Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Leo Gura]

Jews will not leave Israel. That is a useless pipe dream. The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

Edited Wednesday at 10:29 AM by Leo Gura

[Daniel Balan]

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Jews will not leave Israel. That is a useless pipe dream. The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

It is not stupid, it is the utmost deed of valour and will to be be free. They would rather die as a race than to bow down to the ones that stole their land. I deeply admire this quality. 

After all, why bow down in front of those who have built homes on the graves of our children? 

[Breakingthewall]

32 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

It is not stupid, it is the utmost deed of valour and will to be be free

Yes, free in the paradise. 

[Nivsch]

The Facebook feed is full of posts on oct7 due to the memorial day. I'll add to here one of them:

" On October 7, 2023, I understood for the first time what true shock is.
Not the kind that lasts a moment — but the kind that strikes the soul.
I felt the air of the world change. Suddenly, every story I had ever heard as a child about the surprise of the Yom Kippur War came alive. It was no longer a distant tale with dates and black-and-white photos, but a living, breathing, screaming reality.

In an instant, I understood what it means for a person to lose the sense of safety in their own home — when an iron shelter door or a guard at the kibbutz gate no longer promise anything. When words like pogrom, massacre, Black Sabbath, and Holocaust stop belonging to history lessons and become words in one’s personal diary.

That morning — which was still night in the United States, where I was staying — I grew up. I aged. Something cracked inside me. Something in the smile, the innocence, the faith that “it won’t happen again” — simply fell away. Suddenly, even the simplest routines — making coffee, turning on the radio, smiling at a child on the way to school, or writing a few lines in the next book — carried a different weight.

Two years have passed since. Time, they say, heals everything. But it’s not true. Time doesn’t heal — it only teaches us how to walk with our scars.

In these two years I’ve been asking myself what home really is. Is it the walls? The address? Or perhaps home is the people we choose to keep in our hearts. Maybe it’s the memory of a scent, a hug, a gaze that says, “I’m here.”
I’ve come to understand that home is both what we’ve lost and what we rebuild — brick by brick, hope by hope.

And perhaps that is the essence of life itself: to realize how fragile it all is. How temporary. How quickly everything can fall apart — and how amazing it is that a human being, time and again, chooses to gather the pieces, place them one upon another, and create a new shape out of them.

On October 7, I learned what pain is. But since then, slowly, I am also learning what rebirth means. It doesn’t happen in a single day, nor with a cry. It begins with a breath. A look. A decision to get up in the morning and say: I’m still here. And I still believe in good.

In memory of Dvir Karp
Yuval Abramovitz

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Zs4NiDm2j/

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:05 PM by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

The Palestinians were subject to the Ottoman Empire from 1500 and organized resistance didn't exist . Afterwards, they were subject to the British, and it seems they didn't mind that too much either. All their protests were against the Jews. Seems that they are used to capitulate to the powerful, if it is not Jew 

Before the ottoman were submitted to the Mamluks, before that the European Crusaders, before that the Islamic caliphates, before that the Byzantines, before that Rome, before Greeks and Persia. Seems that they should be used to the situation 

Edited Wednesday at 12:47 PM by Breakingthewall

[Dan502]

@Daniel Balan 

Are we sure that “bowing down” versus “destructive behaviour that results in the killing of innocents” is the only distinction we can make here?

[Raze]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

The Palestinians were subject to the Ottoman Empire from 1500 and organized resistance didn't exist . Afterwards, they were subject to the British, and it seems they didn't mind that too much either. All their protests were against the Jews. Seems that they are used to capitulate to the powerful, if it is not Jew 

Before the ottoman were submitted to the Mamluks, before that the European Crusaders, before that the Islamic caliphates, before that the Byzantines, before that Rome, before Greeks and Persia. Seems that they should be used to the situation 

Prompt: how accurate is this analysis?

Result: 

🔹 CLAIM: “The Palestinians were subject to the Ottoman Empire from 1500 and organized resistance didn’t exist.”

Inaccurate.

The Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine from 1516 to 1917, but organized resistance did exist, especially in the late Ottoman period.

For example, in the early 20th century, there were Arab nationalist movements and Palestinian opposition to Zionist immigration, particularly after the Young Turk revolution and Balfour Declaration (1917).

It is misleading to suggest there was no resistance; rural revolts, opposition to conscription, and nationalist organizing occurred, though they weren’t always centralized.

🔹 CLAIM: “Afterwards, they were subject to the British, and it seems they didn’t mind that too much either.”

Very inaccurate and dismissive.

Palestinians resisted British rule extensively during the British Mandate (1917–1948).

The 1920 Nebi Musa riots, 1921 Jaffa riots, 1929 Hebron massacre, and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt were major uprisings against British policies and Jewish immigration.

The 1936–1939 revolt was one of the largest anti-colonial uprisings in the British Empire during the interwar period.

🔹 CLAIM: “All their protests were against the Jews.”

False and reductive.

Palestinian resistance was directed at both British colonial policies and Zionist settlement—both were seen as threatening indigenous sovereignty.

Resistance movements were based on a mix of anti-colonial, nationalist, and religious motivations, not simply antisemitism.

Many Palestinians saw British policy as enabling Zionist colonization, and that was a core reason for resistance.

🔹 CLAIM: “Seems that they are used to capitulate to the powerful, if it is not Jew.”

Highly offensive, racist, and historically unfounded.

This implies Palestinians (or Arabs more broadly) are submissive by nature, except when resisting Jews — a racialized and dehumanizing generalization.

History shows Palestinians (and Arabs) resisted many powers: Byzantines, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, British, French, and later Israel.

The suggestion that their resistance is unique or irrational when aimed at Jews is a politically motivated distortion.

🔹 CLAIM: “Before the Ottomans… Mamluks… Crusaders… Caliphates… Byzantines… Rome… Greeks… Persia. Seems they should be used to the situation.”

Misleading and fatalistic.

Yes, the region has been ruled by many empires — as has most of the world, including Europe and Asia.

That does not justify ongoing occupation or conflict. Historical conquest doesn't negate modern rights to self-determination.

This logic could be (wrongly) used to justify any imperial or colonial situation.

🔍 Summary of Issues

❌ Historically Flawed:

Overlooks documented uprisings and nationalist movements.

Misrepresents the complexity of resistance against both colonialism and settler projects.

❌ Ethically Problematic:

Relies on essentialist thinking (Palestinians as inherently submissive).

Frames opposition to Zionism as irrational or uniquely hostile to Jews, rather than anti-colonial.

❌ Politically Weaponized:

The argument isn't about history — it’s used to delegitimize Palestinian resistance, suggesting they have no right to object to occupation or displacement.

Prompt: if someone makes this statement after claiming to study the issue extensively, what can be concluded about their critical thinking skills, moral development, and intellectual integrity? Should they continue speaking on the subject and should others trust their views?

Result: 

1. Critical Thinking Skills

Poor application of historical analysis and logic:

Oversimplification of complex history: The statement reduces centuries of imperial rule and colonization into a fatalistic narrative, suggesting that Palestinians are somehow "used to" subjugation — which is both historically false and a logical fallacy (specifically, appeal to tradition or historical determinism).

Lack of evidence or nuance: No serious historical analysis would ignore the long history of Palestinian resistance — from revolts under Ottoman and British rule, to intellectual and national movements throughout the 20th century. The statement ignores major historical facts like the 1936–39 Arab Revolt against the British or numerous uprisings (intifadas).

Use of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes: Phrases like “they didn’t mind [British rule] too much” and “they are used to capitulate to the powerful” lack any credible support and reflect a lazy, prejudicial mindset rather than thoughtful engagement.

Conclusion: The speaker demonstrates weak reasoning, poor grasp of historical context, and a failure to engage with the complexity of the topic.

2. Moral Development

Displays of dehumanization and ethical detachment:

The tone of the statement is dismissive, even mocking, of an entire population's suffering and historical experience under colonialism and occupation.

Suggesting that a people are "used to" subjugation strips them of agency, dignity, and humanity. This reveals a lack of empathy — a key element in advanced moral reasoning (e.g., Kohlberg’s stages of moral development).

The framing promotes a kind of moral relativism or fatalism, where injustice is normalized if it has historical precedent — a deeply unethical stance.

Conclusion: The speaker appears to lack empathy and moral clarity, and is possibly motivated by bias or ideological antagonism rather than a genuine search for truth or justice.

3. Intellectual Integrity

Highly questionable:

Claiming to have studied the issue extensively while making such careless, unfounded, and biased statements suggests dishonesty or self-deception.

The selective citation of historical periods — ignoring resistance, misrepresenting motivations, and cherry-picking facts — points to confirmation bias and a lack of academic rigor.

The implicit claim is that Palestinians are somehow culturally predisposed to submission unless facing Jews, which borders on ethno-racial stereotyping — a violation of any standard of scholarly or intellectual integrity.

Conclusion: The speaker is not intellectually honest and is likely using history to justify or obscure prejudice.

Should this person continue speaking on the subject?

That depends on the context:

If they are unwilling to engage in good-faith dialogue, revise their views, or acknowledge facts, then no — they should not be considered a credible voice on the issue.

If they are speaking from a platform of authority or influence, it's especially important to challenge their views due to the potential harm caused by spreading misinformation and prejudice.

In educational or public discourse, freedom of speech is important — but so is accountability. Bad ideas should be confronted, not suppressed, but neither should they be validated or trusted just because they are voiced.

Should others trust their views?

No. Based on this statement:

Their views are rooted in bias, not evidence.

They display poor reasoning, lack of empathy, and ideological distortion.

Trusting them would be unwise, especially on sensitive, historically complex, and ethically charged issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Final Thought

Discussions about historical and ongoing conflicts demand intellectual humility, moral seriousness, and respect for human dignity. This statement reflects the opposite — arrogance, moral detachment, and prejudice — and should be evaluated accordingly.

[Raze]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

Hamas just agreed to disarm even if the occupation doesn’t end (which they already offered). 

[Nivsch]

There is a deal!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPk53wliKVc/?igsh=bjU5OGJpaDFwdWI5

Edited Thursday at 07:07 AM by Nivsch

[Hatfort]

There's a deal agreement, indeed.

Main points are a ceasefire, the return of the remaining Israeli hostages, the IDF has to retreat to an agreed line in Gaza as the first step, Palestinian prisoner liberation as well, and humanitarian aid. Hamas thanks Trump and the US, and the other countries involved in the negotiations, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, and asks for their involvement in making sure Israel keeps its part of the deal even after receiving their hostages, which will be very soon.

I'm not sure the deal will last long, hostages or not, Israel seemed willing to continue. Maybe the IDF's lives being lost in Gaza wasn't that small, so they needed a ceasefire as well. Palestinians needed a ceasefire urgently, the genocide was unbearable. 

[zazen]

12 hours ago, zazen said:

Hope for the best - I think this current deal may actually get an exchange of hostages and a break in fighting but implementation of next steps will stall for various logistical issues and fighting may continue. Hamas for example won’t dis-arm without promises of a Palestinian state - but that hasn’t been explicitly laid out in this proposal as far as I know.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqx7ygq41o - ''Notably, no details surround the disarmament of Hamas - a key point in Trump's plan. Hamas has previously refused to lay down its weapons, saying it would only do so when a Palestinian state had been established.''

Only phase 1 in a multi-phase process that could be de-railed or difficult to implement in later stages - it's still early but a welcome end to the killing. Historically every peace attempt between Israel and the Palestinians has been vulnerable to sabotage - all it took was a extremist spoiler on either side and a single attack would erase years of diplomacy as each side would then use that as a excuse to upend the entire process. But the past also isn't bound to repeat because context changes - the actors involved, the power dynamics between them and the leverage each has over the other.

Past deals collapsed and couldn't be pushed through because they depended on fragile trust between enemies. Today's deals might endure because they depend on shared profit among elites - their are larger stakeholders involved who have skin in the game and incentive to push till the end - perhaps even despite hiccups and roadblocks. The actors today include include Gulf wealth, global finance, and transnational capital - not just politicians or ideologues. Those actors have leverage and long term interest in regional stability they can profit from - they can underwrite and enforce deals through investment rather than just promises.

There's a reason Jared Kushner is at the fore front of all of this - he's deeply tied with Saudi capital which has leverage to shape outcomes. This is all part of a bigger picture of the world order shifting and new centers of power emerging that can challenge, hedge against, and co-opt the old uni-polar order in which the West reigned supreme in and could uni-laterally call the shots in. No longer - insha'Allah.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/witkoff-and-kushner-wont-leave-egypt-without-a-deal-us-official-vows/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-witkoff-kushner-israel-hamas-talks.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/10/07/the-double-life-of-jared-kushner-mixing-business-with-politics-as-emissary-for-his-father-in-law-donald-trump_6746194_19.html

 

 

Edited Thursday at 10:16 AM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

@zazen do you agree with this?

 

 

🔹 What If the Arabs Had Accepted the 1947 Partition Plan?

This is the key question — the moment when history could have turned in a completely different direction.
If the Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states had accepted the UN Partition Plan in 1947, there would have been no war, and the entire story of the Middle East in the 20th century would have been fundamentally different.

Here’s what would likely have happened, based on historical evidence and realistic projections:

1. They would have kept their land

The UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181, 1947) gave 45% of the territory to an Arab state and 55% to a Jewish state.

Arab-owned lands within the Jewish zone would have been protected or compensated under international supervision, not confiscated.

Laws like Israel’s later Absentees’ Property Law would never have existed, because no mass flight or expulsion would have taken place.

2. They would have had their own state since 1948

The Arab state of Palestine would have been born at the same time as Israel.

It would have included Gaza, Hebron, Nablus, East Jerusalem, and much of central Galilee.

It would have received immediate international recognition and economic aid for development.

The refugee crisis that has defined Palestinian identity for generations would never have existed.

3. Arabs living inside the Jewish state

They would have remained as a protected minority, just as Jews would have lived in the Arab state.

Israel, seeking international legitimacy, would have been highly motivated to protect Arab citizens’ rights.

There would have been no legal or practical reason to seize their property or displace them.

4. The Arab countries would have avoided decades of war

The wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 would never have happened.

Egypt, Syria, and Jordan could have focused on domestic development instead of losing repeated wars.

Arab nationalism might have evolved into a modern, secular, developmental movement, rather than one defined by revenge and religion.

5. In summary

If the Arabs had accepted partition:

Palestine would today be an independent state, created alongside Israel.

There would be no refugee camps, no occupation, no destroyed Gaza.

And Israel itself would likely be less militarized and more open.

In short, violence was not inevitable —
it was a political choice, based on the belief (very common at the time) that the new Jewish state could be destroyed in a matter of weeks.

 

[Twentyfirst]

On 10/8/2025 at 1:28 PM, Leo Gura said:

Jews will not leave Israel. That is a useless pipe dream. The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

The Jews don't have to leave for Israel to cease existing

One land, one state, democracy, one majority, one minority

Guess who is the minority?

The two state compromise is the real pipe dream

[zazen]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@zazen do you agree with this?

 

 

🔹 What If the Arabs Had Accepted the 1947 Partition Plan?

This is the key question — the moment when history could have turned in a completely different direction.
If the Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states had accepted the UN Partition Plan in 1947, there would have been no war, and the entire story of the Middle East in the 20th century would have been fundamentally different.

Here’s what would likely have happened, based on historical evidence and realistic projections:

1. They would have kept their land

The UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181, 1947) gave 45% of the territory to an Arab state and 55% to a Jewish state.

Arab-owned lands within the Jewish zone would have been protected or compensated under international supervision, not confiscated.

Laws like Israel’s later Absentees’ Property Law would never have existed, because no mass flight or expulsion would have taken place.

2. They would have had their own state since 1948

The Arab state of Palestine would have been born at the same time as Israel.

It would have included Gaza, Hebron, Nablus, East Jerusalem, and much of central Galilee.

It would have received immediate international recognition and economic aid for development.

The refugee crisis that has defined Palestinian identity for generations would never have existed.

3. Arabs living inside the Jewish state

They would have remained as a protected minority, just as Jews would have lived in the Arab state.

Israel, seeking international legitimacy, would have been highly motivated to protect Arab citizens’ rights.

There would have been no legal or practical reason to seize their property or displace them.

4. The Arab countries would have avoided decades of war

The wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 would never have happened.

Egypt, Syria, and Jordan could have focused on domestic development instead of losing repeated wars.

Arab nationalism might have evolved into a modern, secular, developmental movement, rather than one defined by revenge and religion.

5. In summary

If the Arabs had accepted partition:

Palestine would today be an independent state, created alongside Israel.

There would be no refugee camps, no occupation, no destroyed Gaza.

And Israel itself would likely be less militarized and more open.

In short, violence was not inevitable —
it was a political choice, based on the belief (very common at the time) that the new Jewish state could be destroyed in a matter of weeks.

 

In hindsight they would have kept way more of their land if they accepted partition - compared to any of the later proposals. After 1967 they've had to concede to only having 22% of their original homeland compared to 45% in the original partition. Even on that 22% settlements keep on increasing and yet - Palestinians are told their the ones who are being to greedy with what they want, such gaslighting.

But what needs to be understood is that at the time of partition it was essentially legalized theft and viewed as such - they were bound to resist and reject the imposed deal as mostly anyone would have. If someone had something precious to them stolen from them decades ago and they fought the thief - I can't really say ''you should have just given it away as maybe you would have had both eyes today instead of losing one in a fight''.

As your from Spain - just imagine the scenario like this:

Imagine Catalonians fled Catalonia 1000 years ago and were spread throughout Europe - only 10% of the population of Spain were Catalonian throughout the ages. They were then persecuted over the centuries in Europe and the superpower of the day (the US) decided enough is enough - lets facilitate Catalonians going back to Catalonia to establish a homeland for their security. Within 20-30 years a influx of Catalonians migrate to Spain increasing the percentage of the population from 10% to 30% and buying up land which amounted to owning 10% of the land of Spain in the end. Then, the USA tells Spain that their going to have to divide up Spain to make a state for the Catalonians.  The partition plan would be imposed on Spain (not proposed or even consulted on) .

It would give away 55% of Spain to the Catalonians, including some of the most fertile and industrialised land, the biggest ports and one of the nicest cities (Barcelona). You have no say in this and it is decided by daddy USA. What are you and your hombres doing about it?

Another scenario - image you have two houses and live next door to your parents. A far distant uncle gets into bad business with the wrong guys and loses everything. A mutual family member tells you you must move out of your house and back into your parents and give up your house to this uncle you and your parents have barely any connection to except this mutual family friend - will you happily give it up to help out? Why not - he's your family after all? My point is - no one just willingly gives up their home. It wouldn't matter whether this distant uncle is a different religion to you or a liberal or conservative etc your the same blood yet you'd naturally feel hesitant for being forced to give up your house.

I used the actual Israel / Palestine numbers for the Catalan example but to be accurate - today Catalonians are 16% of the Spanish population and owns only 6% of the land. They've been flirting with secession also. If the US or EU just forced Spain to give up 50% of Spain to this 16% Catalonian population who only own 6% of Spanish land legally -  do you think the Spanish would just sit there and accept it?

Speaking of US imposing certain situations on Spain: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-floats-dropping-spain-nato-alliance-2025-10-09/

Trump thinks Spain should be thrown out of NATO because their not keeping up with spending commitments. Imagine US just unilaterally does that. What you gonna do about that papi? 

Edited Thursday at 08:52 PM by zazen

[Atb210201]

Now the question is:

Is Trump really sent by God?

Edited Friday at 03:00 AM by Atb210201

[Breakingthewall]

@zazen @zazen 

I think you misunderstood. They would retain 100% of the territory, meaning no Palestinian would have been expelled from their lands. Furthermore, they would have gained a state administering 45% of Palestine, something they've never done throughout history, since they were always colonized. 

They would have simply shared administration of the country with the Jews, which would have provided enormous advantages.

It seems difficult for you to understand the situation. They started with violence over a matter of religious identity, and they remain the same, like in the Middle Ages. They are incapable of evolving. And all the mentally retarded people in the West say "Free Palestine," without knowing that Palestinians are not free; they are slaves to their Muslim identity, just like 16 billion other, let's say not specially smart people.

[Karmadhi]

On 10/8/2025 at 0:28 PM, Leo Gura said:

The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

You dont seem to share the same sentiment for Ukraine though, you want them to keep fighting instead of capitulating to Russia

Double standards much?

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall So you would voluntarily let yourself become a minority in your own land?  If you lived in Barcelona as a Spaniard, and it became a majority Catalonian ethno state - it’s okay because technically your still physically there and not expelled, your just sharing the land?

You’ll say but we all have equal rights. But being a minority with “equal rights” means you have rights until the majority decides you don’t. A state governed by Catalonians for Catalonians is fundamentally different from a state governed by Spaniards for Spaniards.

The world was de-colonising at the time. The principle was “you were colonized before, so now you get full self-determination”. Not  “you were colonized before, so you should be grateful for partial self-determination while recent immigrants get the majority of your homeland.” 

You’ve said before that Palestinians would be better off under Jews and that they’ve  always lived under someone else’s rule so are used to it. By your own stupid logic - the Jews haven’t had a state so should be used to living stateless and shouldn’t attempt creating one of their own.

Spaniards never governed themselves in modern history as they’ve been conquered by Romans, Visigoth’s and Moors - so when the Moors leave, Spaniards should be grateful to get 45% of Spain while recent Catalonian immigrants get 55% including beautiful Barcelona.

You got some crazy bigoted views on Muslims. And lack the nuance to even understand what’s being discussed.

[Breakingthewall]

38 minutes ago, zazen said:

By your own stupid logic

Please, don't humiliate yourself anymore.

38 minutes ago, zazen said:

So you would voluntarily let yourself become a minority in your own land?  If you lived in Barcelona as a Spaniard, and it became a majority Catalonian ethno state - it’s okay because technically your still physically there and not expelled, your just sharing the land?

If I lived in Barcelona on the verge of starvation and without shoes, and the Catalonian came to administer my lands, previously administered by some Muslim with an IQ of 50, and those Catalonian brought wealth, prosperity, technology and evolution, and they promise me that I can keep the property of my land, I would tell them that if they needed a blowjob, let me know.

I understand your logic. You Muslims are victims, and it's right that you commit massacres and declare war after war because your pride, and when you loose all those wars stay crying a century and commiting terrorist attacks. Well, with people like that, there's only one language: the one being spoken now. Even donkeys understand that.

Edited Thursday at 11:17 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

41 minutes ago, zazen said:

Spaniards never governed themselves in modern history as they’ve been conquered by Romans, Visigoth’s and Moors 

The Spanish were ruled by the Romans without any problems. They didn't spend all day crying. In fact, they thought it was a positive thing. Then they were ruled by the Arabs, and the same thing happened, without spending all day committing attacks. Everything was fine, until they declared war on them. They won and expelled the Arabs. If they had lost, they would have been Arabs and wouldn't have spent 300 years crying and stabbing Arabs. Otherwise, they would have been exterminated, which is what happens to the mentally retarded who can't accept reality.

And btw, the war that the Spanish and french declared to the Arabs was a religious war. The reason of that war was expelling the Islam . It's the same that the war that the Muslim countries have now with Israel. The difference is that the Spanish were in the 10 century, and the Muslims in the 21, with the same ideas

Edited Thursday at 11:22 PM by Breakingthewall