|
Kim Jong Il posted:Under this same logic, Mizrahim are justified in their fervent desire for revenge against Arabs. If by "revenge" they mean "can return home and/or be compensated for lost property" then absolutely. If you mean "genocide" then no. This isn't hard
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
You don't expect millions of hostile refugees coming in to attempt to commit genocide?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm just saying quoting rabid antisemitism favorably is kind of a bad idea in an I/P thread. Honestly, I don't see anything in that Malcolm X screed there that isn't true? The particular wording used is kind of outdated, but none of it seems wrong? Kim Jong Il posted:You don't expect millions of hostile refugees coming in to attempt to commit genocide? Remember when South Africa/the US ended apartheid/slavery, and all the black South Africans/Americans took revenge against the Afrikaners/slaveowners by committing genocide against the white South Africans/Americans? Really, it's not even worth being specific. Let's make it a loving mad-libs. Remember when (enlightened, civilized Western-style government) ended (repressive policy previously portrayed as being critical to the survival of their people) and all the (oppressed people who were portrayed as primitive, savage, or consumed by hatred) took revenge against their oppressors by committing genocide against (Europeans, colonists who descend from Europeans, or white people in general)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Honestly, I don't see anything in that Malcolm X screed there that isn't true? The particular wording used is kind of outdated, but none of it seems wrong? ZIONIST DOLLARISM 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Remember when (enlightened, civilized Western-style government) ended (repressive policy previously portrayed as being critical to the survival of their people) and all the (oppressed people who were portrayed as primitive, savage, or consumed by hatred) took revenge against their oppressors by committing genocide against (Europeans, colonists who descend from Europeans, or white people in general)? Yeah, I do remember the Haitian Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You don't expect millions of hostile refugees coming in to attempt to commit genocide? Do you think apartheid or segregation shouldn't have ended because of the very real possibility of retribution on the part of the freed black people? Just admit you're in favor of ethnic cleansing and apartheid, nobody is fooled by this song and dance routine. It'll save a lot of effort and argument for everyone here
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
When people say the French were some of the more benign European colonizers, it doesn't mean that they weren't operating on slavery/sugar/genocide based economies like every other Caribbean colony at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you think apartheid or segregation shouldn't have ended because of the very real possibility of retribution on the part of the freed black people? You do realize Apartheid only ended after years of negotiations with Mandela behind bars, where he repeatedly assured the Afrikaners that they would not be butchered in the days after, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:ZIONIST DOLLARISM Like I said, the terminology is outdated, but he's not wrong. It's important to note, since everybody here is too busy throwing around famous names and quotes to understand what those people actually did, thought, or meant, that "dollarism" does not mean "RICH ZIONIST ILLUMINATI LIZARD JEWS CONTROL THE WORLD", as you apparently seem to think it does. Instead, he used it to denote a form of neo-colonialism which he also called "benevolent colonialism" and "philanthropic colonialism" - using aid money to gain influence and power in poor countries, then using that to influence those countries' policies and gain access to their resources. As he saw it, countries like the US and Israel were taking advantage of their relative riches to a) cultivate powerful relationships with third-world countries by giving them large amounts of money, and b) gain even more influence using the unspoken threat of cutting back that aid if those countries don't fall in line and do what the US wants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I think the solution is to have Britain conquer an African micro-nation and unilaterally declare that to be the Palestinian homeland despite all evidence to the contrary and even though none of them have ever been there and then they should kill a bunch of Africans for no reason, and then move all the Palestinians there. I'm up for this, except for instead of an African micro-nation, make it Spain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you think apartheid or segregation shouldn't have ended because of the very real possibility of retribution on the part of the freed black people? Liberal_L33t posted:Just so we're absolutely clear, here: those of you who arguing that Palestinians have good reasons to reject non-violence: Are you in favor of suicide bombing of civilian targets? Are you in favor of indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire into civilian neighborhoods? Don't change the subject to what Israelis have done. Are you in favor of these tactics, yes or no? I asked this in the last thread, and the answer was: Tezzor posted:My logic is that anticolonial resistance does not conform to your comfortable Disney morality and it is not the place of soft white first-world liberals to tell people struggling against apartheid tyranny which methods they are allowed to employ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Yeah, I do remember the Haitian Revolution. Now I'm not a scholar of Haiti so I might have the history wrong, but I'm pretty sure Haiti's slave rebellion is a better example of what happens when the oppressors are overthrown by force when the balance of power shifts against them rather than a negotiated transition to a post-colonial state - not to mention the circumstances are wildly different considering the outright chattel slavery of Haiti and the brutal way the slaves were treated leading almost inevitably to a bloody conclusion. It would stand more as a warning about what can happen if you don't ease off. If the worldwide political situation were to change some time over the next few centuries and Israel lost its guarantee of security, and had only ever tried to maintain peace by threat and force, then yeah a comparable "uprising" would probably be extremely bloody. The hope is to avoid that sort of outcome and a history that will forever be bloodstained and tinged with resentment by finding a diplomatic and peaceful settlement beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's not an answer, though. You're just trying to shut down the discussion by accusing anyone who questions your position of supporting apartheid. KJI made a legitimate point that there is a rather extensive history of Palestinian violence, both individual and organized, against Israeli civilians. If Israel is going to dismantle its extensive system of movement controls and give hundreds of thousands of Palestinians the run of the country for the express purpose of "returning to their homes," that's something that deserves to be addressed. After all, Israelis aren't worried about the South Africa outcome, they're worried about the Zimbabwe outcome. It was asked why the Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel should not have the right to return to their homes, and the answer was that the Palestinians will be violent and try to exact revenge on the Israelis. But that's not supported by evidence. The exact same point about the Palestinians having a history of terrorism was true of the ANC, and there was no retribution. But pointing that out is trying to shut down conversation? They're openly supporting apartheid and ethnic cleansing because according to them the alternative, having the Arab savages exact revenge, is worse. I'm not accusing them of anything, simply repeating what they've already said
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
The Israeli police and military are more than enough to ensure order inside the borders of Israel, even if millions of Palestinians were suddenly welcomed there. Especially if they don't have to protect settlements in the West Bank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It was asked why the Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel should not have the right to return to their homes, and the answer was that the Palestinians will be violent and try to exact revenge on the Israelis. But that's not supported by evidence. The exact same point about the Palestinians having a history of terrorism was true of the ANC, and there was no retribution. And again, that is because they had a leader who over the course of years repeatedly reassured white Afrikaners that they would not be harmed, and followed through with it. Meanwhile, Christian and Jewish Algerians, especially the latter as much natives of that land as the Muslims, were butchered and summarily kicked out of Algeria post-independence. You are cherry-picking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The Israeli police and military are more than enough to ensure order inside the borders of Israel, even if millions of Palestinians were suddenly welcomed there. Especially if they don't have to protect settlements in the West Bank. If that were the case, the Israeli authorities would not have been forced to accept the Palestinian Authority as a subcontractor in keeping order. The first Intifada gives the lie to your statement, and if the PA does collapse (which even Netanyahu is reluctant to let happen), I suppose we shall see how well Israel maintains order by its lonesome once more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's not an answer, though. You're just trying to shut down the discussion by accusing anyone who questions your position of supporting apartheid. KJI made a legitimate point that there is a rather extensive history of Palestinian violence, both individual and organized, against Israeli civilians. If Israel is going to dismantle its extensive system of movement controls and give hundreds of thousands of Palestinians the run of the country for the express purpose of "returning to their homes," that's something that deserves to be addressed. After all, Israelis aren't worried about the South Africa outcome, they're worried about the Zimbabwe outcome. I don't know. What about the extensive history of Israeli violence, both individual and organized, against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank? What about the Palestinians who not only have to endure Israeli settlers moving into their territory and stealing their land, but live in constant fear of settler gangs and price tag attacks? How come it's always about the hardship that the presence of Palestinians would impose on those poor helpless Israelis? Israel has an unrestricted Right of Return that takes just about anyone, but it would be too difficult and dangerous to extend it to Palestinians? Both the Israeli state, individual Israelis, and various right-wing Israeli gangs regularly venture out into the West Bank to attack civilians in ways far more personal than the occasional rocket potshot, yet any discussion of equality in the West Bank is sidetracked by what the scary Palestinians might do to Israelis if they weren't oppressed so badly? Besides, the South Africans were worried about a violent outcome, too. They pointed to the extensive history of ANC violence against South African civilians, and claimed that they HAD to maintain apartheid for their own safety because the black South Africans would surely engage in genocide against whites if allowed the right to vote. Yet apartheid ended, and white South Africans don't live in fear today! Shockingly, granting equality and ending the oppression eventually removed the impetus for violence against the oppressors - despite the presence of government provocateurs and white death squads who went out of their way to stir up violence in hopes of derailing the end of apartheid! It wasn't a completely violence-free transition, true, but massive political upheavals do tend to be like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:And again, that is because they had a leader who over the course of years repeatedly reassured white Afrikaners that they would not be harmed, and followed through with it. I'm talking about 2015, not 1948. The Arabs living in Mandatory Palestine were butchered and summarily kicked out by the Israelis. You keep purposefully conflating these eras, the present and 1948, but somehow only the crimes of the Arabs and Palestinians count in the past? Unless you're taking the Hakimashou position of "the Israelis won, which makes their crimes irrelevant because might makes right, so enjoy your apartheid"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It was asked why the Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel should not have the right to return to their homes, and the answer was that the Palestinians will be violent and try to exact revenge on the Israelis. But that's not supported by evidence. The exact same point about the Palestinians having a history of terrorism was true of the ANC, and there was no retribution. But pointing that out is trying to shut down conversation? Flowers For Algeria posted:The Israeli police and military are more than enough to ensure order inside the borders of Israel, even if millions of Palestinians were suddenly welcomed there. Especially if they don't have to protect settlements in the West Bank. Main Paineframe posted:How come it's always about the hardship that the presence of Palestinians would impose on those poor helpless Israelis? quote:Besides, the South Africans were worried about a violent outcome, too. They pointed to the extensive history of ANC violence against South African civilians, and claimed that they HAD to maintain apartheid for their own safety because the black South Africans would surely engage in genocide against whites if allowed the right to vote. Yet apartheid ended, and white South Africans don't live in fear today! Shockingly, granting equality and ending the oppression eventually removed the impetus for violence against the oppressors - despite the presence of government provocateurs and white death squads who went out of their way to stir up violence in hopes of derailing the end of apartheid! It wasn't a completely violence-free transition, true, but massive political upheavals do tend to be like that. icantfindaname posted:I'm talking about 2015, not 1948. The Arabs living in Mandatory Palestine were butchered and summarily kicked out by the Israelis. You keep purposefully conflating these eras, the present and 1948, but somehow only the crimes of the Arabs and Palestinians count in the past? Don't get me wrong, I definitely think the Israelis and Palestinians need to work towards a permanent solution, but you can't wave away Israeli's security concerns regarding the right of return or a one state solution because "it worked that one time in South Africa, I'm sure everything will be fine." Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If that were the case, the Israeli authorities would not have been forced to accept the Palestinian Authority as a subcontractor in keeping order. The first Intifada gives the lie to your statement, and if the PA does collapse (which even Netanyahu is reluctant to let happen), I suppose we shall see how well Israel maintains order by its lonesome once more. The First Intifada took place in the West Bank and Gaza, not Israel proper. I'm talking about an influx of Palestinians inside Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The First Intifada took place in the West Bank and Gaza, not Israel proper. I'm talking about an influx of Palestinians inside Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Even so. The bombings were organized by Hamas (who by the way renounced that tactic), not by random Palestinians or Israeli Palestinians. There's no reason to believe that suicide bombings would resume in a situation of détente.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It was asked why the Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel should not have the right to return to their homes, and the answer was that the Palestinians will be violent and try to exact revenge on the Israelis. But that's not supported by evidence. The exact same point about the Palestinians having a history of terrorism was true of the ANC, and there was no retribution. But pointing that out is trying to shut down conversation? They're openly supporting apartheid and ethnic cleansing because according to them the alternative, having the Arab savages exact revenge, is worse. I'm not accusing them of anything, simply repeating what they've already said There's a significant difference between the behavior in Israel proper and in any lands that would go towards a new Palestinian state. They should not return simply because a deal will never happen otherwise, and the alternative is losing more and more land. It's the best deal that they can get, the alternative is no deal. Not letting refugees return to land that the international consensus agrees will be part of Israel after any deal is not apartheid or ethnic cleansing. It's also the de facto position of Fatah. I have clearly and unambiguously said that I want a two state solution using Taba and Kerry's initiatives as a framework, but I guess that's apartheid and ethnic cleansing in your BDS style world where negotiations within the international consensus are Zionist collaborationism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Honestly, I don't see anything in that Malcolm X screed there that isn't true? The particular wording used is kind of outdated, but none of it seems wrong? Seems reasonable to me. Main Paineframe posted:Instead, he used it to denote a form of neo-colonialism which he also called "benevolent colonialism" and "philanthropic colonialism" - using aid money to gain influence and power in poor countries, then using that to influence those countries' policies and gain access to their resources. As he saw it, countries like the US and Israel were taking advantage of their relative riches to a) cultivate powerful relationships with third-world countries by giving them large amounts of money, and b) gain even more influence using the unspoken threat of cutting back that aid if those countries don't fall in line and do what the US wants. ?? Xander77 fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
I can actually imagine some kind of student union earnestly adopting a resolution to the effect that because of the patronizing and sinister unfair effect of benevolent / philanthropic colonialism, that the rich nations of the world must stop aid to the undeveloped ones. Because it isn't right to make them feel like they shouldn't cross us for fear the aid stops. I do find it awfully hard though, considering the facts of history, to see the foundation of Israel as some abstract example of "white colonization." There is a point where generalized abstractions don't quite work in certain circumstances. The best thing for the people displaced by Israel is probably to get citizenship in neighboring Arab countries and get on with their lives. It's a tragedy that it is made so difficult for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I do find it awfully hard though, considering the facts of history, to see the foundation of Israel as some abstract example of "white colonization." There is a point where generalized abstractions don't quite work in certain circumstances. What's abstract about it? A bunch of white Europeans displaced the native occupants, killed many of them, and left the remnants in what is essentially a series of ghettos. You think it's not white colonization because the white Europeans don't eat pork?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The First Intifada took place in the West Bank and Gaza, not Israel proper. I'm talking about an influx of Palestinians inside Israel. Yes. The solution you propose would newly turn parts of Israel into the West Bank and Gaza in terms of population mix, I don't quite see why you don't think that the First Intifada is a relevant comparison. This time there wouldn't be anywhere to withdraw to, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:What's abstract about it? A bunch of white Europeans displaced the native occupants, killed many of them, and left the remnants in what is essentially a series of ghettos. Most of these "Europeans" aren't white and were actually in turn kicked out of other Middle Eastern countries. There is also no source country, which is what you normally need for a colony (and for it to make sense to demand that people "go back"). Who is the colonizing country?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The best thing for the people displaced by Israel is probably to get citizenship in neighboring Arab countries and get on with their lives. It's a tragedy that it is made so difficult for them. This worked out really well for all the refugees in Lebanon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:This worked out really well for all the refugees in Lebanon.  quote:Palestinians in Lebanon refers to the Palestinian refugees, who fled to Lebanon during the 1948 Palestine war and their descendants, as well as Palestinians expelled from Jordan, following the events of Black September. Many Palestinians and their descendants have never been naturalized, thus keeping a distinct status of "Palestinian refugee"s. Some Palestinians, mostly Christians, however did receive Lebanese citizenship, either through marriage with Lebanese nationals or by other means. Yeah, keeping them in refugee camps and not allowing them to get naturalized precipitated their remaining an ostracized minority, so the opposite of what was being suggested. Read the whole article, it's kind of hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If we're going by 1967, should we not also relocate people who settled there post 1967? The settlers who stole land in the years after 1967 ( and their descendants) should be absolutely be relocated to Isreal proper. There is no fixing this without some more ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The Israeli police and military are more than enough to ensure order inside the borders of Israel, even if millions of Palestinians were suddenly welcomed there. I mean they certainly are, but wouldn't want to see how they would do that. Maybe - and that's a long future maybe - one day thing things might be forced to the point that Jewish Israelis will accept a binational state with a demographic parity. Maybe they will wage war against the settlers to get a Jewish state anyway against the reality of demographics. You will never get them to accept to become another vastly outnumbered minority. It would be a bigger bloodbath then what we have now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I can actually imagine some kind of student union earnestly adopting a resolution to the effect that because of the patronizing and sinister unfair effect of benevolent / philanthropic colonialism, that the rich nations of the world must stop aid to the undeveloped ones. Because it isn't right to make them feel like they shouldn't cross us for fear the aid stops. There is more than enough room inside of Israel for everyone. The Palestinians shouldn't need to pack their bags and move to another country when said countries do not want them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yeah, keeping them in refugee camps and not allowing them to get naturalized precipitated their remaining an ostracized minority, so the opposite of what was being suggested. But if they weren't ostracized and parked in camps, then they would be a threat to national security! They cannot be allowed to become citizens in Lebanon or elsewhere for the exact same reason they cannot be allowed to return to their homeland in what is now Israel, namely that their violence is in their genes and not at all a consequence of callous oppression. Dead Reckoning posted:How is it not supported by evidence? In November, two Palestinians entered a synagogue in Jerusalem and tried to kill as many members of the congregation as possible. I can go dig up a whole list of suicide bombings, home invasion murders, and similar mass killings if you really want. South Africa is notable for being an exception to the trend and having a peaceful transfer of power, but it's just that: an exception. An unfortunately large amount of the modern history of the Middle East involves a previously dispossessed group getting their hands on the levers of power and then turning around and engaging in the suppression or ethnic cleansing of their rivals. It's literally happening right now in Iraq, and it happened in Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and I'm sure a few other places I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:But if they weren't ostracized and parked in camps, then they would be a threat to national security! They cannot be allowed to become citizens in Lebanon or elsewhere for the exact same reason they cannot be allowed to return to their homeland in what is now Israel, namely that their violence is in their genes and not at all a consequence of callous oppression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How is it not supported by evidence? In November, two Palestinians entered a synagogue in Jerusalem and tried to kill as many members of the congregation as possible. I can go dig up a whole list of suicide bombings, home invasion murders, and similar mass killings if you really want. I could create a similar list of Israeli massacres against Palestinians. I could even divide it up into separate categories for mass killings committed by the Israeli state, mass killings committed by roving right-wing gangs or militias, and mass killings committed by settlers. Incidentally, that last one is the most significant to this discussion by far, because no one seems concerned about halting settler immigration onto Palestinian territory on the grounds that those mean old violent settlers might commit violence against the Palestinians. Even though there's violence on both sides, for some reason only one side's violence matters when it comes time to discuss policy. I don't buy the unbiased fairness of someone who claims that the oppression of Palestinians is a sad but necessary policy needed to innocent civilians from violence, because it does absolutely nothing to protect the Palestinians from settler terrorism. The apartheid system does nothing to protect the oppressed group from violence committed by members of the oppressor group, and in the case of the West Bank, it actually encourages the settlers to commit violence in order to drive out Palestinians so that they can seize more land. Xander77 posted:The establishment of the state of Israel was a conspiracy to force - force I say - the Arab nations to spend billions on armaments to throw the Jews into the sea instead of investing said billions into their own economy. When an expansionist terrorist army seizes a bunch of land right on your borders by military force you need to ramp up your spending for defensive purposes, regardless of whether you plan on attacking them. Especially after the Suez Crisis and Six-Day War. Certainly Israel benefited from a heavy inflow of Western money and arms that the Arab countries had to ramp up their own spending to counter. It's also certainly true that many Western countries found a strong Israel to be a useful threat to the rebellious anti-West Arab nations as well as perceived Soviet expansion - as France demonstrated very well in 1956. Absurd Alhazred posted:Most of these "Europeans" aren't white and were actually in turn kicked out of other Middle Eastern countries. There is also no source country, which is what you normally need for a colony (and for it to make sense to demand that people "go back"). Who is the colonizing country? Most of the ones who originally founded the country were white; the Mizrahi came only after the colonial project had already begun. Yitzhak Rabin's birth name was Yitzhak Rubitzov, Golda Meir's birth name was Golda Mabovich, David Ben-Gurion's birth name was David Grun, and Shimon Peres' birth name was Szymon Perski. Pretty much all the prominent early Zionists involved in the founding of Israel and expulsion of the Palestinians were Ashkenazi who were either European immigrants or the children of European immigrants. There's no need for there to be a single country responsible for all of the colonization, either - who is the colonizing country of Canada? I count at least two, and the US is made up of colonial projects from at least four other countries plus a few colonial projects of its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:There is more than enough room inside of Israel for everyone. The Palestinians shouldn't need to pack their bags and move to another country when said countries do not want them. As hard as it must be to be unwanted, surely some realism can seep in and we can agree that the one jewish state not wanting them has a tiny bit more significance than the wishes of the many other Arab states. It's almost as if the Arab states are cynically treating them as pawns in some kind of game. But, instead, I'm sure we'll be dragged once more into the fetid muck of pathological, useless over-abstraction. Chin up! For some reason it is our duty to ignore the facts of history! Only by ignoring them can we come to the desired conclusion! And what could possibly matter more than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:As hard as it must be to be unwanted, surely some realism can seep in and we can agree that the one jewish state not wanting them has a tiny bit more significance than the wishes of the many other Arab states. Nobody wants them because nobody wants refugees. It's Israel who displaced them so it's Israel's job to take care of them. Lebanon isn't bombing Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Nobody wants them because nobody wants refugees. It's Israel who displaced them so it's Israel's job to take care of them. Lebanon isn't bombing Gaza. Ah, yes. The argument of the Australian right. It isnt Australia's job to care for refugees. They should all be sent back. They should be forced by disincentives to go back. Disincentives on Nauru. Australia didn't wrong these people, Australia has no obligation to help at all. With your pronouncement, we can once and for all do away with this pesky notion of a humanitarian obligation to refugees. Send them back! Nothing to do with us! After all, if Canberra isn't pulling out their fingernails, Canberra owes them nothing! God speed home! Let your fate be upon the heads of others! hakimashou fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:41
|
|