Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Gaza under attack yet again.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"@Zee_Gaza
I don't want to be referred to as an Arab, Arabs failed us all in this plight. I'm a Palestinian Canaanite."
Exodus 3:8
"And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites."

Exodus is a decent record of the first ethnic cleansing of the Land of Caanan by the Israelites
AS such it seems a fair statement of future intetent
Fair play the first timethey did buy the land for the Temple from the Jebusites and even still use the name for the Jebusite capital, Jerusalem

"The Jebusites contested David's entrance into Jerusalem (II Sam. v. 6-8). Later a notable Jebusite, Araunah, or Ornan, sold his thrashing-floor to David for the erection of an altar (II Sam. xxiv. 18-24; I Chron. xxi. 18-25). The Jebusites as well as the other tribes that had not been exterminated were reduced to serfdom by Solomon (I Kings ix. 20, 21). In the expression of Zechariah," and Ekron will be as a Jebusite" (Zech. ix. 7), "Jebusite" must be taken to mean "Jerusalemite."


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8542-jebusites

Seems to justified by a Holy Book again

The Jebusites as well as the other tribes that had not been exterminated were reduced to serfdom by Solomon (I Kings ix. 20, 21)
 
Last edited:
Exodus 3:8
"And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites."

Exodus is a decent record of the first ethnic cleansing of the Land of Caanan by the Israelites
AS such it seems a fair statement of future intetent
Fair play the first timethey did buy the land for the Temple from the Jebusites and even still use the name for the Jebusite capital, Jerusalem

"The Jebusites contested David's entrance into Jerusalem (II Sam. v. 6-8). Later a notable Jebusite, Araunah, or Ornan, sold his thrashing-floor to David for the erection of an altar (II Sam. xxiv. 18-24; I Chron. xxi. 18-25). The Jebusites as well as the other tribes that had not been exterminated were reduced to serfdom by Solomon (I Kings ix. 20, 21). In the expression of Zechariah," and Ekron will be as a Jebusite" (Zech. ix. 7), "Jebusite" must be taken to mean "Jerusalemite."


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8542-jebusites

Seems to justified by a Holy Book again

The Jebusites as well as the other tribes that had not been exterminated were reduced to serfdom by Solomon (I Kings ix. 20, 21)

For God to give them that particular piece of land would suggest that He didnt like His chosen people very much; its been a battlefield for almost every one of the past thirty-five centuries.
 
Exodus 3:8
Exodus is a decent record of the first ethnic cleansing of the Land of Caanan by the Israelites
AS such it seems a fair statement of future intetent
Fair play the first timethey did buy the land for the Temple from the Jebusites and even still use the name for the Jebusite capital, Jerusalem

The Samaritans, on the other hand, portray the builders of the Jerusalem Temple as idolatrous splittists who falsified history to erase them and their Temple on Mount Gezirim.

See for example http://www.spiegel.de/international...lem-may-not-be-the-first-temple-a-827144.html
 
^
Set me off again, too.
The absolute murderous nature of bombing displaced and wounded civilians in what should be places of sanctuary (as far as there can be any fucking 'sanctuary') is just horrific...and any government that doesn't outright condemn what the Israeli govt is doing, has blood on their hands. This is just awful. :(
 
israeligenocideamerica.jpg


With the time stamps it's even more poignant, I think.
 
That's pretty weak don't you think?

No I don't. You're forgetting the wider global picture post WW2. Egypt was the USSR's major regional player under Nasser and as one after another of the various tinpot Quisling post-colonial monarchies of the arab world were toppled - Iraq, Libya, Egypt etc etc there was a clear sense that the USSR would end up controlling the world's oil supply by gaining control of the entire region politically, not militarily. Anti-western, arab nationalist socialism - baathism - was a huge threat to US/western aims. Israel was the one absolute certainty for the USA in that region. Still is.

Your stuff about the Israel lobby making all this happen is the tail wagging the dog.
 
Top journalist Jon Snow just told Hamas guy that Israel is only killing people because Hamas keeps attacking them. (!)

This is a pathetic misrepresentation of Israel's strategy.
 
Last edited:
Something will happen in the next 15 years. The demographic timebomb that the zionists fear will explode soon. It will be a minority brutally repressing a majority. Such situations have always ended in mass bloodshed.

Right, hey up - "demographic time bomb" - what's that about? Cos I've heard it from a lot of people that part of the reason for the mentality of Jewish Israeli's in regard to any kind of one state solution is that the relative birthrates of Israeli Jews and Palestinians means that they would soon be the minority in any one state formation. Now that to me sounds like a whole load of dodgy racist bollocks and I'm all sold on the neccessity of a two-state solution, at least in terms of rhetoric. Anyone else shed a little light? I've checked out birthrates and it seems like a lot of nonsense to me.
 
my housemate said last night as a possible solution "why don't they (Israel) give them a bit of territory to the south and take a bit to the north and gradually push gaza out of Israel"

er ...

Used to know an acidhead that believed the situation in Gaza could and should be solved by "giving the Jews the Nevada desert". When I told him I didn't think the US would agree to this, he said that that was because they hadn't thought of it and when he explained it to them they'd get on it right away.
 
Yes, it should be on the C4 site later.

He was really very bullish about it.

On the one hand, I thought perhaps he was acting under pressure, after the complaints were made about his youtube video (complaints that reporters shouldn't give personal opinions like that - and indeed there are apparently ofcom rules in place which is why he had to put it on youtube and not on air). The typical reporter strategy is usually to feign rigorous questioning against people they don't necessarily want to question in that way, in order to provide a semblance of 'balance'.

But then I thought, the way he was doing it I actually believe he was being genuine in his anger. I can understand that anger - even though I believe it's misjudged to channel it at those who only exist as a result of oppression from a far more powerful oppressor. I can understand the frustration - his argument that if they only stopped firing they'd call Israel's bluff, in a way - and if it really was the case that Israel wants to kill them all and destroy Gaza then it would help the case against Israel if they continued doing so after Hamas stopped firing rockets. I think that's where his frustration came from. But, as I said, in the battle for hearts and minds, that sort of thing is better said behind closed doors, and condemnation should be reserved solely for the powerful oppressor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom