Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

[Coyote]

What you don't seem to realize is each country is it's own situation and should be looked at seperately. Each Arab country that expelled Jews should be required to either compensate them or allow them to return. It's the same standard I have for Israel.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

What's wrong with sharing the land? Nothing. Except it needs to be shared.

Sharing land is nice until those you share with start blowing you up.
Yes, yes, I know the Arabs have NEVER EVER done any such thing...they are the BEST!
Have you gone to Syria on vacation lately?

What you don't seem to realize is each country is it's own situation and should be looked at seperately. Each Arab country that expelled Jews should be required to either compensate them or allow them to return. It's the same standard I have for Israel.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

What's wrong with sharing the land? Nothing. Except it needs to be shared.

Sharing land is nice until those you share with start blowing you up.
Yes, yes, I know the Arabs have NEVER EVER done any such thing...they are the BEST!
Have you gone to Syria on vacation lately?

Who on earth ever said that?

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

Hold on a minute here.

Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people

from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Quote
After the initial Muslim expansion

• Islamic Spain
• Islamic conquest of Turkey
• The Ottoman Empire
• Conversion of places of worship into mosques
• Islamic slavery and piracy

Modern killings for Islam

• Summary of modern killings for Islam
• The Middle East conflict

Islam and human rights

Islam and freedom of thought

Islamic states

Islamic Fascism

The Islamist way of war

The Islamic street

Killings for Christianity

Who on earth ever said that?

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

Hold on a minute here.

Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people

from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Quote
After the initial Muslim expansion

• Islamic Spain
• Islamic conquest of Turkey
• The Ottoman Empire
• Conversion of places of worship into mosques
• Islamic slavery and piracy

Modern killings for Islam

• Summary of modern killings for Islam
• The Middle East conflict

Islam and human rights

Islam and freedom of thought

Islamic states

Islamic Fascism

The Islamist way of war

The Islamic street

Killings for Christianity

Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?

I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.

History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Coyote]

Who on earth ever said that?

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

The local Arabs would kill the Jews when they felt there were too many.
Do you ever take a trip out of your little Liberal loop?

Keeping in mind the standards of the time, for the most part the coexisted well. They were treated better than they were in Christian Europe, and in certain eras prospered. You might take a crack at a history book

BULLSHIT, they were nothing more than slaves, and as many team Palestine members remind the board they were evicted from every country they settled in. That was during the time of the Islamic conquest of most of Europe, and because of the hatred for the Jews by the arabs the European nations saw the Jews as the reason they would be targeted next. I will leave you to read that history book to see what happened, that way it might sink in and make you realise the truth

Are you really this ignorant? Seriously? Again, no one is saying there was equality in that era or they were subject to expulsions, but Jews had more rights and at times flourished under Islam then they did under Christian empires. Comparisons are best made within the same era. European (Christian) hatred of Jews is long standing and entrenched before Islam even existed. Better take that log out of your eye.

Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God"). Saint Peter of Antioch referred to Christians that refused to worship religious images as having "Jewish minds".[22]


Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell. As "Witness People", he sanctified collective punishment for the Jewish deicide and enslavement of Jews to Catholics: "Not by bodily death, shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish ... 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord'". Augustine claimed to "love" the Jews but as a means to convert them to Christianity. Sometimes he identified all Jews with the evil Judas and developed the doctrine (together with St. Cyprian) that there was "no salvation outside the Church".[23]


Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, went further in their condemnation. The Catholic editor Paul Harkins wrote that St. John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish theology "is no longer tenable (..) For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he is the product of his times." John Chrysostom held, as most Church Fathers did, that the sins of all Jews were communal and endless, to him his Jewish neighbours were the collective representation of all alleged crimes of all preexisting Jews. All Church Fathers applied the passages of the New Testament concerning the alleged advocation of the crucifixion of Christ to all Jews of his day, the Jews were the ultimate evil. However, John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected the Christian God in human flesh, Christ, they therefore deserved to be killed: "grew fit for slaughter." In citing the New Testament,[Luke 19:27] he claimed that Jesus was speaking about Jews when he said, "as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."[23]​

 

[Coyote]

Information left out: Arab Israeli's and Palestinians are rarely granted permits. One of those silly little inequities.

and you have proof of this ?

Yes - I've given it before in other threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself again. It's a simple google.

And not once have you produced a link that says the reason for the refusal is because they were not filled in correctly. Or that they broke the rules. All you did was cherry pick the ones that did the most damage to the Jews and Israel as is your usual tactic

How stupid are you Phoenal? Why would I provide such a link since I did not make that argument? You're making it, it's your job to provide a link. Oh, and let's make that source follow your explicit source requirements - unbiased non-"zionazi" sources please.

And another islamonazi propagandist falls to the truth and resorts to using an oxymoron.


Can you explain how you can support the right of the Jews to have a homeland in their historic home aqnd be able to defend it against attack while wanting to wipe out the Jews

This should be a good one, lets see if you run away from the truth.



Now why would you provide such a link, because if you did it would be the only link you have ever produced that was truthful about the Israel/Palestine problems

What on earth are you talking about? At least, provide a link or something where I'm talking about wanting to wipe out Jews or admit you are delusional.

Do you even know what an oxymoron is? (and no, it is not a reference to your intellect).

Israel exists and has a right to exist. Jews have a right to a homeland - and they have proven they can create a state and grow it. They have a right to defend their population from attacks. Just like any other state. It's not a difficult concept to wrap even a feeble intellect around.

 

[Coyote]

Yet when Israeli settlers build illegally - the government provides infrastructure and has even retroactively rewarded them by legalizing it.

Why two different standards here?

Specific examples of Israeli returnees building illegally?

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

And this shows again that you have no sympathy for the Jews who were forcibly removed from their homes in 1949 and deported from their lands. As far as you are concerned the Jews had no rights to the land they bought and owned and so could never return to them when the situation changed. Over 1 million Jews were forcibly evicted or mass murdered in 1949 and all you say is they were just Jews, and that is the difference between me a civilised person and you a rabid Jew hater.


Now produce the evidence for your claim that the Jews had never lived in the west bank, gaza and Jerusalem prior to the war of independence of 1948. Because the evidence they did has been posted innumerable times on this board in the past

Where the hell did I claim that?

 

[Coyote]

Maybe because they are Israeli citizens...speaking of double standards.

Yikes

So the Judaic people can be thrown out of Arab countries and you think thats fine but let the Israeli's even consider throwing out even just the Arab trouble makers and you cry foul.

And where have I said I think that is fine? Or are you just deflecting?

Do you think stripping citizens of citizenship is a good thing? If they did something illegal - arrest them, put them on trial. Novel idea that.

Amazing

Yes, it is.

Its within the legal boundaries of the Israeli system to demolish the home of a terrorist. Ergo its fully legal.

Except it's only done to Palestinian terrorists. Jewish terrorists seem to retain their homes.

But its a done deal. The Arab countries already threw out the jews and confiscated their lands and bank accounts.

So when Israel allocates so much as one inch of land you cry foul.

Israel should take all of the land within its legal boundaries. Just like Jordan did. Just like any other country.

Also your forgetting that areas A and B are completely open to Arab Muslims building whatever they want

So what the problem with sharing the land ?

What you don't seem to realize is each country is it's own situation and should be looked at seperately. Each Arab country that expelled Jews should be required to either compensate them or allow them to return. It's the same standard I have for Israel.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

What's wrong with sharing the land? Nothing. Except it needs to be shared.

And that would open a can of worms, there is no legal right to a right of return for the simple reason that it would be abused and lead to even more bloodshed and strife. The arab nations have already said that they cant protect the Jews from attack if they returned as they don't have the means. One way of compensating both parties would be to give the Palestinian refugees 2 acres of Jewish land in the arab nations for one acre of land in the west bank and gaza. Then when the Palestinians are relocated to their new homes and nations the remaining land in the arab nations can be compensated for at the going rate expected by the arab nations. This would end the fighting and troubles as there would no longer be any Palestinians in the west bank, gaza or Jerusalem other than those who are Israeli citizens.


Nothing wrong with sharing land, as long as the parties agree to sharing the land. But as history and recent evidence shows the muslims are against sharing as they believe they are the chosen of god and have been told they rule the world and must not share it with anyone else. So there is the problem why the land can not be shared.


And don't say the Jews think they are the chosen ones as I have not heard a Jew say that ever, it is a blood libel spread by islamonazi/neo Marxist propagandists

When it comes to "right of return" the only "right of return" I recognize is for those who were actually expelled or driven out - not their descendents.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I thought liberals were big on permits. They always want one to publicly protest their bull sh**.

Which people here do you see as liberal?

It certainly can't be the antisemitic leftists who routinely advocate for the most profoundly illiberal creatures on God's green Earth, can it?

 

[Coyote]

Yet when Israeli settlers build illegally - the government provides infrastructure and has even retroactively rewarded them by legalizing it.

Why two different standards here?

Specific examples of Israeli returnees building illegally?

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

Probably the same way that those who fight for the RoR for the Palestinians demand it for all of the descendants and not just the few thousand (hundred) remaining who lived in the territory prior to the invasion of the hostile Arab armies.

I don't happen to believe in any right of return for descendents. If they never lived there, they can not possibly be "returnees" and labeling them so is disengenius.

So this means that the Palestinians are no longer refugees and don't have a right of return ?

It means those that were actually driven out in the ongoing conflicts should have a right of return, but not their descendents.

 

[ogibillm]

have to make room for the 'right' people.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

When it comes to "right of return" the only "right of return" I recognize is for those who were actually expelled or driven out - not their descendents.

So, that would be what? -- Two, perhaps as many as three people who started calling themselves "Palestinian" a few years back?

Since the very youngest would now be in their late sixties, those who were adults and potential land owners would be pushing 90, and the fact that most left voluntarily or as a result of their own hostile actions, that surely couldn't mean very many people.

Why all the fuss over something that so obviously would apply to precious few -- if any could be found at all?

 

[Phoenall]

Who says they are building illegally

Well, that's easy to answer....

Everyone except you zionuts!

So no adult intelligent answer as shown by your use of your made up term again.

So how are they building illegally when the land was Jewish before being stolen in 1949 ?

 

[Phoenall]

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

The local Arabs would kill the Jews when they felt there were too many.
Do you ever take a trip out of your little Liberal loop?

Keeping in mind the standards of the time, for the most part the coexisted well. They were treated better than they were in Christian Europe, and in certain eras prospered. You might take a crack at a history book

BULLSHIT, they were nothing more than slaves, and as many team Palestine members remind the board they were evicted from every country they settled in. That was during the time of the Islamic conquest of most of Europe, and because of the hatred for the Jews by the arabs the European nations saw the Jews as the reason they would be targeted next. I will leave you to read that history book to see what happened, that way it might sink in and make you realise the truth

Are you really this ignorant? Seriously? Again, no one is saying there was equality in that era or they were subject to expulsions, but Jews had more rights and at times flourished under Islam then they did under Christian empires. Comparisons are best made within the same era. European (Christian) hatred of Jews is long standing and entrenched before Islam even existed. Better take that log out of your eye.

Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God"). Saint Peter of Antioch referred to Christians that refused to worship religious images as having "Jewish minds".[22]


Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell. As "Witness People", he sanctified collective punishment for the Jewish deicide and enslavement of Jews to Catholics: "Not by bodily death, shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish ... 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord'". Augustine claimed to "love" the Jews but as a means to convert them to Christianity. Sometimes he identified all Jews with the evil Judas and developed the doctrine (together with St. Cyprian) that there was "no salvation outside the Church".[23]


Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, went further in their condemnation. The Catholic editor Paul Harkins wrote that St. John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish theology "is no longer tenable (..) For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he is the product of his times." John Chrysostom held, as most Church Fathers did, that the sins of all Jews were communal and endless, to him his Jewish neighbours were the collective representation of all alleged crimes of all preexisting Jews. All Church Fathers applied the passages of the New Testament concerning the alleged advocation of the crucifixion of Christ to all Jews of his day, the Jews were the ultimate evil. However, John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected the Christian God in human flesh, Christ, they therefore deserved to be killed: "grew fit for slaughter." In citing the New Testament,[Luke 19:27] he claimed that Jesus was speaking about Jews when he said, "as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."[23]​

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

The local Arabs would kill the Jews when they felt there were too many.
Do you ever take a trip out of your little Liberal loop?

Keeping in mind the standards of the time, for the most part the coexisted well. They were treated better than they were in Christian Europe, and in certain eras prospered. You might take a crack at a history book

BULLSHIT, they were nothing more than slaves, and as many team Palestine members remind the board they were evicted from every country they settled in. That was during the time of the Islamic conquest of most of Europe, and because of the hatred for the Jews by the arabs the European nations saw the Jews as the reason they would be targeted next. I will leave you to read that history book to see what happened, that way it might sink in and make you realise the truth

Are you really this ignorant? Seriously? Again, no one is saying there was equality in that era or they were subject to expulsions, but Jews had more rights and at times flourished under Islam then they did under Christian empires. Comparisons are best made within the same era. European (Christian) hatred of Jews is long standing and entrenched before Islam even existed. Better take that log out of your eye.

Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God"). Saint Peter of Antioch referred to Christians that refused to worship religious images as having "Jewish minds".[22]


Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell. As "Witness People", he sanctified collective punishment for the Jewish deicide and enslavement of Jews to Catholics: "Not by bodily death, shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish ... 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord'". Augustine claimed to "love" the Jews but as a means to convert them to Christianity. Sometimes he identified all Jews with the evil Judas and developed the doctrine (together with St. Cyprian) that there was "no salvation outside the Church".[23]


Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, went further in their condemnation. The Catholic editor Paul Harkins wrote that St. John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish theology "is no longer tenable (..) For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he is the product of his times." John Chrysostom held, as most Church Fathers did, that the sins of all Jews were communal and endless, to him his Jewish neighbours were the collective representation of all alleged crimes of all preexisting Jews. All Church Fathers applied the passages of the New Testament concerning the alleged advocation of the crucifixion of Christ to all Jews of his day, the Jews were the ultimate evil. However, John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected the Christian God in human flesh, Christ, they therefore deserved to be killed: "grew fit for slaughter." In citing the New Testament,[Luke 19:27] he claimed that Jesus was speaking about Jews when he said, "as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."[23]​

And the info box for your cut and paste says it all

This section may stray from the topic of the article



I have not said that Christians were not anti-Semitic, I argue that the muslims were more brutal and violent towards the Jews than the Christians where. In fact the same feelings from all non Jews lingers today against the Jews and they all stem from what the original Roman Christians believed and spread, that the Jews killed their god before he could perform the miracles they wanted to see.

 

[Phoenall]

and you have proof of this ?

Yes - I've given it before in other threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself again. It's a simple google.

And not once have you produced a link that says the reason for the refusal is because they were not filled in correctly. Or that they broke the rules. All you did was cherry pick the ones that did the most damage to the Jews and Israel as is your usual tactic

How stupid are you Phoenal? Why would I provide such a link since I did not make that argument? You're making it, it's your job to provide a link. Oh, and let's make that source follow your explicit source requirements - unbiased non-"zionazi" sources please.

And another islamonazi propagandist falls to the truth and resorts to using an oxymoron.


Can you explain how you can support the right of the Jews to have a homeland in their historic home aqnd be able to defend it against attack while wanting to wipe out the Jews

This should be a good one, lets see if you run away from the truth.



Now why would you provide such a link, because if you did it would be the only link you have ever produced that was truthful about the Israel/Palestine problems

What on earth are you talking about? At least, provide a link or something where I'm talking about wanting to wipe out Jews or admit you are delusional.

Do you even know what an oxymoron is? (and no, it is not a reference to your intellect).

Israel exists and has a right to exist. Jews have a right to a homeland - and they have proven they can create a state and grow it. They have a right to defend their population from attacks. Just like any other state. It's not a difficult concept to wrap even a feeble intellect around.

You used the much loved Jew haters oxymoron and rather than answer the question posed you go of at a tangent and start ranting.

Yes I do know what an oxymoron is

a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction


Making your made up word a very good candidate for the most obvious.

You give the definition of the Zionist aspect of your word now give the definition for the Nazi aspect and see just what you are parroting, after being fed by your keepers.

 

[Boston1]

Sharing land is nice until those you share with start blowing you up.
Yes, yes, I know the Arabs have NEVER EVER done any such thing...they are the BEST!
Have you gone to Syria on vacation lately?

Hold on a minute here.

Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people

from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Quote
After the initial Muslim expansion

• Islamic Spain
• Islamic conquest of Turkey
• The Ottoman Empire
• Conversion of places of worship into mosques
• Islamic slavery and piracy

Modern killings for Islam

• Summary of modern killings for Islam
• The Middle East conflict

Islam and human rights

Islam and freedom of thought

Islamic states

Islamic Fascism

The Islamist way of war

The Islamic street

Killings for Christianity

Who on earth ever said that?

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

Hold on a minute here.

Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people

from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Quote
After the initial Muslim expansion

• Islamic Spain
• Islamic conquest of Turkey
• The Ottoman Empire
• Conversion of places of worship into mosques
• Islamic slavery and piracy

Modern killings for Islam

• Summary of modern killings for Islam
• The Middle East conflict

Islam and human rights

Islam and freedom of thought

Islamic states

Islamic Fascism

The Islamist way of war

The Islamic street

Killings for Christianity

Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?

I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.

History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

 

[Phoenall]

Yet when Israeli settlers build illegally - the government provides infrastructure and has even retroactively rewarded them by legalizing it.

Why two different standards here?

Specific examples of Israeli returnees building illegally?

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

And this shows again that you have no sympathy for the Jews who were forcibly removed from their homes in 1949 and deported from their lands. As far as you are concerned the Jews had no rights to the land they bought and owned and so could never return to them when the situation changed. Over 1 million Jews were forcibly evicted or mass murdered in 1949 and all you say is they were just Jews, and that is the difference between me a civilised person and you a rabid Jew hater.


Now produce the evidence for your claim that the Jews had never lived in the west bank, gaza and Jerusalem prior to the war of independence of 1948. Because the evidence they did has been posted innumerable times on this board in the past

Where the hell did I claim that?

Cant you read your own replies now


How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?


Or are you having a senior blonde moment and forgetting what you write about the Jews, and what you are denying them all the time.

 

[Phoenall]

Specific examples of Israeli returnees building illegally?

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

Probably the same way that those who fight for the RoR for the Palestinians demand it for all of the descendants and not just the few thousand (hundred) remaining who lived in the territory prior to the invasion of the hostile Arab armies.

I don't happen to believe in any right of return for descendents. If they never lived there, they can not possibly be "returnees" and labeling them so is disengenius.

So this means that the Palestinians are no longer refugees and don't have a right of return ?

It means those that were actually driven out in the ongoing conflicts should have a right of return, but not their descendents.

So the palestini9ans due a right of return have all been accommodated, and the rest are just greedy land thieves after a taste of the high life. I have some land deeds to Tel Aviv showing the latest buildings being Palestinian owned in 1947, want to buy them ?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I thought liberals were big on permits. They always want one to publicly protest their bull sh**.

Which people here do you see as liberal?

It certainly can't be the antisemitic leftists who routinely advocate for the most profoundly illiberal creatures on God's green Earth, can it?

Sounds spot on liberal to me.

 

[Boston1]

The simple reality is that if I built a home here in the US without a permit. I'd likely end up having to take it down.

Same holds true for a lot of countries.

Next issue is obtaining the permit. Gaza is entirely under Arab control so yeah. areas A and B are under Arab control so again, whats the problem. Area C under Israeli control and they have a permit system. Again whats the complaint ? And if there is a complaint its only encompassing what 10% of Israel ? And then there is Israel proper, where again, whats the problem, every country has a permitting system.

 

[Coyote]

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

Probably the same way that those who fight for the RoR for the Palestinians demand it for all of the descendants and not just the few thousand (hundred) remaining who lived in the territory prior to the invasion of the hostile Arab armies.

I don't happen to believe in any right of return for descendents. If they never lived there, they can not possibly be "returnees" and labeling them so is disengenius.

So this means that the Palestinians are no longer refugees and don't have a right of return ?

It means those that were actually driven out in the ongoing conflicts should have a right of return, but not their descendents.

So the palestini9ans due a right of return have all been accommodated, and the rest are just greedy land thieves after a taste of the high life. I have some land deeds to Tel Aviv showing the latest buildings being Palestinian owned in 1947, want to buy them ?

Have they? Do you have a source indicating that?

 

[Coyote]

Yet when Israeli settlers build illegally - the government provides infrastructure and has even retroactively rewarded them by legalizing it.

Why two different standards here?

Specific examples of Israeli returnees building illegally?

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

And this shows again that you have no sympathy for the Jews who were forcibly removed from their homes in 1949 and deported from their lands. As far as you are concerned the Jews had no rights to the land they bought and owned and so could never return to them when the situation changed. Over 1 million Jews were forcibly evicted or mass murdered in 1949 and all you say is they were just Jews, and that is the difference between me a civilised person and you a rabid Jew hater.


Now produce the evidence for your claim that the Jews had never lived in the west bank, gaza and Jerusalem prior to the war of independence of 1948. Because the evidence they did has been posted innumerable times on this board in the past

Where the hell did I claim that?

Cant you read your own replies now


How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?


Or are you having a senior blonde moment and forgetting what you write about the Jews, and what you are denying them all the time.

Correct. If they had not lived there, then they aren't "returnees" - they are immigrants, migrants, etc. We are talking INDIVIDUAL people Phoenall, try to keep up. If your ancestors came from Podunk NJ but you've never set foot there you aren't a "returnee".

 

[Coyote]

Who on earth ever said that?

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

Hold on a minute here.

Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people

from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Quote
After the initial Muslim expansion

• Islamic Spain
• Islamic conquest of Turkey
• The Ottoman Empire
• Conversion of places of worship into mosques
• Islamic slavery and piracy

Modern killings for Islam

• Summary of modern killings for Islam
• The Middle East conflict

Islam and human rights

Islam and freedom of thought

Islamic states

Islamic Fascism

The Islamist way of war

The Islamic street

Killings for Christianity

Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?

I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.

History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too. They balance each other off. Wiki has good editorial policy, requires sources and citations and is transparent..

Who is MarkHumphry.com...what are his credentials, what sources does he cite, does he have a bias? He's a blogger.