🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Israel attacks America - Will US policy change?

Should the US stop supporting Israel?


  • Total voters
    34
Israel no doubt cleared the rat holes on their land. Israel's borders have been secure for five decades almost. Time to get over it, bro. Especially since they keep their borders for the sake of security against your 'ethnic cleansing' arabs.
When Israel stole the remaining 22% of Mandate Palestine in 1967, indigenous Palestinians were subject to a military occupation that continues to this day. Possibly, that explains why the UN has condemned the Jewish state with 77 resolutions while Palestinians have received only one?

The UN is as phony as you are. I personally think Israel is quite nice to even let Palestinians inhabit their lands. See, you intentionally ignore the reality that the middle east is a very dangerous place for Israel. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
The UN is as phony as you are. I personally think Israel is quite nice to even let Palestinians inhabit their lands. See, you intentionally ignore the reality that the middle east is a very dangerous place for Israel. Why is that?
Read some history of how the Jewish "homeland" came about:
"When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than creating divisions that would serve growing British interests in the Middle East.

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

"Storrs’ analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer..."

The British enabled the Zionist colonization of Palestine to exert control over the Suez canal at a time the Royal Navy was switching from coal to oil to power its fleets.

After WWII, the US took over and relegated the British to the status of junior partner, but the overall objective never changed.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules - FPIF
 
I'm not Jewish. I'm not even a big fan tbh. I just know no good murdering low lifes when I see them.
Are you sure?

"According to international law, an occupying force is responsible for the protection of the civilian population living under its control.

"Israel, however, ignores this requirement, routinely committing violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of principles instituted after World War II to ensure that civilians would 'never again' suffer as they had under Nazi occupation. Israel is one of the leading violators of these conventions today.

"Israeli forces regularly confiscate private land; imprison individuals without process – including children – and physically abuse them under incarceration; demolish family homes; bulldoze orchards and crops; place entire towns under curfew; destroy shops and businesses; shoot, maim, and kill civilians – and Palestinians are without power to stop any of it."

A Synopsis of the Current Situation
 
The UN is as phony as you are. I personally think Israel is quite nice to even let Palestinians inhabit their lands. See, you intentionally ignore the reality that the middle east is a very dangerous place for Israel. Why is that?
Read some history of how the Jewish "homeland" came about:
"When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than creating divisions that would serve growing British interests in the Middle East.

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

"Storrs’ analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer..."

The British enabled the Zionist colonization of Palestine to exert control over the Suez canal at a time the Royal Navy was switching from coal to oil to power its fleets.

After WWII, the US took over and relegated the British to the status of junior partner, but the overall objective never changed.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules - FPIF

Okay, a British minion recognized the obvious danger. What's your point? The Jews and arabs have been in the middle east for centuries. Which group is unwilling to even cede a sliver of land? That's right; the shitty arabs.
 
I'm not Jewish. I'm not even a big fan tbh. I just know no good murdering low lifes when I see them.
Are you sure?

"According to international law, an occupying force is responsible for the protection of the civilian population living under its control.

"Israel, however, ignores this requirement, routinely committing violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of principles instituted after World War II to ensure that civilians would 'never again' suffer as they had under Nazi occupation. Israel is one of the leading violators of these conventions today.

"Israeli forces regularly confiscate private land; imprison individuals without process – including children – and physically abuse them under incarceration; demolish family homes; bulldoze orchards and crops; place entire towns under curfew; destroy shops and businesses; shoot, maim, and kill civilians – and Palestinians are without power to stop any of it."

A Synopsis of the Current Situation

International law? That's more/less fantasy. It only comes into play for torts. Some guy in Sweden isn't making up laws that Israel or the USA or any other country has to abide within their own borders.
 
Israel didn't attack America.

America is an idea... NOT a place. An idea which is largely emulated by people who live independently in hostile territory.

What the individuals living in a frontier kibbutz did, was to attack the Ideological Left, who threaten their very existence.

For which they should have medals pinned in them and a PARADE through in their honor.
 
International law? That's more/less fantasy. It only comes into play for torts.
Mention that to Milosevic:
"When the history of international justice is written, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic will appear as an important landmark for his victims. But it will also be seen as a prelude to the permanent International Criminal Court, the most important new human rights institution in more than half a century. His trial begins Tuesday, February 12, in the Hague."
Milosevic and the ICC Human Rights Watch
 
The Jews and arabs have been in the middle east for centuries. Which group is unwilling to even cede a sliver of land? That's right; the shitty arabs.
There were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine one hundred years ago; why do you imagine European Jews were entitled to land that Arabs had been living on for generations?
 
The Jews and arabs have been in the middle east for centuries. Which group is unwilling to even cede a sliver of land? That's right; the shitty arabs.
There were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine one hundred years ago; why do you imagine European Jews were entitled to land that Arabs had been living on for generations?
And now there are ten times as many Jews as Arabs living in Israel. Why do you imagine the mixed-breed regional Arabs were entitled to land that Jews and Christians had been living on for generations prior to their arrival and conquest of the land some centuries ago?
 
And now there are ten times as many Jews as Arabs living in Israel.
Actually, there are equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living in Palestine today, and it's the Jews who are still afraid of self-determination. 'Think they'll ever find the courage to embrace democracy and shun genocide?
Palestine?

Where-in-the-Devil is "Palestine"?

I know of a region formerly called Palestine, although that region was never a nation, nor were its polyglut of tribal folk ever a 'People' in any practical sense of the word.

I know of a State of Israel, carved from the region formerly of that name.

I know of a non-viable residual collection of fragmented, non-contiguous slivers and tiny parcels of land, rhetorically referred to as Rump Palestine (what's left of Palestine).

But I know of no 'Palestine', in the sense of a Nation or a homogeneous People.

And, within the State of Israel, Jews far outnumber Muslim Arabs.
 
The Jews and arabs have been in the middle east for centuries. Which group is unwilling to even cede a sliver of land? That's right; the shitty arabs.
There were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine one hundred years ago; why do you imagine European Jews were entitled to land that Arabs had been living on for generations?

Guns, ammo and will power.
 
Guns, ammo and will power.
And British imperialism:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 
Guns, ammo and will power.
And British imperialism:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After WWII the Jews were fighting both Arabs and the British for their independence.
 
After WWII the Jews were fighting both Arabs and the British for their independence.
What right did Jews have to impose their nation on a majority of Palestinians?
"The(Jewish) Haganah was initially involved in the post-war attacks against the British in Palestine but withdrew following the outrage caused by the 1946 Irgun bombing of the British Army Headquarters in the King David Hotel.

"In May 1946, on the assumption of British neutrality in the future hostilities, a Plan C was formulated that envisaged guidelines for retaliation if and when Palestinian Arab attacks took place on the Yishuv.

"As the countdown ticked down, the Haganah implemented assaults involving the torching and demolition by explosives against economic infrastructures, the property of Palestinian politicians and military commanders, villages, town neighbourhoods, houses and farms that were deemed to be bases or used by inciters and their accomplices.

"The killing of armed irregulars and adult males was also foreseen.

"On 15 August 1947, on suspicion it was a terrorist headquarters, they blew up the house of the Abu Laban family, prosperous Palestinian orange growers, near Petah Tikva. Twelve occupants, including a woman and six children, were killed.[10]After November 1947, the dynamiting of houses formed a key component of most Haganah retaliatory strikes.[11]

Jews practiced more efficient terrorism?

1947 48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 
Palestine?

Where-in-the-Devil is "Palestine"?
"Filastin was a daily newspaper published from 1911-1967 in Palestine. Published from Jaffa, the principal publishers (who edited and owned the paper) were Issa El-Issa and his cousinYousef El-Issa.[1] Both El-Issas wereGreek Orthodox, opponents of British administration, and supporters of pan-Arab unity. The paper supported theCommittee of Union and Progress, opposed Zionism, and promotedPalestinian nationalism.[2]"
Filastin newspaper - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 
International law? That's more/less fantasy. It only comes into play for torts.
Mention that to Milosevic:
"When the history of international justice is written, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic will appear as an important landmark for his victims. But it will also be seen as a prelude to the permanent International Criminal Court, the most important new human rights institution in more than half a century. His trial begins Tuesday, February 12, in the Hague."
Milosevic and the ICC Human Rights Watch

That's not international law. That's countries taking war actions. How many millions did he kill before anyone came knocking on his door? Countries don't believe that Israel is the genocidal threat despite all your propaganda. And all the anti-semtic based resolutions in the world won't change that reality.
 
The Jews and arabs have been in the middle east for centuries. Which group is unwilling to even cede a sliver of land? That's right; the shitty arabs.
There were ten times as many Arabs as Jews living in Palestine one hundred years ago; why do you imagine European Jews were entitled to land that Arabs had been living on for generations?

So, your argument is that the arabs won their wars and they should just accept that they drove the Jews out? Yet, the Jews won the recent wars and I don't see you saying, well the arabs should let them have some land already. DEAD TO FUCKING RIGHT CALLOUS HYPOCRISY, DUDE.
 

Forum List

Back
Top