Jerusalem 'lorry attack' injures 15

Here you get a few distinct differences, the main thing in terms of arguing from the ethical side is that with those groups we now get either mutual coexistence and integration (mainly of the native into the invader) or autonomy for the natives, with the likes of the Indian reserves in the states, and I'm pretty sure there are similar structures for aborigines and native African tribes. Obviously you also have the far less PC and easy to make argument of Jews and the white settlers be in charge is consistent due to the elevation above the savages, the more advanced and developed have the power in both cases.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree that segregating people based on religion is ridiculous. But it's just a situation where we know creating one unified country is not possible. (Or at least doesn't seem like it) There are Palestinians who are adamant on having their own country, and likewise zionists who are adamant that the land is rightfully theirs and only theirs.

Illegal settlements from certain Israelis and Hamas I feel are the biggest obstacles in achieving a peaceful solution.

He's thinking of Majalli Wahabi, but he's not an Arab, he's Druze.

But surely that is undemocratic? To simply say that the more "advanced and developed" people in society have the power. In which case would it not make sense for Indians and Chinese in the U.K. for example to have the power? Since they outperform the natives in terms of education, economic prosperity etc?

With the likes of the native Americans if memory serves correctly they're practically their own mini states in the reserves with minimal federal interference, including exemptions from stuff like income tax and the draft, however voting rights are lost with it and they don't count towards state populations when it comes to political elements such as districting.

Just to confirm this is correct. It's where the popular image of the Native American casino that you sometimes get in US media comes from. The reserves they live on are de facto independent of US Jurisdiction, which basically makes them the only casinos around in several states where commercial gambling is banned outright. The areas aren't small either, there's a significant one in northern New Mexico which cuts a big circle out of the south-western US.

Ban Lorries, they're too dangerous if they get in the hands of a nutter!

My issue with Palestinian statism specifically is that there's no nation of Palestinians out there in the ether. Not in the way there's a nation of Iranians, Brits, Peruvians, Kurds etc. The people in Gaza and the West Bank are culturally indistinguishable from Jordan and Egypt (the former governors of those territories). There's no distinct culture there. No reason to have a seperate country at all, other than to box in Israel and keep Jews out of East Jerusalem, which is the bit they want the most because that's where all the holy **** is.



They are, but I don't think they contribute to the problem equally.



My mistake. I think that makes me racist.

Mate you're completely lost, Palestinians DO have their own separate culture, foods, language, that originated from Palestine. That statement alone shows the lack of education you have on this matter.

A word of advice, start to read. Books not propaganda.

P.S Jordan didn't even exist before Palestine, you sound a fool.

When did the Palestinian state exist? Because before Israel it was Britain, before Britain it was Ottoman for however many centuries. Jordan certainly did exist while the West Bank and Gaza were still British territory (Sykes-Picot, read a book).

"Before Israel it was Britain", oh God haha.

It is widely known Jesus was born in first century Palestine, what year was that in? The term Palestine has been used since 5th century BC.

Palestine is mentioned in Shakespeare's writing of : "The Life and Death of King John: Scene II."

So just by doing a bit of independent reading outside of the hasbara-sphere I can tell you it's been a couple of thousand years, so tell me again how Palestine has never existed?

Palestine was synonymous with Syria/South Levant for much of its early history as a distinct term, until the British Mandate when the term was used to refer to Israel and Transjordan. There has never been a Palestinian state. There has never even been an Arab Muslim state in that area. There have been two Jewish ones though.

My issue with Palestinian statism specifically is that there's no nation of Palestinians out there in the ether. Not in the way there's a nation of Iranians, Brits, Peruvians, Kurds etc. The people in Gaza and the West Bank are culturally indistinguishable from Jordan and Egypt (the former governors of those territories). There's no distinct culture there. No reason to have a seperate country at all, other than to box in Israel and keep Jews out of East Jerusalem, which is the bit they want the most because that's where all the holy **** is.

Automobiles as a whole do, so let's ban all motor vehicles, not just the lorries that are becoming popular!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Palestine was synonymous with Syria/South Levant for much of its early history as a distinct term, until the British Mandate when the term was used to refer to Israel and Transjordan. There has never been a Palestinian state. There has never even been an Arab Muslim state in that area. There have been two Jewish ones though.

A few points here:
i) There's no nation of anyone "out there in the ether". Nations are intersubjective constructs that only exist insofar as people believe they exist.
ii) Your choice of examples is particularly bizarre, as there are patently no British or Peruvian "nations" in the ethno-cultural sense. Britain is a multinational state of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish (and some would add Cornish). Only a small minority of UK citizens actually identify nationally as "British" - the majority primarily identify with one of the constituent countries. As for Peru, it has a cultural makeup similar to pretty much all of the former Spanish American colonies - the descendants of Spanish Criollo settlers live alongside the indigenous Native Americans. Do you really think White Spanish-speaking Peruvians are more culturally similar to Amerindian Quechua-speaking Peruvians than they are to white Spanish-speaking Bolivians/Mexicans/Chileans/etc? And indeed, many states are not defined by a particular ethno-cultural group; e.g. the USA, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, etc.
iii) Why does it matter? The Palestinians are still being deprived of their civil and political rights regardless. Their ethno-national identification doesn't change that, nor does it change the territorial legalities of the situation. Would you prefer that the occupied territories simply became a full part of Israel and its inhabitants given full citizenship and political rights?

Palestinians who live in Israel are Israeli citizens and therefore entitled to the same rights as anyone else in the country. This does not include the right to use terrorism.

I'm not talking about Palestinians who live in "Israel proper", I'm talking about those who live in the occupied territories.

Those occupied territories were received by right of conquest, squabbles over who's land it is leads to long and unnecessary arguments such as this one. Palestinians should assimilate and become Israeli citizens with their own distinct national identities. A Palestinian state has never existed, and never should do.