Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants still stands.

---

Access to God through the Abrahamic covenant today is through Christ. Not through descent. Not through Judaism. That is the Israel of God, not the UN founded state in the middle east. Think about it historian. Your theology is based on a UN decree. No Christian for the first 1900 years of Christianity believed or taught what you are saying until Darby came along.

---

Wait a second. I thought you said it was the Mosaic Covenant that ended while the Abrahamic Covenant remains in force. Which is it?

Regardless of that apparent inconsistency, this is another one of your patented strawman arguments. Historian's claim was simple: God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants still stands.

Instead of addressing that claim, you responded as though he had argued that Jews are saved through ethnicity, Judaism, or physical descent. He never said that. Not even close.

Nobody here is arguing that anyone is saved apart from Christ. The actual question is straightforward:

Did God revoke His covenant promises to Abraham's physical descendants?

Paul's answer is unequivocal:

Quote:

---

"Has God rejected His people? By no means."

---

And a few verses later:

Quote:

---

"The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

---

If God revoked an everlasting covenant, then it was never truly everlasting. If it is everlasting, then your position has a serious problem.

As for Darby, Romans 11 was written nearly eighteen centuries before Darby was born. The issue is not what Darby believed. The question is whether Paul meant what he said when he declared that God has not rejected His people and that His gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Christ is the only way of salvation. But "salvation is through Christ" does not logically lead to "God breaks His covenants." Those are two entirely different claims, and you've yet to demonstrate the second.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Our political system has collapsed into paralysis and looting. Change is coming. Here’s what America should be. pic.twitter.com/qjnJ7EOIR5

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 6, 2026

---

Ah yes, frowning, double-chinned, "Sky-is-falling Tucker" is comedy gold. Remember when he said America would end when we attacked Iran? Hilarious.

The_barBEARian said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Slovak Member of the European Parliament Milan Mazurek GOES OFF!

“I will say something what many of you will have a problem with, and I will say it loudly and openly: White Lives Matter

Because right now, white people are just a tiny minority in this world, and white people are… pic.twitter.com/eeHX7aAN4U

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) October 10, 2025

---

Mothra, historian, and oldbear's collective reaction to this speech:

---

Ok, Eva.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Our political system has collapsed into paralysis and looting. Change is coming. Here’s what America should be. pic.twitter.com/qjnJ7EOIR5

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 6, 2026

---

Ah yes, frowning, double-chinned, "Sky-is-falling Tucker" is comedy gold. Remember when he said America would end when we attacked Iran? Hilarious.

---

You really are an idiot!... how are we better off now than we were before we attacked Iran?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Or could have provided historical context for better understanding. Socialism, in all its forms, is a great evil: communism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. There are many variations and they are evil.

Bigotry is also evil.

---

Yes, but they're not going to call evil ideas they believe in or actions that they engage in, of course.

---

You mean like... Zionism?

---

There's nothing inherently evil about wanting a homeland or sovereign country in the land of your ancestors. I think most of us want the same thing.

Where it could cross over into evil is in how you go about doing it. And indeed, there have been some bad actors over the years who have shed blood in pursuit of that goal (though, I suppose, one could argue that some of the American revolutionaries engaged in similar conduct). But the idea in and of itself, isn't inherently evil, certainly not in the same line as communism, Islam, and Fascism.

---

Its not the land of their ancestors.

The real biblical Jews got wiped out by the Romans and miscegenated. The Romans did that to a lot of people.

But even if I accept the idea they are real jews and it is their ancestral land... why was it bad when the Germans invaded Poland or France to reclaim their lost territory.... but when Jews travel to Palestine and do it, its completely acceptable?

Why is Nazism bad? But Zionism is good? They are both ethnonationalist movements centered around the belief that their people are the chosen people and a revanchist cause to reclaim lost territory.

---

This is what you would call a false equivalence.

As a preliminary matter, your claim that Jews have no ancestral connection to the land ignores both history and archaeology. Ancient Israel, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Second Temple, Hebrew inscriptions, synagogues, and countless archaeological sites all testify to a longstanding Jewish presence there. The Romans didn't erase Jewish ancestry from history. Jews remained a distinct people for nearly two millennia despite dispersion.

Second, Nazism and Zionism are not remotely the same thing. Nazism was built on racial supremacy and conquest. Zionism, at its core, is the belief that Jews have a right to national self-determination in their historic homeland. Those are not equivalent concepts. By your logic, every people group seeking self-determination in its ancestral homeland would be evil. It's a really weird take. Germany invaded foreign countries to conquer and dominate them. That is not the same as arguing that a people have a historical connection to a particular land.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants still stands.

---

Access to God through the Abrahamic covenant today is through Christ. Not through descent. Not through Judaism. That is the Israel of God, not the UN founded state in the middle east. Think about it historian. Your theology is based on a UN decree. No Christian for the first 1900 years of Christianity believed or taught what you are saying until Darby came along.

---

Wait a second. I thought you said it was the Mosaic Covenant that ended while the Abrahamic Covenant remains in force. Which is it?

Regardless of that apparent inconsistency, this is another one of your patented strawman arguments. Historian's claim was simple: God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants still stands.

Instead of addressing that claim, you responded as though he had argued that Jews are saved through ethnicity, Judaism, or physical descent. He never said that. Not even close.

Nobody here is arguing that anyone is saved apart from Christ. The actual question is straightforward:

Did God revoke His covenant promises to Abraham's physical descendants?

Paul's answer is unequivocal:

Quote:

---

"Has God rejected His people? By no means."

---

And a few verses later:

Quote:

---

"The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

---

If God revoked an everlasting covenant, then it was never truly everlasting. If it is everlasting, then your position has a serious problem.

As for Darby, Romans 11 was written nearly eighteen centuries before Darby was born. The issue is not what Darby believed. The question is whether Paul meant what he said when he declared that God has not rejected His people and that His gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Christ is the only way of salvation. But "salvation is through Christ" does not logically lead to "God breaks His covenants." Those are two entirely different claims, and you've yet to demonstrate the second.

---

*****.. I'm an atheist and even I understand they are not arguing God broke his covenant... they are arguing he fulfilled his covenant through Jesus's crucifixion. Meaning Christ was their reward. They received what was promised.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Our political system has collapsed into paralysis and looting. Change is coming. Here’s what America should be. pic.twitter.com/qjnJ7EOIR5

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 6, 2026

---

Ah yes, frowning, double-chinned, "Sky-is-falling Tucker" is comedy gold. Remember when he said America would end when we attacked Iran? Hilarious.

---

You really are an idiot!... how are we better off now than we were before we attacked Iran?

---

Speaking of idiots, he didn't say we would be "less better off if we attack Iran," Eva. He said America would end. Those are not remotely similar positions.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants still stands.

---

Access to God through the Abrahamic covenant today is through Christ. Not through descent. Not through Judaism. That is the Israel of God, not the UN founded state in the middle east. Think about it historian. Your theology is based on a UN decree. No Christian for the first 1900 years of Christianity believed or taught what you are saying until Darby came along.

---

Wait a second. I thought you said it was the Mosaic Covenant that ended while the Abrahamic Covenant remains in force. Which is it?

Regardless of that apparent inconsistency, this is another one of your patented strawman arguments. Historian's claim was simple: God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants still stands.

Instead of addressing that claim, you responded as though he had argued that Jews are saved through ethnicity, Judaism, or physical descent. He never said that. Not even close.

Nobody here is arguing that anyone is saved apart from Christ. The actual question is straightforward:

Did God revoke His covenant promises to Abraham's physical descendants?

Paul's answer is unequivocal:

Quote:

---

"Has God rejected His people? By no means."

---

And a few verses later:

Quote:

---

"The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

---

If God revoked an everlasting covenant, then it was never truly everlasting. If it is everlasting, then your position has a serious problem.

As for Darby, Romans 11 was written nearly eighteen centuries before Darby was born. The issue is not what Darby believed. The question is whether Paul meant what he said when he declared that God has not rejected His people and that His gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Christ is the only way of salvation. But "salvation is through Christ" does not logically lead to "God breaks His covenants." Those are two entirely different claims, and you've yet to demonstrate the second.

---

*****.. I'm an atheist and even I understand they are not arguing God broke his covenant... they are arguing he fulfilled his covenant through Jesus's crucifixion. Meaning Christ was their reward. They received what was promised.

---

They are saying the covenant no longer exists. Paul in Romans 11 directly contradicted this position, as previously pointed out.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Or could have provided historical context for better understanding. Socialism, in all its forms, is a great evil: communism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. There are many variations and they are evil.

Bigotry is also evil.

---

Yes, but they're not going to call evil ideas they believe in or actions that they engage in, of course.

---

You mean like... Zionism?

---

There's nothing inherently evil about wanting a homeland or sovereign country in the land of your ancestors. I think most of us want the same thing.

Where it could cross over into evil is in how you go about doing it. And indeed, there have been some bad actors over the years who have shed blood in pursuit of that goal (though, I suppose, one could argue that some of the American revolutionaries engaged in similar conduct). But the idea in and of itself, isn't inherently evil, certainly not in the same line as communism, Islam, and Fascism.

---

Its not the land of their ancestors.

The real biblical Jews got wiped out by the Romans and miscegenated. The Romans did that to a lot of people.

But even if I accept the idea they are real jews and it is their ancestral land... why was it bad when the Germans invaded Poland or France to reclaim their lost territory.... but when Jews travel to Palestine and do it, its completely acceptable?

Why is Nazism bad? But Zionism is good? They are both ethnonationalist movements centered around the belief that their people are the chosen people and a revanchist cause to reclaim lost territory.

---

This is what you would call a false equivalence.

As a preliminary matter, your claim that Jews have no ancestral connection to the land ignores both history and archaeology. Ancient Israel, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Second Temple, Hebrew inscriptions, synagogues, and countless archaeological sites all testify to a longstanding Jewish presence there. The Romans didn't erase Jewish ancestry from history. Jews remained a distinct people for nearly two millennia despite dispersion.

I did several rotations with IHS in Oklahoma. It would be like claiming the guys who walked in there with blonde hair and blue eyes were distinctly Native Americans...no... they got miscegenated. They are now 1/28th Native American and 27/28ths Scot-Irish

Second, Nazism and Zionism are not remotely the same thing. Nazism was built on racial supremacy and conquest. Zionism, at its core, is the belief that Jews have a right to national self-determination in their historic homeland. Those are not equivalent concepts.

I dont accept that framing. They are exactly the same. But you are a Jewish Supremacist so there is no reasoning with you on this.

By your logic, every people group seeking self-determination in its ancestral homeland would be evil. It's a really weird take. Germany invaded foreign countries to conquer and dominate them. That is not the same as arguing that a people have a historical connection to a particular land.

I already debunked this with oldbear. If you consider what Germany did "invading a foreign country to conquer and dominate", then so to did the Jews with Palestine. There is no logical rationale to explain why one situation is different other than "Mothra says they are different"

---

President Trump on Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI): "He's a man of hate... He doesn't love Israel, he doesn't love Jewish people, he hates ’em. He hates ’em with a passion that burns in his heart and there's not a freaking thing he can do about it." pic.twitter.com/cLaSceLrEa

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 5, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

President Trump on Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI): "He's a man of hate... He doesn't love Israel, he doesn't love Jewish people, he hates ’em. He hates ’em with a passion that burns in his heart and there's not a freaking thing he can do about it." pic.twitter.com/cLaSceLrEa

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 5, 2026

---

Trump is mutating into historian!

Average American Citizen: My groceries are $2500 a month

Ted Cruz: We need to reform college sports https://t.co/NIrUwaJCyX

— Bobby Sauce (@takenaps) August 5, 2026

No son, I don't go in for mindless screeds. Some of your posts qualify, though.

And you really do seem devoted to old memes. There are many good ones available today, you should explore your options.

muddybrazos said:

---

Slovak Member of the European Parliament Milan Mazurek GOES OFF!

“I will say something what many of you will have a problem with, and I will say it loudly and openly: White Lives Matter

Because right now, white people are just a tiny minority in this world, and white people are… pic.twitter.com/eeHX7aAN4U

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) October 10, 2025

---

All human lives matter. "All men are Created equal" means something. But fascists and commies (pretty much the same thing in many ways) are bigots and hateful. They divide people and kill lots of them.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Or could have provided historical context for better understanding. Socialism, in all its forms, is a great evil: communism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. There are many variations and they are evil.

Bigotry is also evil.

---

Yes, but they're not going to call evil ideas they believe in or actions that they engage in, of course.

---

You mean like... Zionism?

---

There's nothing inherently evil about wanting a homeland or sovereign country in the land of your ancestors. I think most of us want the same thing.

Where it could cross over into evil is in how you go about doing it. And indeed, there have been some bad actors over the years who have shed blood in pursuit of that goal (though, I suppose, one could argue that some of the American revolutionaries engaged in similar conduct). But the idea in and of itself, isn't inherently evil, certainly not in the same line as communism, Islam, and Fascism.

---

Its not the land of their ancestors.

The real biblical Jews got wiped out by the Romans and miscegenated. The Romans did that to a lot of people.

But even if I accept the idea they are real jews and it is their ancestral land... why was it bad when the Germans invaded Poland or France to reclaim their lost territory.... but when Jews travel to Palestine and do it, its completely acceptable?

Why is Nazism bad? But Zionism is good? They are both ethnonationalist movements centered around the belief that their people are the chosen people and a revanchist cause to reclaim lost territory.

---

This is what you would call a false equivalence.

As a preliminary matter, your claim that Jews have no ancestral connection to the land ignores both history and archaeology. Ancient Israel, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Second Temple, Hebrew inscriptions, synagogues, and countless archaeological sites all testify to a longstanding Jewish presence there. The Romans didn't erase Jewish ancestry from history. Jews remained a distinct people for nearly two millennia despite dispersion.

Second, Nazism and Zionism are not remotely the same thing. Nazism was built on racial supremacy and conquest. Zionism, at its core, is the belief that Jews have a right to national self-determination in their historic homeland. Those are not equivalent concepts. By your logic, every people group seeking self-determination in its ancestral homeland would be evil. It's a really weird take. Germany invaded foreign countries to conquer and dominate them. That is not the same as arguing that a people have a historical connection to a particular land.

---

Forgot to add this clip of the candid interviews the original settlers of Israel gave... they are so arrogant and old they didnt give a **** about concealing their war crimes.

I guess self-determination means you have the right to rape, murder, and light POW's on fire with flame throwers in Mothra's universe.

pic.twitter.com/vJi2yeQ6ph https://t.co/1HFW2gUfCi

— Global Observatory (@GlobObservatory) July 22, 2025

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Or could have provided historical context for better understanding. Socialism, in all its forms, is a great evil: communism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. There are many variations and they are evil.

Bigotry is also evil.

---

Yes, but they're not going to call evil ideas they believe in or actions that they engage in, of course.

---

You mean like... Zionism?

---

There's nothing inherently evil about wanting a homeland or sovereign country in the land of your ancestors. I think most of us want the same thing.

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Yes it has absolutely nothing to do with people exactly like you who have completely fleeced the entire country and put us $40 trillion in debt. You fucking leech. pic.twitter.com/rZ3v2Tpbui

— 𝔏𝔦𝔳𝔢𝔉𝔯𝔢𝔢𝔒𝔯𝔇𝔦𝔢 🐍 (@MaloriRabbi) August 6, 2026

---

Dan Crenshaw turned out to be the worst kind of ******bag after he got elected to congress. Embraced the swamp lifestyle immediately.

---

James Fishback announces that Byron Donalds is under investigation for “federal sex trafficking” as it relates to disgraced Rep. Cory Mills.

Donalds has a 98% chance to win Florida’s Republican gubernatorial primary according to election odds.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/Z6MrK9RkqZ

— AF Post (@AFpost) August 6, 2026

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are self inflicted.

historian said:

---

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are sled inflicted.

---

Would you support a two-state solution?

For some reason Oldbear wouldnt answer the question...

historian said:

---

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are sled inflicted.

---

So you're saying the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel?

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are sled inflicted.

---

So you're saying the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel?

---

I do

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are sled inflicted.

---

Would you support a two-state solution?

For some reason Oldbear wouldnt answer the question...

---

BarB is still angry I called out his stale meme use.

But historian, what does it mean for problems to be "sled inflicted"?

Fetterman: Does Israel engage in a genocide?

Stewart: In Palestine? Yes.

Fetterman: I strongly disagree. There wasn't a genocide. The Jewish community actually experienced a true genocide.

Stewart: They've killed like 1,200 Palestinians since the ceasefire.

Fetterman: Yeah.… pic.twitter.com/kXT6M9f7XF

— Reggie B. (@reggiebblue) August 5, 2026

Stewart: For you, Israel is the red line.

Fetterman: Absolutely. I can never turn my back on Israel.

Stewart: I mean no disrespect but that is not our country. pic.twitter.com/fQXdW8sH4V

— Reggie B. (@reggiebblue) August 5, 2026

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are sled inflicted.

---

So you're saying the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel?

---

I do

---

So Palestinians living in Gaza and West Bank should be granted Israeli citizenship and equal voting rights in the only democracy in the Middle East immediately, right?

"Whether you like it or not, the race war is here"

- Nick Fuentes pic.twitter.com/RnCmJysxri

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) August 6, 2026

muddybrazos said:

---

"Whether you like it or not, the race war is here"

- Nick Fuentes pic.twitter.com/RnCmJysxri

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) August 6, 2026

---

You've always wanted a race war, Nick. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

"Whether you like it or not, the race war is here"

- Nick Fuentes pic.twitter.com/RnCmJysxri

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) August 6, 2026

---

You've always wanted a race war, Nick. Let's not pretend otherwise.

---

I guess you didnt watch the video which isnt surprising and no I dont want a race war. He accuratley describes how the DSA radicals are escalating things to violence but thats your team so youre probably cool with that. You were probably among those who enjoyed seeing Charlie Kirk get his head blown off bc hes a "nazi".

edit - sorry I thought you were saying I wanted a race war so I ddnt mean to lump you in with the commies who are acttively pushing for one bc I find myself agreeing w you 2/3 of the time.

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

"Whether you like it or not, the race war is here"

- Nick Fuentes pic.twitter.com/RnCmJysxri

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) August 6, 2026

---

You've always wanted a race war, Nick. Let's not pretend otherwise.

---

I guess you didnt watch the video which isnt surprising and no I dont want a race war. He accuratley describes how the DSA radicals are escalating things to violence but thats your team so youre probably cool with that. You were probably among those who enjoyed seeing Charlie Kirk get his head blown off bc hes a "nazi".

edit - sorry I thought you were saying I wanted a race war so I ddnt mean to lump you in with the commies who are acttively pushing for one bc I find myself agreeing w you 2/3 of the time.

---

I was referring to him, not you. I did watch the video, but my point is always to remember the history. People get scared of commies (rightly so), they turn to nazis as the solution, and you end up with a slightly different version of genocidal tyranny. And by "nazi" I don't mean Charlie Kirk.

Nick Fuentes isn't embracing race war as a last-ditch defense of freedom, capitalism, or any kind of ideology. He couldn't care less. Racial cleansing is entirely the point. The rest is incidental.

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

"Whether you like it or not, the race war is here"

- Nick Fuentes pic.twitter.com/RnCmJysxri

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) August 6, 2026

---

You've always wanted a race war, Nick. Let's not pretend otherwise.

---

I guess you didnt watch the video which isnt surprising and no I dont want a race war. He accuratley describes how the DSA radicals are escalating things to violence but thats your team so youre probably cool with that. You were probably among those who enjoyed seeing Charlie Kirk get his head blown off bc hes a "nazi".

edit - sorry I thought you were saying I wanted a race war so I ddnt mean to lump you in with the commies who are acttively pushing for one bc I find myself agreeing w you 2/3 of the time.

---

I was referring to him, not you. I did watch the video, but my point is always to remember the history. People get scared of commies (rightly so), they turn to nazis as the solution, and you end up with a slightly different version of genocidal tyranny. And by "nazi" I don't mean Charlie Kirk.

Nick Fuentes isn't embracing race war as a last-ditch defense of freedom, capitalism, or any kind of ideology. He couldn't care less. Racial cleansing is entirely the point. The rest is incidental.

---

Yes, Nick is definitely embracing his ascent as a vpice for zoomers and he recognizes that there is a power vacuum on the right now that Charlie is gone. He's pretty funny so that helps his appeal. The right has a split going on between boomer maga neocons and young zoomers who dislike Israel. The left is also going through a split between old liberal rich boomer and young radical antifa DSA people.

Former Fetterman chief of staff 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽 https://t.co/eaho6nkjvb

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) August 6, 2026

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

They are Arabs who live in Israel. If they are not citizens of Israel, Jordan, or another country in the region they could become citizens if they would act like civilized humans. No other country wants them because they are barbarians.

Regardless, there is no country named Palestine and never has been. They have had numerous opportunities to have one and rejected it each time. Most of their problems are sled inflicted.

---

Would you support a two-state solution?

For some reason Oldbear wouldnt answer the question...

---

No. They were offered their own state multiple times and rejected it each time because their bigotry would not allow them to accept the Jewish state. They have repeatedly demonstrated for decades that they only want to slaughter Jews. It would be fanatical to reward genocidal butchers. They are the modern equivalent of the Nazis.