Just give it up, no ex Muslim capes for Muslims
Hey you're talking to a man who doesn't recognize Pakistan
Partition was a disgrace.
Listen, I don't support the two state solution. I perfectly understand the reality that Israel controls from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. That land will never be partitioned.
As long as Palestinians have the occupation lifted and enjoy human and civic rights, with free access to Islamic sites, I have no beef.
I want this conflict over with, so the Jewish people, who are an intricate member of the Middle Eastern community can finally be at peace with its Muslim neighbours and we can all move the fukk on
The problem is, I made the mistake it seems of actually researching the fukk out of this conflict, particularly with an emphasis on Israeli scholarship on the issue
And the conclusion I have drawn, from history and what we see today, is that the establishment of Israel necessitated the forced displacement of the local population.
Your understanding of the history is, respectfully, flawed. There was no mass exodus of Arabs heeding the call of Arab leaders. It's a myth. The Arabs of Palestine rose up once they realized that all those Jews that had been trickling in since the late 19th century were there to displace them. With the betrayal of the Arabs post WW1 (Sykes Pico), and having emerged out of centuries of Turkish rule, they were late to the game, and caught completely off guard
Israeli propaganda has created this wonderful but utterly bullshyt narrative of a benevolent Jewish population pleading with a sliver of land and the evil Arabs rallied to attempt genocide, and only only only if the Arabs had agreed to the partition plan (which was bullshyt to begin with) all of this would have been averted
NO. It was premeditated from day one. The Arabs didn't do anything in 1947 that any self respecting people wouldnt have done at the time, knowing what they knew
I don't raise these historical points to try to reverse history, but to clarify the myth and lies, so we understand why we are in the position we are today
Which leads me to the point I raised earlier. Israel has won. Why does it insist on maintaining the occupation? Why does it deny the Palestinians its human rights? What national interest is served in detaining youths, torturing prisoners and launching wars every half decade?
Its because it's project is not complete. It wants the absolute destruction of the Palestinian body politic, regardless of what form it takes. And it is itching for an excuse to reduce the Arab population of the old mandate in half, driven into the Jordanian deserts. It is willing to tolerate a subjugated minority at best.
I was raised in the Gulf as a non Arab so itll always be fukk Arab supremacism til I die. And I left Islam just like you.
But I will never abandon the Palestinians. They got fukked by history. Which is bad enough
But when you have a damn near century old propaganda machine that tries to convince the world that the rapist is a benevolent abused lover, I will not stand for that
I don't respect thieves and bullies.
repped
Pakhtoon dancing fuccboy thought he crushed the building with that article
Do you know Robert Malley ?
He is a rabid anti Israel figure, and those views in the articles have to be understood in that light.
You not going to win this battle buddy, you bring an article I can bring mine too.
Jesus, youre a fukking child. How elementary are you? Do you think you;'re talking to your peer?
Where do you get off making support for one cause conditional on support for another? These things are not mutually exclusive. By your stupid infantile logic, NO ONE can say ANYTHING about ANYTHING unless they say SOMETHING about EVERYTHING
So a Tibetan sympathizer cant condemn Chinese occupation without bringing up Kashmir
And a Ukrainian nationalist who opposes the Russian annexation of Crimea must first condemn the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara
And before I condemn Israel I must forcefully condemn Myanmar
fukking clown, let me break this down into digestable bites for you. Bringing up other conflicts only makes sense, if a person is taking fundamentally contradictory positions. For example, if I supported, lets say, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and the denial of their right to self-determination, well then, you would be justified in countering my support for Palestinian self-determination by pointing out the inconsistency of my approach.
However, you moist p*ssy, there is nothing inconsistent in my political positions. I support universal human rights, and the right to self determination. Whether its Jews, Arabs or Kurds. My position is consistent. There is no contradiction. Hence, bringing up other conflicts means nothing.
One can have an affinity or passion for a particular cause, for a variety of reasons. Individuals are not obligated to equally distribute their passions and efforts across all causes of the world, you fukking moron.
And its funny you bring up the Baloch, minutes after I clearly stated I dont recognize Pakistan. I know REAL Bugtis and Marris, p*ssy boy. Im affiliated with real Hazara activists and media outlets.
I dont think you realize who youre talking to, you aborted fetus.
Now hold this fukking L faccot
You said you were caping for Palestinians since 2002 ! this from someone whose own country was/still under under occupation with NATO bombing weddings and killing civilians but you want us to believe you are not obsessed with Jews ?
Come on, we are not daft, we can see through your agendas.
"b-b-b-b-b-ut hes anti israel!"
'anti-israel' has barely any currency in todays day and age. Simply quoting a fukking UN resolution will get you called anti-israel. This isnt the AIPAC annual meeting, p*ssy.
Do you think you can just make a fukking claim and we will accept it? Do you have any objective proof that the former Special Assistant to President Obama, Senior Adviser to the President for the Counter-ISIL Campaign, and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region, and former Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs and Director for Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security Council is "anti-Israel".
Let me guess Robert Fisk is anti Israel too?
When Gayane Torosyan opened WSUI/KSUI for questions in Iowa City, a caller named "Michael" – a leader of the local Jewish community, I later learnt, though he did not say this on air – insisted that after the Camp David talks in 2000, Yasser Arafat had turned to "terrorism" despite being offered a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem and 96 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza. Slowly and deliberately, I had to deconstruct this nonsense. Jerusalem was to have remained the "eternal and unified capital of Israel", according to Camp David. Arafat would only have got what Madeleine Albright called "a sort of sovereignty" over the Haram al-Sharif mosque area and some Arab streets, while the Palestinian parliament would have been below the city's eastern walls at Abu Dis. With the vastly extended and illegal Jerusalem municipality boundaries deep into the West Bank, Jewish settlements like Maale Adumim were not up for negotiation; nor were several other settlements. Nor was the 10-mile Israeli military buffer zone around the West Bank, nor the settlers' roads, which would razor through the Palestinian "state". Arafat was offered about 46 per cent of the 22 per cent of Palestine that was left.
Robert Fisk: Fear and learning in America
An analysis of the Israeli proposals of December 2000 published by the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) concluded that Israel:
1. only proposed to relinquish control over between 77.5-81 percent of the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem, which most likely included Israel’s retaining of the Jordan Valley.
2. wanted sovereignty over one-third of occupied East Jerusalem and all of West Jerusalem.
3. wanted control of the third holiest site in Islam, al-Haram al-Sharif (which Israel refers to as the ‘Temple Mount’), where “Israel, incredibly, also demanded Palestinian agreement to the construction of a synagogue.”
Source: “How Generous is Generous?” in CROSSROADS OF CONFLICT: Israeli-Palestinian Relations Face an Uncertain Future, FMEP Special Report, Winter 2000.
On 27 July 2000, Noam Chomsky wrote in Z Mag that:
The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: Jericho, the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab “Jerusalem”), a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and a central canton including Ramallah.
The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned.
The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City.
In the Guardian newspaper on 14 April 2001, diplomatic editor Ewen MacAskill wrote:
The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated.
The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between - a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state’s eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.
Misrepresentation of Barak's offer at Camp David as "generous" and "unprecedented"
Where are your articles p*ssy boy??
Are you going to dispute any of this??
You didnt think it was gonna end like this, did you cock sucker??
Robert Fisk, Robert Malley, who is next George Galloway
You want to tell us some pro Arab journo have more validity than the president who was negotiating the deal himself ?
Keep trying to bash your head against the wall
