British Mandate ended on May 15, 1948. The editorial says not a word about that, just as Arab discourse prefers simply to wipe those historical facts from memory.
After leaving the question of Israels responsibility to historians, the editorial goes on to state that the dispute over this responsibility does not negate the fact that a national and human disaster befell the Palestinians. A disaster? Was the Nakba an earthquake? A tornado? A tsunami? It was the tragic result of an Arab political decision to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in the portion of the Land of Israel that had been under the British Mandate, just as the expulsion of 12 million ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary after 1945 was the tragic result of German aggression in 1939 and later in 1941, when it invaded the Soviet Union. In both cases, masses of innocent civilians paid the price of their leaders aggression. But if anyone today tried to describe the expulsion of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe as a disaster that had nothing to do with the Third Reichs aggression, he would rightly be called a neo-Nazi.
To the credit of the Palestinian community, it should be said that the membership of the Palestinian Communist Party, which at the time numbered a few hundred, accepted the partition plan and opposed Arab aggression, in compliance with the position of the Soviet Union in those days. A few later joined the Israeli Communist Party. The members of the communist parties in Egypt and Iraq, most of whom were jailed by their countries regimes, did the same. But together these added up to a mere handful.
Ironically, the Haaretz editorial adopts the victimization narrative that is often typical of political discourse in Israel. Some groups in Israel and abroad are only too happy to depict the Jews and Israel only as victims. It seems that the writers of the editorial never liberated themselves from this traditional Jewish perception — only they chose to describe the Palestinians, not the Jews, as victims who bore no responsibility for their actions or those of their leaders.
One can certainly understand, but not justify, the general Palestinian and Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise. That is the nature of national conflicts, although this opposition had more aspects of murder and terrorism than other national movements did. Palestinian terrorism against Jewish civilians is not the result of the post-1967 years of occupation. It was part of the 1929 riots and the Arab uprising of 1936. It is true that on the one hand, we cannot conclude from the grand muftis presence in Berlin during World War II that Arab opposition to Zionism was identical to Nazism. But on the other hand, to ignore this fact and leave it to historians is a distortion of history. It is part of the concrete historical consciousness of both Jews and Arabs.
Just as intelligent discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict must free itself from the sense of self-righteousness that accompanies some of Zionist ideology, it must also free itself from the sense of victimization and of absolute rightness that accompanies Palestinian nationalism. Decisions and policies that had terrible ramifications in 1948 should not be left to historians either. S. Yizhar brought them to Israeli historical awareness — and into the Israeli school system — in his novel Khirbet Khizeh as far back as the War of Independence. Reality is always complex, and we do need to teach it in Israels schools — but not the unilateral Palestinian narrative that has been adopted by the editorial board of Haaretz.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-nakba-according-to-haaretz-1.5247509
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk