No. I acknowledged that the Electronic Intifada was one sided. You said it was reliable.
Yes its reliable as it reflects views on the conflict from the Palestinian perspective.
That was your argument. You said that the Jews purchased all the land. Now you're calling that same argument pathetic. You don't even care what you say, as long as you can twist it to make the Israelis look good.
LOL
I never said Jews purchased ALL the land. Before the war, they built settlements on purchased land. After the war, they built settlements wherever it suited them as they now had a sovereign country. Big difference
You're jumping from one argument to another. First you say the Jews paid for all the land. When I told you they paid for very little and took the rest by force, you're saying the Europeans took over Native American land - so essentially you're admitting the two situations are similar, and are therefore saying that the only way to make the Israelis look good is to compare their actions with mass genocide. Good to know.
Entirely not true. Early Jewish settlements were built on land they purchased from Arabs and others during the Ottoman-era. Here is how Tel Aviv, Israel's most important city to this date was founded:
In the spring of 1909, when Palestine was still under Ottoman rule, sixty-six Jewish families took possession of lots in Karm al-Jabali, on the northern outskirts of the ancient port city of Jaffa near the Mediterranean coast amidst dunes, vineyards, and orchards. There they established a “garden suburb” called Ahuzat Bayit (“Homestead”), which was soon renamed Tel Aviv, or Hill of Spring. This was a scriptural allusion – the prophet Ezekiel [3:15] mentions a place in Babylonia called Tel Aviv – and it also possessed a contemporary political resonance: Tel Aviv was the Hebrew title of the book Altneuland (Old/New Land), in which the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl outlined his utopian vision for the Holy Land. The Ahuzat Bayit Society was founded in Jaffa in 1906, at the initiative of Akiva Aryeh Weiss (1868-1947), a Russian-born jeweler and watchmaker with a strong interest in architecture and urban planning. The Eliasaf Robinson Collection includes several original contracts, in Arabic and Hebrew, documenting the leasing and purchase of lots in the Ahuzat Bayit settlement by members of the "founding families."
Ahuzat Bayit and the Founding of Tel Aviv in 1909 | SUL
All original documents regarding the purchase of land by the Jews in Tel Aviv is given in that above link. So your claim that Jews stole all the land are utterly false. Before the war, they built all the settlements on purchased land. If the original idea was to take the land by force from the natives, there was no need to purchase any of it in the first place with huge sums of money.
180 million is India's Muslim population today. And do you realise that you're saying the exact opposite of what you were saying before - before you said Pakistan took a disproportionate amount of land from the Indians, and now you're saying that Pakistan should've taken more land because there still are Muslims left in India.
Not really. You are the one that started saying original partition of Palestine was "unfair" while the Partition of India was "fair". I rejected your claims that partition of India was fair as there are now almost as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. So tell me how that partition was "fair" in terms of land distribution
Both partition of Palestine and India in 1947 was unfair for the Muslims. For Indian Muslims because of Two-Nation theory and for Palestinians because they rejected earlier much fair partition
The Two-Nation theory is not ''so-called'', there are two nations therefore it is perfectly appropriately called the two-nation theory. If you think it's ''so-called'', you should get rid of that Pakistani flag under your name.
Two-nation theory collapsed East Pakistanis violently rebelled and broke lose in a new nation of Bangladesh. Indian Muslims now have same population as entire population of Pakistan. If Bangladeshi Muslims, Indian Muslims, Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistani Muslims actually form only one-nation per two-nation theory, why the heck are they divided in so many different political entities unlike one Jewish Israel?
Yes, I believe Two-Nation theory was false because it failed to unite all Indian Muslims under its banner the way Zionism did in Palestine. And regarding the flag under my banner, why should I remove it when I was born and raised in Pakistan and can speak, write its national language Urdu fluently? شرم تم کو مگر نہیں آتی!
That the Arabs attacked with too many armies and therefore wanted to genocide the Jews. That's absolute bull. As I have said before, if the Americans invading Iraq with fifty armies doesn't mean genocide, neither does the Arabs intervening in Palestine with five armies.
LOL
So now you somehow equate Allied-coalition of many countries invading Iraq with Arab-coalition of 5 countries attacking recently formed Jewish State. I didn't know you were that stupid. Tell me, what would have been the ultimate consequences if Jews had lost that war in 1948?
Would they receive same rights as Israeli Arabs do today? Or they should have had same kind of "rights" minorities enjoy in Muslim majority countries today
It was the Arabs selling them the land. The British allowed it, yes, but it was still being bought from Arab landowners.
No, the land purchases began in the Ottoman-era. British only furthered continuation of old practices. They were not allowing anything new if its that you believe
:
We were talking about a hypothetical scenario of the future in which he Palestinians are expelled from Palestine.
Cut this BS already!
If Jews wanted to expel ALL Palestinian Arabs from the occupied territories, they would have done so quite easily with ethnic cleansing since 6-day war. The very fact that Palestinian Arab population has actually GROWN over the years despite the military presence of Israeli Defense Forces for decades disproves any of your hypothetical scenarios of mass expulsion:
Since 2005, Palestinian Arab population numbers the same as Israeli Jewish population
So much for ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of eternal refugees by evil Jews
Some are worse than others. If you use this justification to say Zionism is OK, you have no right to complain about ''Islamism'' either - using the same justification of course, since Takfirism is worse than Islamism and Nazism is worse than that - you can always find something worse. Not a good way of justifying something.
I am not justifying Zionism in anyway in this thread. No political, religious ideology can be "justified" as it always goes against somebody else. Two-nation theory went against one Indian national identity. Zionism went against one Palestinian identity. So what? If you can somehow justify two-nation theory, because it suits your Muslim identity, then Jews have similar right to justify their identity with Zionism, rather Arab nationalism in Palestine
I am not comparing Zionism with Islamism or Takfirism with Nazism. All ideologies have their pros and cons for some groups of people. No ideology is PERFECTLY justified for ALL PEOPLE. If you know of a such an ideology, be my guest
Islam includes many socio-political and economic ideas. Where do you draw the line between Islam and Islamism?
I do not see Islam as a socio-political religion. Sure Islamic teachings give us some ideas about how politics, economy and social life should be. But still Islam remains a religion just like Judaism, Christianity or other Abrahamic religions. The very fact some Muslims insist they cannot distinguish between Islam's religious teachings with its socio-political teachings is the reason why Islamists are born.
Its quite easy if you wish to draw a thin line between and Islam and Islamism. As long Islam is confined to the 4 corners of your mosque, your home, your religious ceremonies, it remains a religion. At once you take out Islam and start implementing its teachings in your national constitution, in your civil laws, in your social fabric of life, it's no longer a religion. Islam then becomes a socio-political force that defines each and every moment of your life. Its when an Islamic State based on Shariah is born
Parroting this term without a proper definition will get you nowhere. And neither will personal attacks.
I have already given you many many differences between Islam and Islamism. But since your thick head is programmed to not see it, I cannot help you
Commonly accepted? By whom? Western non-Muslims?
By everyone except the Islamists. An Islamist cannot distinguish between the religion of Islam and its political, social, economic aspects. For an Islamist, Islam is everything from cradle to the grave. For him Islam is not a part of his life but his life is Islam
If you still cannot understand this basic difference, you clearly are biased person
Political aspects of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Political Islam - Islam's ideology about unbelievers, Kafirs
No different from the IDF then.
No different from the Pakistani Army or Indian Army then
Are you such a knucklehead that you cannot distinguish between various Islamic militant factions from official defense forces of a sovereign nation such as Israel?
If you believe IDF to be a terrorist organisation on the same level as Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, then you should consult your nearest psychologist immediately!
Here you have some badasss IDF terrorists rescuing people from rubble in Nepal:
IDF rescuers work for hours to free 24-year-old Krishna Kumari; 15-year-old Pemba Tamang evacuated to Israeli field hospital after 120 hours in wreckage of collapsed seven-story building in Kathmandu.
Israelis rescue woman from rubble 5 days after Nepal quake - Israel News, Ynetnews
You are such a biased person who first cannot distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and now cannot distinguish between IDF and Islamic terror organisations
No means none. A better term to use would've been 'little'. And why do you keep using 'they' to distance yourself from Muslims?
I never distanced myself from Muslims. I am trying to be as objective as possible when typing.
Ah, the classic ''I didn't really mean it'' defense. At least have the intellectual courage to admit you were wrong.
Again, I never meant all Muslims had no brains. I always wrote in comparison with someone else
That definition doesn't make any sense - does that mean an Islamist thinks everything he does is part of religion or does that mean he thinks he shouldn't do anything that is not part of religion?
That is right. Islamist thinks everything he does is part of his religion.
We Muslims do not drink alcohol or eat pork. Its against our religious teachings. Westerners respect that and do not force these substances down our throat. They give us freedom of choice.
But Islamists do not think it that way. They believe such prohibitions are for each and every member of their multi-religious society. Ergo, they do not believe in choice. In UK, where you live, Islamists patrol in the streets and prohibit people from consuming alcohol. What the heck? If you still cannot understand this basic difference what can I do?
Hooded 'Muslim Patrol' vigilantes remove alcohol from drinkers and tell women to cover up as they stalk London suburb
Hooded 'Muslim Patrol' vigilantes remove alcohol from drinkers and tell women to cover up | Daily Mail Online
Sharia patrols, also referred to as
Muslim patrols or
Modesty patrols, involving a group or several groups of young Muslim men, members of an organisation self-named the
Shariah Project,
[1] have patrolled streets in
East London since at least early 2013. Early that year, videos of their activities, filmed by members of the patrol, were uploaded online:
[2] these showed hooded members of the patrol confronting passers-by and demanding that they conform to
Sharia law.
[3] They targeted
prostitutes, people
drinking alcohol, couples who were holding hands, women whom they considered to be
dressed immodestly, and harassed others whom they perceived as being
gay.
[4][5][6]
Sharia patrols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want to talk about people who deliberately impose peripheral elements of religion (yes, beards and Hijabs are peripheral elements) into every sphere of their life, simply calling them extremists or mullahs would suffice.
I wouldn't call them extremists. Because it's not an extreme thing to wear Sikh turban (Dastar) throughout your life as it's part of their religious customs. Such an imposition is clearly not extremism. But when you are starting to impose such even when it's against dress code of your local job or national service, only then it can be classified as religiously extreme and Islamist in nature
If you think there is an inherent flaw in Muslims, name it. What is this inherent flaw?
Of course there is no inherent flaw in Muslims. I never said that. What I meant was that Jews used their brains more effectively and progressively than Muslims. Its not a FLAW, rather a different way of using your brains. I said I didn't know the reason of this. It could be because of their culture of learning, their children's upbringing etc etc.
Jewish Parenting - Judaism and Raising Kids - How to Raise Children / Lawrence Kelemen
Now, its worth mentioning that not all Jews turn out to be wealthy or successful. There are plenty of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are just poor and ordinary like everybody else. But again, relatively as a people, they are more successful than Muslims which is an undeniable fact. And there is nothing wrong in stating that fact
According to the passages quoted by you, most official documents referred to them as separate mandates. So that makes it clear that the document I had quoted earlier about the population of Mandatory Palestine excluding Trans-Jordan actually did exclude Trans-Jordan - my argument stands unscathed.
I never denied that Trans-Jordan was excluded from the original Palestine Mandate. And I blamed British Mandate authorities for this. Their role as Mandate authorities was to establish Jewish National Home in Palestine, not diving that Mandate in two and barring Jews from settling there. It was against the rules as setup by League of Nations when they gave Britain that responsibility. Sure Britain many wartime promises to both Jews and Arabs and double-crossed both of them by signing another secret treaty with France. It doesn't make Jews alone responsible for the eventual outcome at the end of British Palestine Mandate.
What I meant was a clear hypocrisy by the Arab leaders, that they didn't even care when original Palestine Mandate from 1920 was divided in two in 1922 to form Transjordan, rather they only started crying when Jews were allocated a small territory as recommended by Peel Commission in 1937. So as long Arabs are allocated huge chunks of land by the Mandate authorities, its fine, but as soon Jews are allocated a lot less land, its cry me the crocodile tears all over again
So you are being sarcastic and not actually defending Zionism. Or you're just flip-flopping to make it look like your arguments make sense or are right, and that your wrong arguments were just sarcasm. Again, have the intellectual courage to admit you were wrong. Or don't bother trying to defend said wrong arguments.
Right on. I am not defending Zionism. I never defended any ideology to this date as ALL man-made ideologies are inherently flawed. They are all good for some groups of people and bad for others. That's why I hate all kinds of 'isms'. Capitalism is good only for the capital owners. Socialism is good only for the non-capitalist class. I have yet to find an ideology that has no flaws and can be deemed good for all people without distinction.
Did I say Afghanistan wasn't invaded because of 9/11? No, I didn't. I said Iraq wasn't invaded because of 9/11.
At least you now you admit that 9/11 was the reason Afghanistan was invaded. 19 jihadi terrorists, all hailing from Arab countries, blowing up two Americans buildings with planes, resulting in allied invasion of third-world Muslim countries. This is all about dealing with the consequences of your actions which these terrorists have no abilities to comprehend
If their leaders knew that disproportionate response to these seemingly "harmless" terrorist actions will result in US flattening two entire countries along with the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocent people, they probably would not have carried them out in the first place!!! So I stand vindicated again: These Muslim terrorists and their leaders have no brains
You don't ''get'' anything. Yet another pathetic attempt at character assassination by saying I believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories even though I never said so.
Nice to know
They need to work on unity, yes. Disunity is a big problem in the Muslim world. It isn't funny though, it's actually a problem.
Again, there is no such thing as Muslim Ummah as two-nation theory that created Pakistan fell like house of cards when East Pakistan violently broke off into a completely new nation of Bangladesh. A new nation which West Pakistan took lots of time to recognize because of a national theoretical disaster!!!
Haganah was formed in 1920. Irgun was formed in 1931. Both these dates are before 1936.
Yes, in 1920 in response to Arab riots against Jewish communities, and not to STEAL land from the natives as you have claimed over and over again!
After the 1920
Arab riots and 1921
Jaffa riots, the Jewish leadership in Palestine believed that the British, to whom the
League of Nations had given a mandate over Palestine in 1920, had no desire to confront local Arab gangs that frequently attacked Palestinian Jews.
[2][3] Believing that they could not rely on the British administration for protection from these gangs, the Jewish leadership created the Haganah to protect Jewish farms and
kibbutzim. In addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs. In the period between 1920–1929, the Haganah lacked a strong central authority or coordination. Haganah "units" were very localized and poorly armed: they consisted mainly of Jewish farmers who took turns guarding their farms or their kibbutzim.
Haganah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the original idea of Zionist settlement was land theft from the natives, why wait all the way to 1920 to form Haganah and pay lots of money for land purchases for these settlements earlier?
And Irgun was actually formed as a split from original Haganah because its leaders deemed it too restrictive against Arab attacks:
Many Haganah fighters objected to the official policy of
havlagah (restraint) that Jewish political leaders (who had become increasingly controlling of the Haganah) had imposed on the militia. Fighters had been instructed to only defend communities and not initiate counterattacks against Arab gangs or their communities. This policy appeared
defeatist to many who believed that the best defense is a good offense. In 1931, the more militant elements of the Haganah splintered off and formed the
Irgun Tsva'i-Leumi (National Military Organization), better known as "
Irgun" (or by its Hebrew acronym, pronounced "Etzel").
Haganah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Havlaga was and remained the official policy of Haganah as it was dominated by left-wing Jews:
Havlagah means,
our weapon will be pure. We learn weapon, we carry weapon, we resist those who come to attack us, but we do not want our weapon to be stained with blood of innocents... Havlagah is both a political and a moral system, caused by our history and reality, our behavior and the conditions of our fight. If we were not loyal to ourselves and adopted a different strategy, we would have lost the fight a long time ago.
Not with pouring innocent blood our holies' blood would be forgiven, but with new methods to promote our project and a never ending aiming at new actions for our freedom. For our deep sorrow
Jerusalem had seen revenge actions at Arabs, which had stained the honor of the Jewish settlement and put in danger the peace of Jerusalem. The national council gathering...
horrified about these crimes, subverting the moral basics of
Judaism and
Zionism, spreading hatred in this region's nations and can bring a tragedy for the Jewish settlement and the whole land.
Havlagah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While Irgun, Lehi, Stern were militant terrorist factions consisting of mostly right-wing Jews who opposed above policy of Haganah:
The Arab terrorism and its loyal friend; the Jewish restraint, created a situation in which a Jew must avoid many jobs because death was waiting for him on the roads, while an Arab could go anywhere he wants in freedom and do everything he wishes, even in a pure Jewish environment. That is how the Jews' financial lives suffered while the Arabs continued with their normal lives and normal jobs. Defensive actions only will never bring victory. If the purpose of war is breaking the enemy's spirit, it is impossible without breaking his power, so it is obvious that defensive actions only are not enough...
All these calculations lead to one conclusion: one who does not want to be defeated has no option but attack... he should storm his enemy and break his power and desire. Before the enemy will do his attack, he must neutralize the enemy's ability to attack...
... I have mentioned the word "Havlagah", a rare word, never heard before in modern, every-day-life Hebrew language in the Land of Israel. It seems this word is now the most common and hated word in the Land of Israel... The Jews should not distort the facts and complain. In the Land of Israel there are young political activists from the left and the right who are not afraid to clash with British soldiers, who are forcing them to act like cowards. They do not fear about their own lives, they fear for the destruction of the 1917 Balfour declaration and the violation of the alliance between England and Jewish people...
Havlagah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So it's ok to form multiple terrorists groups and start organized massacres in response to a few isolated incidents of violence.
Total BS and clear lack of historical understanding is indicating from your words. While Haganah, the official mitia of Jews in Palestine was clearly defensive in nature, its opposite Irgun was not. Jews at Haganah did not form Irgun to carry out the said organized massacres of Arabs, but it was formed after a political split because Jews in Irgun were right-wingers who opposed restraint and defensive strategy of Haganah. Here is a poster of Irgun which claimed Transjordan as the future land of Israel:
So you see not ALL Jews were expansionist but a certain group of them. As history tells us, Israel never attacked Transjordan but was rather invaded by it in 1948. West Bank remained under Jordanian occupation until 6-day war.
Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, the massacres by Arabs against Jews were not isolated events. Many massacres actually spread throughout many Palestinian cities and villages:
1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I never used the terms ''bad'' or ''evil''. Attributing quotes to me despite me never saying those specific words, now there's a strawman.
Of course you didn't use those words. But all your "arguments" against Zionism indicates that you believe Jews alone were at fault. That they stole that land from the natives and expelled them as a pre-planned policy of Zionist enterprise. When in fact none of this is true.
Violence begets violence. The first Jewish settlers were never violent in nature. They purchased land from the natives for their settlements. They were mostly farmers who grew crops and were not armed mercenaries from a foreign country. It wasn't until Arabs started riots and massacres of Jewish communities from 1920 onwards that any idea of peaceful coexistence with them was thrown out of the window. It was THEN Haganah was formed and not before, which later split into terrorist Irgun, Lehi, Stern and other factions. Now go ahead, blame again the Jews for defending themselves against Arab attackers
You have made yourself believe that because I oppose Zionism I am a mullah conspiracy theorist. That is entirely not true.
You don't just oppose Zionism, you hate it. Big difference. In your view, Zionism is unjust, flawed against the Palestinians. But you never care about the fact that Zionism actually helped Jews achieve their own homeland in just 50 years after more than 2000 years of exile? You never care about the ground reality that Zionist Israel actually give its minorities same civil, religious, political rights as non-Jews. You are one-sided anti-Zionist, and sometimes anti-Jewish who only see the conflict from Palestinian perspective. While I see them from both.
I never said the Jews had control over the Western powers. I said they had the support of the Western powers. Big difference.
Yes. Four Great powers of that time supported Zionism which gave it international legitimacy just like Palestinian Nationalism gets its support in UN these days. As quoted by infamous Balfour of the Balfour Declaration:
For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …the Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires or prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land … I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs … in short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.’
The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism by Stephen Sizer | The Balfour Project
So when you say Zionism is unjust, flawed, incorrect ideology, you are not even wrong. Those who supported Zionism back in the old days knew it very well. Also, they knew very well about the Arab prejudices against Jewish settlers. So its not that I say you are wrong regarding your anti-Zionist views. I have similar grudge against the Zionists when I see from Palestinian perspective. But if you see things from Jewish perspective as well, all bricks fall into their place
I meant attack by the Arab armies. By the way, your list of ''all Arab attacks'' ''before The Peel Commission'' contains 59 attacks by Jewish militants, and many attacks after the Peel Commission. Again, read through articles before you post them.
Are you blind? Here is a complete list of violence in Palestine before 1948:
Timeline of intercommunal violence in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can clearly see it wasn't until 1940, with the formation of Lehi terrorist gang that split from Irgun, that random attacks against Arabs started by Jews.
So essentially you're happy that the Israelis are bullying and coercing the Palestinians into accepting whatever the Israelis say. That's not how negotiation works.
They are neither bullying or coercing them into anything. Actually they are waiting for Palestinian leaders to meet on the negotiating table from which they ran away from years ago
Shortly after the dramatic meeting between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and then-prime minister Ehud Olmert at the latter's Jerusalem residence on Tuesday September 16, 2008, the Palestinian entourage returned to Ramallah. Despite the relatively late hour, Abbas’s advisors and the heads of Fatah arrived at his office; they understood the importance of the moment.
Less than an hour earlier, Olmert presented the details of his offer for a peace deal between the nations, an unprecedented Israeli offer to be tendered to a Palestinian leader.
Olmert essentially agreed to forgo sovereignty of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site, and proposed that in the framework of a peace agreement, the area containing the religious sites in Jerusalem would be managed by a special committee consisting of representatives from five nations: Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, the United States and Israel. The advisors and Fatah officials heard from Abbas that Olmert laid out for him not only the details of the agreement but also a large map upon which he outlined the borders of the future Palestinian state.
Saeb Erekat, head of the Fatah negotiating team, was present at the meeting in Abbas’s office that night and he was also present at the end of the Jerusalem meeting between Olmert and Abbas. He was joined by Olmert’s diplomatic advisor Shalom Turgeman. Olmert and Abbas asked Erekat and Turgeman to meet the next day with map experts in order to reach a final version of the border between Palestine and Israel.
But the next day, the Israeli side claims, Erekat phoned Turgeman and asked to postpone their meeting by 24 hours. A few hours after this call Erekat called back and said that Abbas had to go to Amman. Erekat explained that Abbas would update the Jordanians and the Egyptians about Olmert’s offer in order to receive their support and the parties would meet again the following week. “From that time, I am still waiting for Abbas’s telephone call” Ehud Olmert told Sof Hashavua.
Revealed: Olmert's 2008 peace offer to Palestinians - Diplomacy & Politics - Jerusalem Post
So, 7 years ago, an Israeli left-wing leader OFFERED as much as 93 percent of the West Bank to Palestinians for peace. They rejected the offer and never came back to the negotiating table ever since. Meanwhile new successor right-wing government established many more settlements in the same territories because Palestinians refused to talk or even reply to previous offers for peace by Israel. Buhuu... These evil Jews are always at fault. Palestinians never did anything wrong. Buuhuu
PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank - - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Good that you acknowledged that Muslims have diverse opinions.
Israel will need to back down from the West Bank. That's what compromise is.
It already did in 2008. It offered to back down from 93 % of the West Bank. If it wasn't a compromise, I don't who what a comprise is. But your peaceful Arab leaders refused that once great offer and failed to deliver a counter-offer to this date except whining at the UN of course for Israeli "crimes" against humanity.
No. You made a very general and very vague statement about how ''animals remain animals no matter how much you love them''. Nothing about Hamas in there..
I said that in relation with Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and other terrorist groups. Why would call ordinary Palestinians animals? Are you a retard?
They wouldn't be able to sustain control without committing a large amount of forces and resources. I never said the Israelis were stupid. They always knew their limits and their strengths.
They had historical opportunities to establish Israel from river Nile to the Euphrates in their many wars but failed to act. Why? What happened to their greedy part?
Interesting. What constitutes excessive Islamic brainwashing? Is having Islamic slogans like some units of the Pakistan Army ''excessive''? That's the problem with such facile arguments and terms - they're too ambiguous and well, facile.
Pakistan's army is a national army. It fight it the name of Pakistan and NOT in the name of Islam. Using religious slogans during war is common, even in an army as secular as Israel's. Its obvious from your posts that you know the difference between fighting for Islam and fighting with Islam but you deliberately come with such ad hoc statements for whatever reason
Let's keep it simple and just call it Qital then. Wouldn't want to confuse Islamic concepts too much.
On a serious note, that's actually how most extremist terrorists brainwash recruits - they confuse Islamic concepts, and sprinkle said confusion with some lies. This same type of confusion is found in the minds of terrorist sympathizers. It's dangerous.
There are many kinds of jihad. Lesser Jihad, Greater Jihad, Inner Jihad and so on. I am not against any kind of Jihad unless its armed or enforced. Muslims have a right to practice religious Jihad (struggle) as it fit them, but taking up arms in the name of religious is dangerous. So you are right after all
