Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

will israel destroy 100 000 houses in Jerusalem ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • will israel destroy 100 000 houses in Jerusalem ?

    Ive just seen that they started to demolish palestinian houses in Jerusalem, where around 300 000 palestinians live. As everyone already know, battle for future of Jerusalem has already started.


    Will israelish push 300 000 palestinians out of the city by destroying over 100 000 homes ?


    https://youtu.be/SDW4cWQHYms​​​​​​


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...​​

  • #2
    Originally posted by Daud View Post
    (…) . As everyone already know, battle for future of Jerusalem has already started.
    Not just started, it's been going on for a couple of thousand years at least.

    Jews, Christians, Muslims - it's nothing short of an everlasting gang bang is it
    High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      Not just started, it's been going on for a couple of thousand years at least.

      Jews, Christians, Muslims - it's nothing short of an everlasting gang bang is it
      I dont think that there is anything nice in crushing someones home and making people homeless, yet they cheer and celebrate


      https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...video.php&_rdr



      These​​​​​​ bastards are as vile as isil is. They just doing it more smoothly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Shouldn't take long for someone to post a u-tube clip of Palestinians cheering on some similar inappropriate occasion, they're a very excitable crowd over there…..

        "....a child's hand is easily filled..."
        High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Jason Greenblatt and the Inconvenient Truth of Palestinian Rejectionism

          by EJ Kimball
          The Daily Wire
          September 20, 2019
          ...

          Mainstream media outlets have derided President Trump's yet-to-be-released Israeli-Palestinian peace plan as a "sideshow divorced from reality" that is "destined to fail," and it's become fashionable to attribute this to the shortcomings of his soon-to-be-departed Middle East special envoy, Jason Greenblatt. But claims that Greenblatt "wasn't the right guy" for the job are dead wrong. Whatever the outcome of the plan, he has arguably done more to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians than any American diplomat in recent memory.

          Though coming into government with comparatively little knowledge of, or experience dealing with, the Middle East, Greenblatt keenly understood that the primary source of the festering conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the unwillingness of Palestinian leaders to accept a Jewish state as a legitimate political entity.

          Hamas and Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders may disagree over tactics and political vision, but they share an absolute rejection of living alongside Israelis as equals, and thus see no need to tone down the viciously anti-Semitic content of their educational curriculum, halt violent anti-Israel incitement on state-run media outlets, or take other steps essential to a good-faith conflict resolution.

          For a quarter century, Greenblatt's predecessors glossed over such harsh realities in their zeal to coax PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and his successor as Palestinian Authority (PA) president, Mahmoud Abbas, into signing agreements and smiling for the cameras.

          U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz's pandering to Yasser Arafat was widely derided at the time.

          Much of the language used to do the glossing has changed little. In 1988, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz coached Arafat on the words he needed to utter so that the Reagan administration could say the PLO had "renounced" terrorism. Nearly three decades later, President Obama and his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, could be found repeating the mantra that Abbas had "long since renounced violence" — never mind that the bloodiest period of Palestinian terrorism was sandwiched between. As rejectionism and incitements to violence running rampant in Palestinian society continually thwarted any movement toward peace, high-level U.S. diplomats continued their incessant glossing.

          From his first days on the job, rather than parroting the false narratives and biased framing that had become staples of ineffective American diplomacy, Greenblatt set out to publicly discredit them.

          This is most striking in his use of terminology. In his frequent public statements, Greenblatt rejected both the term "occupied" to describe disputed territories controlled by Israel and the word "settlements" to describe Jewish towns and villages there. He pointedly abstained from using the term "refugees" to describe the 5.4 million Palestinians registered by UNRWA, on the grounds that "only a very small fraction" of them are true refugees who fled their homes during the 1948 war for Israel's independence.

          So eager was Greenblatt to fundamentally recast the lexicon of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that he declined even to use the well-worn phrase "two-state solution" in characterizing the ultimate aim of American diplomacy. "You can't take ... a conflict as complex as this and boil it down to those three words," he explained to PBS in July 2019.
          ...
          https://www.meforum.org/59377/jason-...eid=062f3a999b

          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X