Pat Condell: "Patronising the Palestinians"

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, and here's a heads-up for Declension. Compare and contrast with how Arabs are shown, dealt with and talked about on Israeli TV and how Jews are portrayed on TV by the Poor Palestinians.

Why is there no peace in the Middle East?

A New Zealand cent for your thoughts?

Last edited by Tequila on 04 Jan 2013, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila, do the words cultural relativism mean anything to you?

Yes, they do - they mean patronising, racist hogwash.

what, the same sort of patronising racist hogwash when you talk about chomping on pork scratchings while watching immams being shaved?

No, it's not. It's a two-state solution. The obvious solution. The solution which you will never allow to happen, since your condition for the Palestinians to be allowed a state is that they should stop being angry about not having a state.



No arguments here. Like I said earlier, every country is founded on a crime. But Israel's crime is still happening, and it can be put right.

It's funny that you would accuse me of being insufficiently guilty about New Zealand's past, when you're the one who likes Don Brash.

Last edited by Declension on 04 Jan 2013, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I never said that, dearie. Do look at what I said properly without getting your knickers in a twist.

I said I'd pay to watch the Al-Aqsa representatives put forward the case for a Palestinian state and I asked someone to pass the pork scratchings. Hopefully, it would be on TV so the Palestinian nutcases wouldn't even see the filthy kuffar eating haram. No-one will be offended, or insulted, or marginalised. I also asked for Anjem Choudary to join in, to further lighten the spirits. What a lovely man and a credit to Western civilisation he is.

I also said that some Arabic imams could do with a shave (I'm mostly referring to the bigots you see on Arab TV, of which MEMRI preserves their ravings for posterity). If anything, you could consider it an off-colour anti-religion comment, but nothing to do with racism.

No, my condition of allowing them a state is that they stop trying to kill Jews and calling for an end to Israel and the genocide of the world's Jews.

Take your blinkers off and look at Hamas and Fatah TV every once in a while. Look at how they draw the maps of Palestine and where Israel is on that map. Clue: I can't find any mention of Israel anywhere on that map.



I think New Zealand should be driven into the sea, all Paheka should be driven out or killed and a Maori-only state should exist. Fair?



He sounds like a good bloke.

You admit it yourself - all they have is talk. And who is "they", anyway? There are many factions involved, and none of them believes that they can actually achieve what they demand.



No, this sort of "cosmic fairness" can't ever be achieved, and isn't even desirable. But there are reasonable solutions we can use to correct past mistakes. The best solution for New Zealand is one state with two types of citizen. The best solution for Israel-Palestine is two states.

Sure. When you inserted that mental note of someone passing the bag of bics you did so with no shortage of Judeo-Christian euro-centric glee. Don't deny it.

I don't care about Anjem Choudary or his brethren. They are all full of hot air and will never achieve anything. Israel beating down on the Gaza strip because of the things Hamas says is like the warden with a truncheon in the asylum brutalising the insane patients.

It's a tiny bit more than talk when bomb blasts happen in cafés and on buses and in Israeli towns (who are then celebrated to the heavens on PA and Al-Aqsa TV), and when the barrage of rockets comes over every day from Gaza. Or don't Israeli civilians actually matter in any of this?

(I'd be the first one to say that the genuinely innocent Palestinian victims - men, women, children, families, who, in Gaza, don't have the luxury of bomb shelters like Israeli families have because they're considered expendable by their inhuman fascist government - of Israel defending themselves is a very unfortunate side-effect of operations, but if Hamas and other groups didn't attack Israel there would be no casualties at all. Not Palestinian men, women and children murdered by Hamas rockets falling short of their targets and blowing up in crowded areas, or innocent prisoners being beaten and brutally tortured in PA jails as I mentioned upthread, or Palestinian people being murdered and beaten under Islamic law by bronze-age savages, often for no good reason at all).



Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, various other factions. You know the drill.



Golden Dawn probably won't (officially) run Greece any time soon, so there is absolutely nothing to worry about whatsoever.



No, this sort of "cosmic fairness" can't ever be achieved, and isn't even desirable.[/quote]

Why isn't it desirable? Is it due to the fact that Israelis and European New Zealanders (a different kettle of fish to Israel entirely) have lived there for generations, and it's their home as much as anyone's, and they have a right to national autonomy and self-determination?

What happens if the Palestinians eventually achieve their own state and then say: "Great! We can concentrate even more on driving the Jews into the sea, and we have our own state to do it in!" - do remember that Israel was promised peace in return for pulling their citizens out of the Gaza Strip.

Yeah, but it's only a tiny bit more than talk. I don't like it when anyone gets killed, but in a tactical sense these attacks don't achieve anything. They are the pathetic flailing of angry helpless people.



Bad analogy. A better analogy would be if Golden Dawn members were being forcefully evicted from their houses, and if the Greek government's official line was that no crime is being committed since Golden Dawn members are terrible people.



Yes, that's why. I'm not sure why you think I want Israel to be destroyed.



It doesn't really matter, does it? I'm pretty sure that the Palestinians don't have psychic powers. I fail to see how they will be any more able to destroy a US protectorate than they were before.

But actually, I don't think that will happen. I think that statehood is a step towards moderation.

Define the bolded term.

Why? I can guess why, but please elaborate.

eu·ro·cen·tric

Adjective
Focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent.

It changes nothing. They got screwed over. They're supposed to forget what happened? The whole enterprise was conceived based on the idea that they are nothing more than savages to be displaced so that the "superior civilisation" can set up a sort of an aircraft carrier from which to abuse even more "savages" in the region. Right now the Zionists maintain this stance, they aren't even trying to change and adopt a more friendly posture.

The Zionist movement was an exclusively Ashakehazi movement done for Ashkhenazi purposes when it was proposed and was born in part out of circumstances that existed in Europe, including the rise of nationalism there, and based in part on anti-Semitic prejudices that they wanted to refute (no, we're not rootless cosmopolitans, yes, we can work the land, we too can be into blood and soil and all that...). The Arab Jews became necessary to consolidate the Jewish majority after the ethnic cleansing of 1947-48, but theirs was always a support role and only that, though the fascist Revisionist movement decided to appeal to them and their resentment of Ashekhenazi tyranny in order to overturn the Labour hegemony in the political system.

I want to add also that the Ashkenazis that drove Zionism understood from day one that they needed powerful Western empires backing them and they pitched their project to them as being part of the Western imperialist project to "tame the savages" and they're still doing it to this day...