Thanks. I appreciate the interaction. If you stop midway, then I will assume that you have other intentions.
"[T]he Nakba happened after Israel was attacked by six neighboring Arab countries, after Jewish leaders formed the State of Israel."
OK. So, we have "Israelis" "...form[ing] a State..." Again, how? From what? From whose land? From whose authority? Who decides these things? The people who live there? The British colonizers?? I understand it was advertised as "a land without a people", but that this was a false claim. So what makes it true?
Thus, it still appears to me irrelevant that "the Nakba", the blowing up of the situation into a larger tragedy, happened *after* some presumably spontaneous attack by the Palestinians/Arabs on Jews, minding their own business. All because Arabs have an Abrahamic(!) religion that, somehow, promotes unmanageable mass insanity. That, somehow, wasn't causing the west major problems as late as the early 20th century. That, somehow, completely undid decades of Western influence "modernizing" the Muslim world until that time.
It simply strains credulity that it's that simple. But that's exactly the kind of thing that's always advertised. It's the reason I've lost patience with Israel's apologists. And if a fool like me will risk asking these questions in public, you'd better believe anyone else with a 3-digit IQ, after a lifetime watching the Middle East, are asking it of themselves in private, and with others with the phones off (if they are not deep in denial). And so they are. But if we're stupid and ignorant, what's there to worry about? Just answer our (decades-accumulating) questions, and we'll go "Doh!" like Homer, and back to our hamster treadmills with smiley faces!
"[Israel] had clearly done nothing wrong"
Could you show where and why he asserts this? Was his opinion widely held, and if not, why not?
"All of the land that Jewish people owned was purchased or had been owned by those Jewish families for a very long time."
Under which authority, prior to colonialists? How were the prior relations between different under that authority, such that there was no terrorism between Muslims and Jews? How were Jews were there "a very long time", on presumably the same plots of land, unless they were living peaceably under that rule? If so, why was that rule not replaced?
Stuck in my mind is the fact that the relevant perpetrators of crimes against Jews were *in Europe*. Not Palestine. Thus, big hurdle there, to *not* take land from the perps, and instead take it from, well ... somewhere, anywhere else. What is the overly compelling reason? An ancient text that the *current*, living occupants did/do not believe in? Is that all they had??
Thanks. I appreciate the interaction. If you stop midway, then I will assume that you have other intentions.
"[T]he Nakba happened after Israel was attacked by six neighboring Arab countries, after Jewish leaders formed the State of Israel."
OK. So, we have "Israelis" "...form[ing] a State..." Again, how? From what? From whose land? From whose authority? Who decides these things? The people who live there? The British colonizers?? I understand it was advertised as "a land without a people", but that this was a false claim. So what makes it true?
Thus, it still appears to me irrelevant that "the Nakba", the blowing up of the situation into a larger tragedy, happened *after* some presumably spontaneous attack by the Palestinians/Arabs on Jews, minding their own business. All because Arabs have an Abrahamic(!) religion that, somehow, promotes unmanageable mass insanity. That, somehow, wasn't causing the west major problems as late as the early 20th century. That, somehow, completely undid decades of Western influence "modernizing" the Muslim world until that time.
It simply strains credulity that it's that simple. But that's exactly the kind of thing that's always advertised. It's the reason I've lost patience with Israel's apologists. And if a fool like me will risk asking these questions in public, you'd better believe anyone else with a 3-digit IQ, after a lifetime watching the Middle East, are asking it of themselves in private, and with others with the phones off (if they are not deep in denial). And so they are. But if we're stupid and ignorant, what's there to worry about? Just answer our (decades-accumulating) questions, and we'll go "Doh!" like Homer, and back to our hamster treadmills with smiley faces!
"[Israel] had clearly done nothing wrong"
Could you show where and why he asserts this? Was his opinion widely held, and if not, why not?
"All of the land that Jewish people owned was purchased or had been owned by those Jewish families for a very long time."
Under which authority, prior to colonialists? How were the prior relations between different under that authority, such that there was no terrorism between Muslims and Jews? How were Jews were there "a very long time", on presumably the same plots of land, unless they were living peaceably under that rule? If so, why was that rule not replaced?
Stuck in my mind is the fact that the relevant perpetrators of crimes against Jews were *in Europe*. Not Palestine. Thus, big hurdle there, to *not* take land from the perps, and instead take it from, well ... somewhere, anywhere else. What is the overly compelling reason? An ancient text that the *current*, living occupants did/do not believe in? Is that all they had??