So how do you define "Palestinian"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who created Hamas?
- Thread starter Cordelro
- Start date
So how do you define "Palestinian"?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Palestinians were offered a 2-state solution a number of times but what they really want is to destroy the Jews!
The prevalence of that view is why
there's so much death & destruction,
& why it endures.
Last edited:
I was about to retort "nice pivot," but "clumsy" would be far more accurate.
Hmmm, it seems to me that context matters - a lot!
Some people contend that "Palestinian" as a name, is a very recent invention, only a few decades old. Others contend that "Palestinians" have lived in what is now Israel, Jordan, and Egypt for centuries.
So if we go with the longer time frame then it's safe to conclude that Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis are ALL occupying forces on "Palestinian land". (And of course, in very recent times we could also say that many countries in the ME are occupying forces, oppressing many weaker people e.g., Kurds, Yazidis, Coptics and others.)
So when do YOU think we should start the historical clock? With the Balfour agreement? Earlier? Later? And what's your reasoning for picking the starting date you think is correct?
Do you take Islamists at their word, or do you perform the soft bigotry of low expectations?
I think we should take them at their word.
Hmmm, it seems to me that one should know the difference between Palestinians and the Hashemites before pontificating about the area's history.
Of all posters here, your accusations
of bigotry have the most irony.
Nice pivot.
I make no bones about it. IMO, Islam is a collection of bad ideas: misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, theocracy, tribalism, and so on.
But here's the thing, they make declarations and I take them at their word, which it would appear you do not.
You complain that I'm hostile.
Yet you accuse me of bigotry.
Learn to interact better with others.
Given the women and gay people in arab countries are suffering so... surely we should start a program to take more immigrants and refugees for their protection.
Surely you would agree?
Ah I recall, I wondered whether you were guilty of soft bigotry. We won't know the answer, until you tell us whether or not you take Islamists at their word. And to be clear, I asked you a question, I didn't accuse you of anything.
Last edited:
Traditionally host countries determine how many immigrants and refugees they can handle.Given the women and gay people in arab countries are suffering so... surely we should start a program to take more immigrants and refugees for their protection.
Surely you would agree?
That said, I think "aid in place" is a fine alternative when moving people across the world is not an option.
I also think it's frequently the case that it's not the women and gays who are immigrating, it's the straight men. It seems like we agree that misogyny and homophobia are big issues in Muslim countries?
Last edited:
This doesn't seem to be the case: International Migrant Stock | Population Division.
It doesn't make much sense that the arab wife leaves behind her husband and straight-male children to immigrate.
Yes, patriarchy and homophobia are issues in Muslim countries and this is not unique to Muslim dominated countries but also occur in other countries that occupy a similar economic position in the world system.
Last edited:
TLDR, any summaries?
So I guess I'm confused by what you meant in post #32? Can you clarify?
It seems that unless a Muslim country won the "oil lottery" it's typically a poor country. Islam has been around for 1400 years, why is poverty so common in Muslim countries?
You presented alternatives.
The other was obviously wrong.
You know what you did.
You just won't admit what you do.
I was jesting at why it's wrong to use patriarchy and LGBT rights in the third world to attack other countries while also arguing for a policy on immigration and refugees which denies people from fleeing those evils. That's complicity.
I assume what you are gesturing at is that you think Muslim countries are poor because of Islam. If you'd like to share otherwise feel free to, but given that your argumentation style mostly consists of pointed questions, I can't help but assume such. Suffice it to say that I do not think this.
Why is poverty so common in South America? Why is poverty so common in Africa? Why is poverty so common in the Middle East?
Europe and to a lesser extent Asia stand above due to the classical empires and how they were able to transition into the Imperialist economy today (China being the primary outlier, with state-led industrialization).
It would be an error to think that most wealth is owned by Christians due to the merits of Christianity (unless brutal theft and exploitation of the third world should be considered a 'merit').
another dodge.