🥷🏾tɧσนɢɧtɕгıɱıŋศɭ🥷🏾

Moral arguments require consistency Apply your framing to the tens of millions of displacements and millions of deaths in the 22 Arab League nations since 1945, all of which were born in conflict Apply your framing to the 900 000 Jews who were part of this, none of whom were granted refugee status, and all of whom were absorbed and integrated by Israel Why didn’t Arab countries do the same for Palestinians ? Why is your analysis so inconsistent? That is the foundational question

On what moral basis were Palestinians "obligated" to accept partition? They weren’t obligated to like it. They were not obligated to see it as fair. They were entitled to reject it politically. But rejection is not the same as a right to launch or support a war to prevent any Jewish state from existing. By 1947 there were two peoples on the land with competing national claims. Jews were not a random foreign lobby with no connection to the place; they were a people with ancient ties, continuous presence, mass displacement, and a real need for sovereignty after centuries of persecution. Partition was morally imperfect because reality was morally impossible: two peoples claimed the same land, and neither was going to disappear. The moral basis was not that Palestinians owed Jews a debt. It was that Jews also had a right to self-determination, and partition was the proposed compromise between two conflicting claims. The tragedy is that compromise was rejected in favour of war by the Arabs. Palestinian suffering which is historically brought upon by themselves is real but it does not erase Jewish legitimacy and it does not turn rejection of any Jewish sovereignty into moral innocence.

You are arguing against a position I never made. I did not say the Holocaust created a moral debt that Palestinians had to pay. I said Jewish self-determination did not begin with the Holocaust and Israel’s creation cannot be understood honestly without Arab rejection of partition, the civil war, the invasion by Arab armies, and the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries. Palestinian suffering in 1948 was real. But turning that suffering into an argument that Jewish sovereignty itself was illegitimate is the sleight of hand. Two peoples had claims, two peoples suffered, and one side rejected partition because it would not accept any Jewish state. That fact does not disappear because it complicates your narrative.

Isn't it weird that both the Nephilim and the giants in South America and Mesoamerica were destroyed in a flood? This occurred 6,000 years ago during the Solovki Geomagnetic Excursion, that's why there are flood stories coming from China, Sumer, the Bible, Greece, India, Mesoamerica, etc... The last giant hominids were witnessed before the Bronze Age Collapse in the Levant region 3,300 years ago, and in Patagonia in 1500 AD. But there is also a story of the giant in Kandahar witnessed by American soldiers during the Afghanistan war.

That is such a thick, ignorant take. Singapore’s fortunes had been in the doldrums since the 14th or 15th century. Even a Malay nationalist wouldn’t argue that in 1819 Singapore was anything but a sparsely populated fishing village. Raffles cut a deal that made the Sultanate of Johor extraordinarily wealthy and gave the overseas Chinese community that migrated there under colonial rule (plus Singaporean Indians and the original Malay community) the opportunity to create one of the greatest city-states in history.

BREAKING: 🇺🇸 For the first time, the Pentagon has released highly classified UFO documentation One very strange video, taken by the U.S. military, shows a star-shaped object moving rapidly through the sky in criss cross motion