Of course Israel is an occupier and they are stealing more land as we speak. That Israel is an occupier is a fact. One that you can not seem to handle but, your denial will not change things. US finds Israel’s retroactive approval of illegal settlements ‘particularly troubling’ ”https://www.rt.com/news/357825-israel-settlements-retroactive-approval/
Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine's religion? What was the name of its currency? Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise? __________________________________________________ "Since Palestine includes both modern day Israel and Jordan both Arab and Jewish residents of this area were referred to as "Palestinians". It was only after the Jews re-inhabited their historic homeland of Judea and Samaria, that the myth of an Arab Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide" http://www.science.co.il/History-Palestine.php Good luck answering
Some Palestinians [Hamas] are imposing tyrannical control of a part of Palestine [Gaza], so that a part of Palestinians are victims of Palestinians ... and this is quite curious, when not grotesque. And think ... Hamas is so "odd" that Egypt is cooperating with Israel to manage the blockade of Gaza [so that you should accuse also Egypt for the "occupation" of Palestine ...].
Even the Jews call them Palestinians! Forget Palestinian Terrorism, White House Singles Out Jewish Construction As Threat To Two-State Solution NEW YORK Forget Palestinian terrorism. Put aside official Palestinian Authority incitement to violence against Israelis and the PAs abject refusal to even begin negotiations leading to a Palestinian state. The White House on Wednesday instead singled out Jewish construction in communities in the West Bank as posing a serious and growing threat to the viability of a two-state solution. Keep reading about Palestine and Palestinians here: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...ewish-construction-threat-two-state-solution/ -------------------- Finally the US comes to its senses!
So? How else can you call people living in Palestine? The Jews living in Palestine are also Palestinians. Still, there were never a country called Palestine.
But they call themselves Israelis or Jews or Zionists. It's the same all over the world. People conquer a chunk of land and call it their own... like the Americans. They call the land of the Indians United States of America. Canada never existed before the British took possession and named the conquered and stolen land so. Here, one last time proof that Palestine existed long before Israel... Who were the inhabitants of Palestine before the Zionists? Looking through the pages of history, it becomes clear that the war over the possession of Palestine and Jerusalem has been going on between Muslims, Christians and Jews since Biblical times without reaching any settlement ever. Archaeological findings and statements in Bible clearly show that Palestine was inhabited by non-Jewish Semites a long time before Jews even claimed that it is their promised land and long after that. The justification of Jews, that they claim the land because it belonged to them 3,300 years ago and was lost in the war, is absurd because if that logic is true; America should give the southwestern territory back to Mexicans and the rest of the land to Indians. Read on... http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_prezionist_people.phpbefore
Strange, they petitioned the UN and gained their nation in 2012. Why on earth would they do so if they were already a country with borders and centralized government?
Jews and Arabs who were both called Palestinians because they lived in the British Mandate area called Palestine. Neither had a country until Israel accepted the opportunity to be recognized and the Palestinian Arabs declined.
Israel does not have jurisdiction over the sovereign rights of the Palestinian people regardless of whether Hamas is violating them in Gaza or not. Egypt is not imposing a blockade of Gaza but instead has simply closed it's border with Gaza. The closure of a border is not an act of war while stopping shipping on the high seas or through the air, which is what a blockade does, is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Gaza since 2007 and has made numerous military invasions of Gaza since then as well often resulting in the death of many unarmed civilians in the process. Hamas, to my knowledge, has never launched a military invasion of Israel. More innocent Arabs in Gaza have been killed by the IDF than innocent Israelis being killed by Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. I'm sure that you're aware of that fact.
With the political division of Transjordan and Palestine the provisionally recognized sovereign nation of Palestine was created under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. That was carried forward under the UN Charter when the UN replaced the League of Nations. The "Palestinians" were those living in Palestine at the time the nation was created and it included all of the indigenous Arab Muslims, Jews, Christians and others living in Palestine and their descendants. It never included the immigrant European (Zionist) Jews that were allowed into Palestine by the British against the will of the Palestinian people although it would include their children born in Palestine. The creation of the State of Israel was based upon a war of aggression initiated by and waged overwhelmingly by foreigners (i.e. immigrant Zionist European Jews) and it violated the civil and sovereign rights of the Palestinian people. Lacking UN intervention, which should have occurred to protect the sovereign and civil rights of Palestinian people, several Arab nations came to their defense but were unfortunately unable to suppress the illegal insurrection of foreign Zionist Jews that had no rights related to any part of Palestine. People that support Zionism tend to ignore the historical facts and instead make up BS propaganda to rationalize the creation of Israel. As I've noted though the children of the origination Zionists, that were born in the Palestinian territory now called Israel, are natural born citizens of that land and do have a right to live there (they're natural born citizens) even though their parents could arguably be called "illegal immigrants" because their immigration was never approved by the Palestinian people. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that Israel now has a "Right to Exist" because the vast majority of it's population are native born citizens of Israel (a part of the original nation of Palestine). I believe the Palestinian Authority understands this fact, which is why they're now willing to recognize Israel's Right to Exist, but obviouslhy the (Zionist) Israel government doesn't recognize the sovereign rights of the Palestinian people in return.
Really. Please tell us all what date it achieved independence, what it's flag was, who it's leaders were, what form of government it had, what it's laws were, what it had for a constitution or declaration, where they had embassies, what it's capital was and show the monetary unit they used.
Please bring historical documents that prove the existence of Muslims and Christians since Biblical times. The text you quoted is factually wrong. Jews have always lived in Palestine. Following the "logic" of the article, Jews have the right to claim almost all of Europe, since they were there long before the modern European nations were born and are still there. Jews have the right to claim Iraq, because they were there long before Arabs and stayed there until recently. Jews have the right to claim Egypt, because they were there long before Arab conquest until expelled less than a century ago. We're not greedy though. We'll settle for Switzerland, cows and all. Give us Switzerland. We were there first. The article contradicts itself twice. Once when it says that territory lost in a war can't be claimed back, but this is exactly what Arabs do - they claim territory they lost to the Ottoman Empire centuries ago. Twice when it says that Jews can't justify their claim on the land they inhabited long ago, but non-Jewish Semites can because they inhabited the land before the Jews (and of course lost it in a war with Jews, but they can claim it back because even though territory lost in a war can't be claimed back, some are more equal than others...). Furthermore, if territory lost in a war can't be claimed back, then West Bank and Gaza rightfully belong to Israel, since these are territories lost in a war and Arabs can't claim them back. Why then do they exactly what they deny Jews the right to do? Oh, my poor head Tell ya what, this kind of articles are paid for by psychiatrists. Bet it brings them clients in droves. I've seen a Jewish ID from the time of the Mandate. It clearly stated "Palestinian". The Larousse French dictionary from 1939 lists all the flags of the time. Guess what, Palestine flag is blue and white with a Star of David on it. Arabs were not seen as the rightful owners of Palestine back then. No, it has not simply "closed its border". Nothing passes through the Rafah crossing. While Israel allows goods bound to Gaza through its territory, Egypt doesn't allow any kind of trade with Gaza, not even humanitarian aid. That's why Egypt is being criticized by Muslims, like the 100 scholars who issued a statement asking Egypt to lift its blockade of Gaza. Google translate: Ha'aretz published an article written by an Egyptian-born journalist on the subject: Even the Guardian has finally noticed the Egyptian blockade: Sounds like a blockade to me. Gaza has been at war with Israel since 2001. The blockade came after 6 years of rocket launching from Gaza to Israeli territory and one bloody takeover by a terrorist organization. Just curious: how do you know they were unarmed? I'm sure that you're not aware of the efforts made by Israeli governments to insure the security of Israeli citizens. It's thanks to these efforts that the number of Israeli casualties is so low. However, even one life lost is too much. Condoning attacks on civilian population on one side while condemning them on the other side would be best characterized by the term "hypocrisy". Or would "bias" describe the situation better? Probably both.
First and foremost let's clarify one fact. There is an inherent "natural right of the person" at birth and that is the right of "Jus Soli" (i.e. Latin - Right of Soil). A person is a "natural born citizen" of wherever they are born. That natural right is based upon the criteria of a natural (unalienable/inalienable) rights of the person (i.e. "A natural Right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the Rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person."). The person's parents, their race, religion, ethnic heritage or any other attribute of the parent(s) has no bearing or influence upon the 'natural born citizenship" of the individual born into any country or territory anywhere in the world. Some would argue for the right of Jus Sanguinis (i.e. Latin - Right of Blood) where the child inherits a "right of citizenship" based upon their parents or family lineage, which is what many Zionists argue when it comes to claiming a right to Israel, but that is a statutory right, not a natural right, because a natural right cannot be dependent upon another person (e.g. the parent). Of course "rights" granted by statutory law can and often do violate the "Natural Rights of the Person" because there's really no criteria for limiting statutory rights. With that understanding then the only people that have a "natural right of citizenship" in any country are those that were born within the territorial borders of the country. So yes, when the provisional sovereign nation of Palestine was created with it's separation from Transjordan there were Muslims, Jews, Christians and probably atheists and others living there that had a natural right of citizenship to the newly formed nation. No one disputes that. At the same time no one born in Europe had a "natural right of citizenship" to Palestine because they were natural born citizens of whatever country they were born in. When Palestine was created as a provisionally recognized sovereign nation the role of the "mandatory" was to establish a modern government for the "citizens" of the newly formed nation. In addition to the natural born citizens of Palestine there was also the statutory inclusion of all that lived in Palestine at the time because in a "modern government" the "powers of government" are granted by those subject to the jurisdiction of that government which includes all permanent residents of the country. So any Arabs, Jews, or even little blue people living in Palestine at it's creation were either "natural born citizens" or "statutory (naturalized) citizens" of Palestine and Palestine belonged to those people and those people alone. It didn't belong to the British and it didn't belong to anyone living in any other country at it's moment of creation. Palestine belonged exclusively to the Palestinian People regardless of their parentage, religion, race, gender, or any other invidious criteria that can be imagined. All of this must be understood related to who a country belongs to when a new country is formed as was done with the former colonial territories of the Turkish Empire as addressed in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, This understanding provides us with the knowledge of why things went to hell in a shopping cart thereafter, why we have the problems we still have today, and what needs to be done today to resolve the problems so let's start with the applicable statement from Article 22: Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22 First and foremost it's been a recognized fact that the selection of the British as the Mandatory was a gross mistake because Great Britain was a colonial power like the former Turkish Empire and instead of "rendering of administrative advice and assistance" to the Palestinian people it instead imposed a "British government" in Palestine which is what it did in all of it's colonies. Britain apparently had no clue about how to limit itself to "rendering of administrative advice and assistance" to a "Palestinian" government that needed to be established on Day One when the British became the Mandatory over the new nation. History also reflects that the British, in establishing a "British government" over the Palestinian People, by failing to limit themselves to providing advice and assistance, failed consistently to ensure that "wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration" of the British as the "Mandatory" over Palestine. One of the greatest failures in ensuring that the "wishes of the Palestinian People" was the principle consideration was the British issuing the Mandate for Palestine that was highly opposed by the vast majority of the Palestinian People. It wasn't even a good idea to introduce an influx of foreigners (that would conflict with the majority of the people) into a newly established country when attempting to establish a modern government (that the British weren't even attempting to do). How stupid was it to bring in Europeans that wanted to create their own country to a country where the people, that have a natural and statutory right to be there, are trying to create their own modern government over the exact same territory. Someone really had their heads up their rectal cavity to even consider this and to completely ignore the "wishes" of the Palestinian People at the time was perhaps one of the most nefarious actions by any government of the early 20th Century. The British had a clearly established objective in Palestine (create a modern government for the People of Palestine) as well as significant limitation upon it's authorized power as the Mandatory and the British, by their actions as the Mandatory in ignoring Article 22 completely, violated the very sovereignty of the Palestinian People. Of course this disregard of the provisions of Article 22 lead to a civil war in Palestine between the immigrant (Zionist) European Jews that wanted to take Palestine away from the Palestine People that actually had the sovereign right to the nation of Palestine and the Zionists were willing to go to any measure to accomplish that. The Zionists formed terrorist organizations like the Irgun and, of course, the Palestinians responded to the violent invasion of their country by foreigners that wanted to take it away from them. This conflict, that the British had created by ignoring their limitations as the Mandatory and it's failure to keep the wishes of the Palestinians paramount in all of it's actions, continued until after WW II and the British, instead of taking responsibility for their own gross violations of the Rights of the Palestinian, simply decided to "bail out" leaving the mess they created up to the United Nations to deal with. So the United Nations, that replaced the League of Nations, was stuck holding a bag of stinky excrement with the upcoming departure of the British that were responsible for that stinky bag of excrement. Remembering of course there are two bodies within the United Nations where the General Assembly is limited to issuing resolutions that are basically limited to providing information, advice, or proposals but has no enforcement authority as all enforcement authority resides with the Security Council. So the General Assembly addressed the situation and concluded that there were the Palestinian People that had the original right to their own nation based upon Article 22 and then there were also the Zionist immigrant Jews from Europe that wanted to take away that nation from the Palestinians and the Zionists weren't going to leave, ever! The UNGA came to the only conclusion that was logical in the hopes of ending the civil war and that was created a "recommendation" that the Zionists get part of Palestine and the Palestinians get the rest. This recommendation was enumerated in UNGA 181 but it was only a recommendation subject to the approval of both sides in the civil war in Palestine. Once again though the original principle that the "wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration" from Article 22 still applied and logically a national referendum on UNGA 181 should have been initiated in Palestine. That's of course a "should-a, could-a happened" but it obviously didn't. The next best thing did happen of course. The representatives of the Zionist Jews, the Jewish Council, and the representatives of the native Palestinians, the Arab League, did vote on UNGA 181. Based upon population in 1948 the Jewish Council represented 1/3rd of those living in Palestine and the Arab Council represented 2/3rd and effectively, by rejecting UNGA 181, the Arab Council controlled the outcome. Even if we assigned 50% to each side of the issue a 50-50 representative vote would not have passed the measure because neither side would represent a majority vote. In the end it was all ignored as the Zionists decided to declare independence, and to ensure that the vote would support that independence they used force and coercion to expel enough Arabs from the territory to pass the vote for independence and establish the nation of Israel. As with all Declarations of Independence they also double as a Declaration of War if they're opposed and that was the basis for the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war that Israel ultimately "won" based upon the diplomatic resolution in Armistice agreements it made predominately with Jordan. In the end the Israelis refused to comply with the Armistice agreement with Jordan which called for Israel to allow the Palestinians that it had forced out to be allowed to return to their homes and communities (that were to remain under Arab control). Virtually none of the 400,000 to perhaps 700,000 Arabs that had been forced by either violent acts or by political coercion form Israel participated in the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war and under the terms of the Armistice they were supposed to be allowed to return to their homes in the Israeli controlled territories. Israel simply couldn't allow the Arabs to return. There were just too damn many Arabs and they would have been able to out-vote the Jews in Israel and that lead to the "Right of Return" demands that existed for decades from the Palestinians. There was also the issue of property (land) confiscated from the rightful owners that were Arabs. As I recall this comprised about 18% of all the Israeli territory. Israel didn't want to compensate the Arab landowners for this land, and perhaps couldn't even afford to do so, so it just "passed a law" and took it away from them. This also lead to future Palestinian demands because the "Right of Property" of the Arabs had been clearly violated by a nefarious Israeli law. There were conflicts in the following years as the Arab tried to evict the "Immigrant Zionist Jews" that never had an actual right to be in Palestine as the Palestinians were seeking to restore the nation they'd been promised in Article 22 from the League of Nations. The ultimate goal of the Zionists to take control of all of Palestine, that the Zionists had been demanding since the 19th Century, never abated and by 1966-67 they hatched a plan to provoke a war with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (according to Mosha Dayan and later comments by other Israeli leaders, and, when Egypt ultimately failed to attack Israel (because it was militarily incapable of a successful attack), Israel said "To hell with it" and invaded Egypt. This lead to a very small military attack of Israel (no invasion) by Jordan which gave the Israelis a rationalization for invading E Jerusalem and the West Bank and seize that territory which is what they really coveted. Syria failed to respond and actually agreed to a UN ceasefire but undeterred Israel invaded Syria because it also coveted the Golan Heights. All of this we know from history but over time one significant development has occurred. The original European Zionist Jews are virtually all gone passing away with time. Today the Israeli population is overwhelmingly natural born citizens if Israel (Palestine) and have just as much right to be here as the current generation of Arabs. Now we have a conflict between the "natural born citizens of Israel" and the "natural born citizens of Palestine" and the only possible resolution is that the Israelis withdraw to their internationally recognized territorial borders leaving the Palestinians to their internationally recognized territorial borders, both sides must end all acts of belligerency, respect each other's sovereignty, territorial borders, and the rights of each other to live in peace. In short, while it's taken over a half a century but we now have a situation that can ultimately end the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict that's existed since the British issued the British Mandate for Palestine that was beyond their authority to issue under it's limited role as the Mandatory for the newly formed nation of Palestine at the end of WW I. We can finally get rid of that stinky bag of excrement that the British created and that the UN failed to address when it was to assume responsibility for Palestine when the British departed. This is the best chance for Israel to truly take it's place among the modern nations but in doing so it must also give up the ultimate goal of Zionism which was complete control of all of Palestine by the Jews.
Excuse me, the above does not make sense to me... Where/when was the division of Transjordan occurred? Provisionally recognized a sovereign Nation is <your wishful thinking>... Palestine was recognized as part of <SOUTHERN SYRIA> was never independent, had no elected government, and if you peruse the old Flag dictionary you will find the white and blue star of David flag that all the dwellers of this part of the world accepted, There were no Palestinians then, they were all Arab opportunists looking for a Job. <Palestinian was the nomenclature used to denote the Jews during the Mandate... Israel was NEVER CREATED it was <RECONSTITUTED> I did not invent that word but it is part of the preamble of the articles of the Mandate Once again unsubstantiated trash, has no historical validity at all! Not worth retorting to because it is not historically valid!
At the end of WW I, under the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Great Britain was assigned as the Mandatory of part of the territory that had previously be a part of the Turkish Empire. In 1921 it divided that territory into Palestine and Transjordan. France was assigned as the Mandatory over the territory that later became Syria and Lebanon. Syria and Palestine were never one political entity under the Mandatory assignments under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of nations. All of the "Mandatory" states of Lebanon, Syria, (Trans)Jordan and Palestine were provisionally recognize as sovereign nations under Article 22 where the sole role of the "Mandatory" was to provide administrative advice and assistance to the people of those nations in creation of their own modern government. The "Mandatories" were never authorized to "govern" those territories in any manner which, as previously noted, the British completely ignored because Britain was a colonial power and not a very good selection when it came to providing advice or assistance in the creation of a modern government (if for no other reason that colonialism was already rejected by the 20th Century and Britain had an obsolete government. Try actually reading Article 22. . There were no Palestinians then, they were all Arab opportunists looking for a Job. <Palestinian was the nomenclature used to denote the Jews during the Mandate... Israel was NEVER CREATED it was <RECONSTITUTED> I did not invent that word but it is part of the preamble of the articles of the Mandate Once again unsubstantiated trash, has no historical validity at all! Not worth retorting to because it is not historically valid![/QUOTE]
You turned "Zionism" to something its not and then you dugde us by it most Jews around the world are "Zionists" = trusting Jews have a homeland in Zion, the BS about genocide and being worse than Nazis belong to the Muslim streets in Europe - not in a real discussion. That's funny, I noted the ppl of Palestine were very much in favor of it and even smuggled refugees while risking their own lives. how far do you expect to get with nothing but Arab propaganda ? please no more BS about being a fair observer.....alll you spew here is incredibly one sided. Only it started in 1870 not 1922, Jews would not come to Palestine in 1922 as you say if they hadnt already have settelments there, my city Rishon Le Zion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_LeZion You are reflecting 1922 on 2016, why not 1922 to 1922 ? Did the Jews had any word on Arab immigration to Palestine ? do you know how many Arab workers came here before and during WW2 ? the money Jews came with Europe started industries, the money the Brits payed to build army bases and suppllies during the war made everyone - Arabs and Jews - "rich", as my Grandpa told me he made a week wager in a day building army base for the Brits. I never said that, I said it doesnt matter how many of us do have links and how many don't, my Grandma family was in Palestine during and before WW1, her father was a soldier in the Ottoman empire and he died of Typhus at the age of 44 (that's all I know of him) but they originaly came from Spain according to family lore and family name, dont make such dogmatic statements on things you know nothing about, you disrespect Jewish history - you cannot be objective about it. You are wrong, Zionists are divided to two political parts, you demonized the term Zionism for a reason dont play naive now, Zionism in general is bad because that's the Arab propaganda since the Mandate, the truth is "Zionists" are everyone in Israel and most of the Jews in the world, the boundries of Israel are debated among Zionists, its not the BS you tell about us. What does tyranny got to do with religous laws on who is a Jew ? "Pal" is a slur ? you call my existance a crime against humanity lol but "Pal" is a slur ofc you support the Palestinian narrative you qoute it in exact down to the "Biblical genocide". Its stupid to accuse Israel of Egyptian aggression or expect it to know then what is suspected now, they moved Tanks and called for war - we attacked it when their guard was down, end of story. your whole reasoning is based that Israelis need to say thank you 10 times a day and have no right to be here in the first place. Dont you think you need to show me where Hamas agrees to all this before you butter me up ? I mean at least show me a lie I can fall for....., all we have are PLO agreements and Hamas rockets. But the past cannot be accepted and the future cannot be agreed with nowdays narratives and you cannot make peace like that. Yea that protects Arabs from being bombed, how does it protect a Jew from being stabbed ? 242 ??? well if 10 million Palestinian refugees and families coming to an 8 Million souls country isnt enough we are also support to disregard 50 years of hostileties which we won at a very dear cost - what's our fault in that if now you say "sorry we should have shaken your hand along time ago" ? we should we withdraw from all WB land ? its disputed land till we sign an agreement and I see it perfecrtly right that some of it goes to Israel. That's.........not true, if Abu Mazen signs a peace with us - Hamas and Iran and everyone wishing to present hemselves as TRUE MUSLIMS!!! - will still fight Israel, its just the way it is in the ME you live on another planet from us, I thought all the Western adventures in the ME tought you something by now.
Before addressing the central problem with this proposition we need to ask ourselves by what definition is the word "illegal" being used when it comes to the withdrawal of the "illegal Jewish settlements" from the Palestinian territory? Is this based upon Israeli law, Palestinian law, or perhaps international law (i.e. Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions)? Only under Israeli law would any of the Israeli (Jewish) immigration into the Palestinian territory be considered legal. But that's not the most egregious issue to be addressed. As an American Libertarian I embrace the following statement from an early American patriot: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine ~ Common Sense Being subjected to the control of a hostile military force of occupation by another nation represents the most intolerable form of government that can exist. We can use the extreme example of Nazi Germany that was based upon Aryan Supremacy. It was unquestionably an intolerable evil for the non-Aryans that lived in Germany such as the Jews that were singled out by the Nazis but it was far worse for those that suffered under the Nazi oppression in countries like Poland. The Polish Jews weren't being subjected to the tyranny of their own government but instead suffered the tyranny of a foreign government that wasn't even of their making. Yes, both Germany and Polish Jews died in the Nazi concentration camps but the intolerable acts by the Nazis, the tyranny of the Nazis, over the Polish Jews was far worse because they were foreigners being put to death. The Palestinian people have been subjected to an intolerable evil by the Israeli military occupation since 1967. Israelis and Israeli supporters continue to condemn the Palestinians for their response to the intolerable evil that Israel has subjected them to for almost 50 years. Israel is committing perhaps the greatest form of tyranny possible by subjecting the Palestinian to the hostile military occupation of their country by the Israeli military and somehow they seem to expect none of the Palestinians to respond to this ultimate form of tyranny by Israel. I don't know how anyone can rationalize tyranny and by supporting tyranny the person becomes the tyrant. I would ask, I would beg, anyone that supports the intolerable evil of the tyrannical occupation of the Palestinian territory by the Israeli military for the last 49 years to explain, without simply trying to rationalize, this intolerable evil that Israel is committing against the Palestinians. How can you possible justify the actions of the tyrants in the Israeli government? Israel, by analogy, simply wants the Palestinians "to walk obediently into the gas chamber" and while many will there will be those, albeit a small minority, that will fight by any means possible against the tyranny they're being subjected to. It is the tyranny of Israel that creates the fight against Israel by a small minority of the Palestinian people and, without justifying the means of that violent reaction that has included acts of terrorism, we can certainly understand why a small minority of Palestinians respond with violence to the tyrannical actions of Israel over the Palestinian people.
Because the rest of the opinion centers around this one issue let me clarify. I'm referring to the Zionist political ideology put forward by Theodor Herzl where the Jews were to return to "Eretz Israel" and by expulsion and/or subjugation of the existing non-Jewish population (much as the historical Jews did with the Canaanites) to establish a new (apartheid) Jewish state. So let me be specific this one time for clarification I'm referring to the "Herzl Zionists" that were the European immigrant Jews that came to Palestine with the intent of creating a Jewish nation by conquest from the existing predominately non-Jewish "Palestinian" people that lived there. Israel, as it exists today, is a Jewish supremacy nation where the Jewish citizens are the "preferred" group and the non-Jewish Israel citizens are the "disparage" group. A non-Jewish Israeli citizen will never have equality with a Jewish Israeli citizen so long as Israel refers to itself as a "Jewish" nation. I'm sure you must be aware of that fact. By analogy we had the same problem recently in the US when it came to same-sex marriage where Republicans wanted to argue that a "civil union" for same-sex couples was the same as "marriage" for opposite-sex couples but, of course, it never was. By denying "marriage" to same-sex couples, relegating them to the lessor state of a "civil union", it inherently disparaged the relationship and the two were never equal even if all government benefits would have been identical (they weren't). There were Jews that immigrated to Palestine that weren't "Herzl Zionists" and that came to adopt Palestine as their homeland, to become integrated with the "Palestinian" society and did not come to take anything away from the non-Jewish residents of that land. These Jewish immigrants could be called "additive" to Palestine because they immigrated with the intent of becoming a part of Palestine while the "Herzl Zionists" would be referred to as "subtractive" because they sought to take away the land from the non-Jewish residents and create their own Jewish government. But time passes and, as I noted, the original "Herzl Zionists" that came from Europe with the nefarious intent of taking the land away from the predominately non-Jewish people that lived in Palestine and now all but gone. Even those that were involved in the 6-Day war are old and no longer in control of the government. With the passage of time there's an opportunity for the Israeli people to turn away from the "Herzl Zionist" political ideology and embrace a new ideology based upon a mutual respect between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people but Israel cannot do that so long as it refuses to respect the Right of the Palestinians to their own land. Israel must agree to completely withdraw from all of the Palestinian territory based upon an agreement of mutual respect for the national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and right to live in peace without any acts of aggression between the Palestinian and the Israeli people. In short, Israel and Palestine must agree to the provision in UNSC 242 because that's the only way that Israel can put the tyrannical aggression of the "Herzl Zionists" behind them and become a modern nation. I see real hope for Israel but, like the Palestinians, it must put the past behind it and move into the future based upon establishment of a mutual respect between the Israeli and Palestinian people. I'm not saying that's easy, because it's not, which is why I also embrace the proposal for a strong and independent military force such as NATO to occupy a buffer zone along the border that can ensure against any acts of aggression between the two countries allowing the time to pass which is necessary in establishing the trust of the people of the two nations. There are those that misrepresent my position falsely claiming I'm "anti-Israel" when in fact I'm not. I want Israel to do what is right which includes ending it's tyrannical military control of the Palestinian territory. I also want the Palestinians to do what is right and that's to respect Israel's right to exist and live in peace within it's defined borders but that is obviously contingent upon Israel respecting the right to exist for Palestine, respects it's borders, and the right to live in peace for the Palestinian people. It's a two-way street but before Israel and Palestine can even start down that street they must agree to the principles outlined in UNSC 242. We've know what it takes since 1967 and enough time has now passed so that a lasting peace can be established today, Others tend to preach doom and gloom but I see an opportunity that has not existed before and it would be good for both Israel and Palestine to seize this opportunity for a lasting peace between the two people. I'm not pro-Palestinian where I disparage Israel or pro-Israel where I disparage Palestinians but instead I'm pro-Israel/Palestine because the opportunity for peace between the two people is now at hand. I discuss the past understanding that, regardless of whether we agree or disagree on it, for peace to occur the past must ultimately be forgotten so that both Israel and Palestine can move forward in both an independent and dependent manner in establishing a permanent peace between the two people.
To the Victor goes the Spoils it is that simple all the land obtained by Israel after its legal recognized creation was the results of them not being the aggressor but as the defender and winning Israel had every right to take and hold that land just like we had every right to take land away from Germany and Japan after WWII
Where was this army Herzel assembeled, what land did it conquer, what weapons did they have, I want to hear from you the first conquest of this Crusade army set upon the Holy land- Date and place of the conquest. We have Arabs and Jews here and the in-equality between them is result of a 100 years old war and murders, we never had a clean start to judge otherwise, saying Jews cam migrate to Israel becasue its their home - is not harming the rights of Arabs, fighting us from their villages will cause blockades, arrestes, searches etc', not the nature of the state. Did many Gays blew themselves up in American resturants that you want to compare treatment ? Your view on Herzel and Zionism are very twisted, "Herzel Jews" came to an Ottoman Palestine, if you have a story for me on armed "nefarious" Jews landing ashore shooting Turks on sight and gaining land on conquest - I'D LLLOVE TO READ IT !!! Otherwise.......what the hell are you talking about ?? Herzel died in 1904 before anyone talked about war, his all life he tried to gain enough political pressure on the Sultan to allow a small Jewish autonomy, its insane to suggest he planned the conquest of the WB back in his life, for all he knew th eOttomans would exist forever. No you have it all wrong and messed up, I dont think you even understand the politics in Israel at all. No because your historic view is wrong so are your conclusions, that's why I said the Israeli and Palestinains narratives cannot co-exist and so no peace can be achieved at this time, to put it very plainly - as long as you see us as the devil and our existance a sin - we will not see your rights here and wont be willing to negotiate on what you lost, we can, perhaps, see pass it without a peace agreement (you keep your great Satan theories and we....see you for what you are) and still move along to economic agreements helping the Palesinian state should it come - as in the topic of this thread. On my part, I will never agree with the stuff you wrote above, my grandpa came here in 1935 and was lucky to escape Europe in time, he didnt come here to conquest anything in fact he didnt even think there would be a Jewish state at some point. Oh is that what is was ? respect ? smelled like somthing else....., I dont see you as objective, I dont see you as "respective", I know you have many issues with other countries in the world but your focus on the most complicated dispute in the world is not contributing because th eworld is not ready to open borders and no nationality (least of all the ME) and your views here will simply not work, the Palestinains themselves are no that of liberal socialists as you think they are. Nice paragraph, I would have answered it if I didnt know what you think about Jewish rights in Zion (none) and the whole Zionism movment (Satan foot soldiers), how can we possibly disguss such things seriously ? I dont know, maybe you caugh when your friends shout death to Israel in a protest but I dont see how you are objective, objective in my book sees both narratives, both points of views and both rights, all you do is say "you are a murderous bunch with no rights or objective in Plaestine other than currpot power but you won so much that we must come to terms with you" - I do with all do respect pee on such "peace" propossal. you think we should be ashamed ? we are not, we are very proud of what we managed to esablish here not just for us but for the whole nation and for generations to come. Amen, but probebly not by ppl like us.
Yes and the Muslim should return every little piece of Land they conquered though Islam from Africa to Asia and the Isles around it. Explanation here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ReF4UUa4E
"Might Makes Right" was the ideology of tyrants like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. The above statement expresses support for the actions of those like Hitler and Stalin.
And all of the immigrant White European Americans that took the lands of the Native-Americans should go back to Europe, Unfortunately throughout most of history "Tyrannical Conquest" was an acceptable means for a nation to expand it's territory but times change and as a result of WW II the world community of nations, joining together in the United Nations, established the " the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" at the conclusion of WW II. As with all social and political changes in principle it cannot impose an ex-post facto condition. We cannot, for example, condemn arranged child marriages in Europe that occurred prior to society establishing that this violated the rights of the child. We can point out, that by today's standards, they would be considered wrong but we can't condemn those that might have been involved in these marriage that were socially acceptable at the time. Of course we can and must condemn any attempt to acquire territory through war since WW II because it has been clearly established as being inadmissible based upon the will of the nations of the world formally through the United Nations.
