On Jul 11, 9:10=A0pm, Gary the Dago <lizg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Shlomo the Schmoo wrote:
> > Excuse me Dago, but the nation is Israel, and the people who are its
> > citizens are Israelis. =A0Please use proper terminology.
>
> Hey, Sheenie! (That's for the Dago ****; are you not the sensitive soul
> who kvetched about my addressing you as "schmoo"? Now you're using
> racial slurs. Fine, so can I kike.)
> Do we really have to descend to this level? Your call, asshole.
> Call me "Rensphagetti", or "Ren****y"; I could care less; talk about
> "dagos" or "wops" or "coons" and I will respond in kind.
I don't care how liars who believe their own lies respond.
> I *am* using proper terminology. Your beloved entity is a rogue state of
> dubious legality. To use a term your crew are fond of, it is a "disputed
> territory". The place is a racist arrogant thuggocracy. What others
> choose to call residents of your thuggocracy is not my business, but
> what name I choose for the entity is my affair.
> Suck it up.
The government of Israel represents the will of a majority of its
citizens; 'nuff said.
> > Regarding 1956, while the British and French interests were regaining
> > the Suez Canal that Nasser had stolen,
>
> Nationalized, actually. As it should have been at the end of WWII.
Nationalized is a fancy word for stolen. Castro pulled the same crap
in Cuba when he stole property that was legally owned by private
owners and cor****ations.
> =A0 Israel's interest was in> stopping terrorism that originated from
the=
Gaza Strip.
>
> Not "terrorism=AE" at all. *Resistance* to an invader. the Palestinian
> Arabs in Gaza just wanted the homes that they had been stolen from them
> and given to European invaders returned to them.
What Israel was given was land in which Jews were the supermajority of
the population, so nothing was stolen from the Arabs.
> =A0 =A0So the 1956> invasion was not unprovoked.
> Excreta.
Truth.
> >>> Then of course, there's the unprovoked Jordanian invasion of Israel
o=
n
> >>> June 5, 1967 ....
> >> Jordan? Hussein had no option. He was committed by treaty to come to
t=
he
> >> aid of Egypt if she was attacked which she had been. He may have been
> >> foolish, but he was an honorable fool.
>
> > We all have the right to say "no", and by failing to do so, the
> > Israeli response was totally appropriate.
>
> =A0 Don't you agree?
> No, I don't at all. King Hussein had committed his country to defend
> Egypt if it was attacked, and the zionists *attacked* Egypt.
Correction- Israel LEGALLY RESPONDED to ACTS OF WAR waged against it
by Egypt. Please do not post Arab lies as facts.
> Rightly or
> wrongly, he was committed to do so, and honored his obligation.
> =A0 (And> before you give any crap that Israel should've stopped at the
G=
reen
> > Line, would Jordan have stopped at, or withdrawn to, the Green Line?)
>
> Why would I say that? You are inventing things, Stanley the schmoo.
I'm just trying to head off the typical Arab lies posted by Arab liars
and sympathizers who believe them.
> > That part of Palestine that the LEGAL GOVERNMENT gave to the Zionists
> > was limited to an area where the Jews were a supermajority, along with
> > a virtually uninhabited region. =A0The Zionists were not given "Arab
> > Turf"; rather, they were given sovereignty only over that area where
> > they had built a nation.
>
> This distortion of yours has already been addressed at considerable
> length previously.
What you brush off as a "distortion" is in reality an accurate
description of what really happened.
> > Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
> > themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
> > United States, Canada, and Australia.
>
> Not so. The Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars from Asia, and they
> are the dominant group in the zionist entity.
You are totally off base. Converts are a very small ****tion of our
overall population. Again, you've been reading too many Arab lies.
> =A0 So unlike the USA, Canada, and> Australia, Israel was founded and
bui=
lt by an indigenous people.
>
> Again not so. The indigenous Jews (the Sephardim) lived in Palestine
> since "forever" but certainly didn't "found" anything in modern times
> and I am told are treated as second-class izzies today. (I must admit to
> having no personal knowledge of this, never having been to the zionist
> entity).
Visit it some time. They tolerate Dagos.
> > The Zionists came as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who LEGALLY PURCHASED land in
> > our ANCESTRAL HOMELAND. =A0Why do you ignore these facts?
>
> As discussed previously, the pre-WWII Jewish immigrants purchased about
> 7% of Palestine prior to the formation of the zionist entity.
And I've refuted the insignificance of this number numerous times.
> I refuse to engage in this conversation again. We have already done
this.
So don't; we can all tolerate the peace and quiet.
> > The Palestinian Arabs sup****ted the invaders of their country;
> > specifically, the Arab nation authorized by the UN.
>
> In a *non-binding* General Assembly Resolution. Were the Arabs who had
> lived there for centuries to have no say in what was done with their
> homeland?
Despite the FACT that the bulk of the Syrian Arabs who lived in
Palestine were themselves recent immigrants, the LEGAL GOVERNMENT did
give them their own nation, giving the Jews only that ****tion where
they were a supermajority.
Furthermore, the Arabs were on the wrong side of the recently ended
WWII, and all things considered, they got off easy.
Finally, how many Arabs in the Middle East have a direct voice in
their government decisions? Arabs in the U.S., Europe, and Israel
have a larger voice in government decision than do other Arabs in the
Mideast.
> =A0 =A0Many of the> 250,000 Arabs who would end up in Israel also
sup****t=
ed these outside
> > invaders of their nation.
>
> And quite rightly too. Ersatz "isr-el=AE" was emphatically *not* "their
> nation". Because they had the courage to not flee zionist terrorism,
> does not by some alchemy make the zionist entity "their nation".
Let's try again. Their nation was invaded, and they sup****ted the
invaders. That's TREASON.
> >> (and the 1915 Armenians can tell you> what usually happens to people
w=
ho do what the Arabs did).
>
> >> I notice that to this day the Armenians who survived are still
fightin=
g
> >> a low-level resistance to the Turks.
>
> > And there will be an appropriate Turkish response to those from within
> > and without who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Ankara
> > government within borders established by international law.
>
> For the record, I disagree with your sentence above on a couple of
> grounds. But the discussion is for another forum and another time.
Of course you disagree, because the TRUTH totally destroys your
credibility.
> > It takes TWO to define a border, and Transjordan chose not to define
> > its western border. =A0Why?
>
> Several reasons, some of which favour your argument.
> 1.The Jordanians would have the Palestinians living elsewhere than
Jordan=
..
> 2.They were not capable of defending the West Bank.
> 3.The were kicked out and they knew that they were going to have to
> share governance of the place with the izzies.
> 4.It made more political sense to use the Palestinians as a "political
> football" in the same way that the Egyptians did with the Gazans.
Thank you for admitting that the Arabs are the root cause of their own
problems.
|
