Palestine Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
52905731_2241575282552661_8215018684754690048_n.jpg
 
Mnar Muhawesh discusses social media giants’ efforts to wipe independent journalism off the map and what can be done to combat this deliberate form of censorship.

 

Get over it already, it's been almost 80 years. And this politician has called them Arabs. Arabs come from Arabia (that's where the name comes from). Arabs have 22 countries already. They can share Israel/Palestine with the one Jewish country in the world, and live decent lives (with financial compensation) in the countries they have settled in. No progress can be made as long as Jews claim all of Eretz Israel, and Arabs claim all of Palestine.
 
Palestinian Freedom Conference (Pt 15): Prisons, Propaganda & Oppression #2 - Sahar Francis

 
Palestinian Freedom Conference (Pt 17): Winning The Battle For Justice In Palestine - Ali Abunimah

 
So re-establishment of an indigenous homeland = separation by skin color :confused-84:
That doesn't make sense. Probably because it only half of the quote.

And for someone to be asked anything, one has to have authority first to make that happen,
the Arabian kings were indeed informed.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Einat Wilf on Zionism - Full Interview


She didn't mention stealing land and killing people.


She also didn't mention how Spain kicked out the Caliphate.
Maybe we should talk more about it, I hear they demand a "right of return" to Spain.
Actually using the same lexicon to the letter.

Don't You think she should mention the Caliphates?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Einat Wilf on Zionism - Full Interview


She didn't mention stealing land and killing people.


When it comes to killing ppl, the Arabs have given as good as they've gotten, and more so. Besides, if you are living on stolen Native American land, then you should not be a hypocrite and move back to Europe where your grandparents came from. And don't give an arbitrary cut-off date as your excuse not to!
 
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Toddsterpatriot, P F Tinmore,, et al,

Yes, this is the two-fold argument based on the:

◈ Strict application of proportional response,

◈ Utilization of civilians to shield and render certain hostile points immune from military retaliation,​

The arguments are on a very single and simplistic level.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that, the first part of the argument is based on the chivalry of a duel. That is if the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) fire a single Qassam Rocket, the Israelis can only fire a Qassam Rocket back. That is stupid. No country in the world gives-up its combat superiority because the hostile force is inferior.

Just because the HoAP does not have a Navy or an Army --- heavy weapons or artillery → does not mean that Israel must give up its advantages.​

The second part of the argument is base on the notion that the citizenry, that supports and sustains the HoAP, can act as a shield for a launch site for the Qassam Rockets and that the HoAP may fire as many Rockets they wish without fear of retaliation because the civilians that support and sustains the HoAP are in close proximity.

The fault is that the HoAP must avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.

The second fault in the argument is that the HoAP must remove civilians from the vicinity of HoAP operations.

Just because the HoAP use civilians to shield, conseal, hide or disguise the presence of HoAP operations. Civilian casualties must have a military objective. Each time the HoAP fires a rocket into Israel, it is indiscriminte fire.​

Dr Chomsky thinks that a battlefield is fair. It is not. For most countries, the military force is to protect and defend.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top