Basically, they just felt guilty about what happened...you know, the Holocaust and stuff. So someone came up with the idea of giving them Palestine. You know, to make up for everything that happened to them. But oh dear!! There's already people living the there! Whatever shall we do?! Yeah, right. They did not CARE about the Palestinians. The powers that be allowed the JewishRight, Britain and North America three countries in the alliance that did not enough, to very little in taking refugee's should have then.
Of course the Jews belong there. It is their ancestral home.They don't belong there. It's one thing to migrate to Palestine.
They didn't steal, they were given land by the International community. You wanna blame post-war allies then go ahead, but the creation of Israel was internationally endorsed.It's quite another to steal it from the people who live there; which, by the way, would NEVER have happened without American and British support.
The Palestinians never wanted Jews coming to their land and they made that plane waaaaayyy back in the late '30's- before WW2- and did lots of despicable things to try and make sure it never happened. You wanna know about the relationship between Palestinian leaders and Nazi Germany? It's really interesting.In 1948 alone, over 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes
But one thing was said in (relative) privacy and the other was shouted out in a government building with plenty of people around. They're both vulgar but one of them is very different in terms of expectation of the person saying it.Personally what she said is no way as nasty as grabbing women by the p..... but different people have different opinions, clearly,
Darling. What's even cuter is watching a senior staff member lose her cool over opinions that differ from hers. If a regular member had accused others of anti-Semitism, normally you'd jump in and tell them not to make sweeping statements. It's about the argument, not the person. But we're all human, right? I suppose we're all entitled to an occasional blow up, staff included.Lol, moral outrage from the "landmines, landmines everywhere along the border!" advocate. It's cute. From what I've heard Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib agrees. You sound almost like #44 too, which is kind of funny to me.
Exactly. I can't recall ever hearing vulgarities from Trump. Of course I never much listened to him until he started to campaign, but still... can't recall it ever happening.But one thing was said in (relative) privacy and the other was shouted out in a government building with plenty of people around.
What a odd thought process, belong there like the African diaspora including African Americans belong in Africa? and for that matter, have a right to occupy one of their small countries?Of course the Jews belong there. It is their ancestral home.
It's no odder than somebody stating that a certain group of people don't 'belong' in a place at all. It's the same thought process that Native American activists use and are supported for doing so.What a odd thought process,
Using violence to enforce you're objects is wrong though, and the Palestinians never really tried to live in peace with their Jewish counterparts.How is this strange, nobody wants their homeland occupied without their consent by a foreign alliance.
Obviously there are degrees of dislike, but the fact that all these countries warred on Israel SIMULTANEOUSLY is historical fact. So yes, surrounded by enemies is apt. Many of these countries have promised genocide on the country of Israel.Right, its cosmopolitanism, taking in refugee foreigners and forgiveness as versus nationalism. that is universal. So much for the "We are a small country surrounded by enemies"
Then how do we judge nastiness? If she is not nastier than the leader of the Free World and the the City Upon the Hill, then what other less obvious standard is she failing to meet? .... apart from the Buffy-Boards rules, I mean?I can’t stand this argument when I see it because it exculpates people from their personal responsibility. She is still responsbile for how she chooses to express herself, regardless of how Donald Trump uses his words.
I’m not even sure what you are on about, besides squeezing in a nice snide remark at the end?It is a free world. If she wants to call Trump a motherhugger, then that is her prerogative. Calling her a nasty woman, with all its current and older connotation, was not a nice thing to do either, but you chose to do it. I'd say you both have the right.
Then how do we judge nastiness? If she is not nastier than the leader of the Free World and the the City Upon the Hill, then what other less obvious standard is she failing to meet? .... apart from the Buffy-Boards rules, I mean?
I do, which is why I think both Republicans and Democrats should adhere to the "when they go low, we go high" strategy when faced with inflammatory rhetoric, which is a better long-term strategy to me. It is easy to fall low, I didn't take my own advice in this thread e.g., which is why I prefer to have politicians who at least try to set a better example, rather than roll in the muck with those who don't.My point that it is impossible to avoid comparison, unless you think of the quality of being nasty as an absolute, and you think people who use expletives during political speeches are nasty and those who don't are pleasant.