Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Speaks to the 69th UN General Assembly

Wait a minute, you tout Israel as the 'only democracy in the Middle East' as a reason for us to give you our support. Surely you mean you oppose dictatorship?

Or is it just arabs you oppose?

 

The land was Arab. Governed by Arab's with a minority of Jews living on it.

The discrimination between Arab's and Jews following the increased immigrations was mutual. However the Arab's were reacting to the policies Jews had in only hiring their own. You have to understand, making their own state in the area was the intention of Zionist Jews all along and they began to carry out these policies in Palestine.

You don't get to decide what is OK or not in another persons land. If the Arab's their didn't have a problem with it, then they didn't have a problem.

Also, racism and immigration policies are not necessarily the same thing. For the same reasons that we don't allow immigrants to just pour into our nation unimpeded, the Palestinians had the right to control who comes into their country. Arab's did not complain about Jewish immigration until they noticed it was increasing without pause and that the Jews coming there had some pretty wild ideologies. If immigrants came to the US with the notion that they were going to build a nation on it, would that not upset you?

Look at it this way. How did that turn out for the Native Americans? Unchecked immigration from ideological fanatics who come with the intention of looking for land, among other things. Oh, not all of them were fanatics, to be sure, but did that really matter? At first the Indians helped and welcomed them, but it did not take long before they realized what was happening. Now...point to the remnants of their civilization. That's what the Arab's are facing with the Israeli's. A structure that will find any pretext to take more land, and they'll cry victim while they do it.

So, when you talk about rights, you have to be realistic. No one has the right to come into your home whenever they want and set up shop. No one has the right to just enter another country en masse. But it wasn't just entering, which I have to stress again. The Zionists were overtly negotiating with the British to set up mandates that would begin carving up Palestine into Jewish territory in great disproportion to their actual number. This is reflected in the Balfour Declaration. They also had noticed that whenever they tried to negotiate through Britatin, the British usually sided with the Jews. And this is not a large land by any means. It's so small that these kind of things mean great changes for the people living there and slowly, they saw their land being taken from them by the Jews. I'd have revolted, myself.

 

What others? there's been no others and you know that LOL, 80 years, thousands of war criminals (by your standards), millions of war crimes (by your standards), genocides, ethnic cleansings, illegal wars, billions of dollars spent by international organizations and all you have to show is 2 or 3 marginally significant cases. Pathetic snake, utterly pathetic.


Your buddy and compatriot 'creation' has spent this entire thread trying to convince me that international law is worthless. While he did not quite put it like that due to his confliced double-standard based rhetoric, his case was quite goood - according to him international law was written by powerful nations for the benefit of powerful nations and both powerful and less powerful (like Egypt and all other Arab/Muslim nations) nations violate it routinely and with impunity whenever they feel like it and according to 'creation' their violations are competely understandable and justifiable. How is this kind of law not worthless?

 

I never said support us because we are a democracy, I said its hypocracy to accuse the only democracy in the area of committing the worst human rights abuse in the ME/world, I think the idea of Israel should be supported regardless of regime but to each his own...you never saw me tithing around or asking for support did you ?

 

Ottoman you mean, Ottoman empire had many nations living in it not just Arabs, when they fell the Western powers divided the land AND those nations to countries - not just Palestine. its fals to connect Ottoman to Arabs and Arabs to Palestine.

Im not arguing about the intent of creating a state, I know it was. I just think it could have been done much better and the Arabs had a crucial part in the escilation (IMO), from my grandparents - Jews and Arabs worked together and had "happy" lives more or less, the two decisive moments they remember are the 1936 revolt that started the Arab boycott (and once again, if you have an erlier historic event that prove it was the Jews that discriminated first - I'd like to read it) AND the day after 181 was voted, that was the end of working together around the land and basically the start of the war.

I think the ONLY argument the Arabs have here was their own national feelings they fought for, not to suggest they didnt escilate the situation because evidance prove they did.

That's the major thing we disagree about, I dont and never saw the Jewish land as Arab land, when the mandate started there were already Jewish natives in Palestine - the fact there were more Arabs than Jews doesnt rebute the Jewish rights - especially if there was no Gov and no country.

Countries can regulate immigration, it wasnt a country yet but on the path to a country

I understand the Arabs. Jews back then also understood them, Ben Gurion said it as well, that's why everyone knew there will be a war, that's why this conflict goes on for so long, two sides are rights.

There are both legal, ethical and historical justifications to the creation of Israel that were absent in the case of colonizing America, the "victim" cry is a legal action in face of illegal actions against the idea of Israel, but once again, I understand why the Arabs will think like that hence we are forced to fight.

But it wasnt a country - that was the mandate mission to create one where one didnt exsist before, and the Arabs had no right to oppose the shop keeper or their neighbor just like I have no right to oppose my neighbor rights even if he just moved in a year ago while I lived 20 years in the same building.

 

Read what the British governor wrote in 1920.... about Zionist aspirations in Palestine and how the socialists behaved towards the Arabs.

 

The Turks claim to the land faded with their empire/jurisdiction. The people that were left there were Arab. Palestine had not been used for a while, but the British reinstated the name.

You would have to argue the intent. The intent is the motivating factor behind it all. It might seem small to you, but it is much similar to a sneaky neighbor expressing intent over taking over your house.

There was a governing structure, but no formal country. Even so, what is it with westerners who believe just because their is no "country" in the same sense as their own civilization, that they can just impose their own sense of laws and rights on another, basically taking it away? This was the same argument used against the Native Americans after they claimed it was "a land without a people for a people without a land".

The Jews do not have the right to create their own state in the land of another. Do Mexican immigrants have the right to create a state wherever they are inside the US? Do Middle Eastern immigrants have a right to create a state in whatever parts of European countries they exist in? They don't have these rights and the mandate of a foreign power should be illegitimate and illegal- especially when that mandate comes from one of the worlds foremost military imperialists. It is the law and justice of conquerors and human rights abusers motivated only by self-interest.

There was a definite, identifiable Arab culture there. They had towns, ports, schools, hospitals, etc. Saying that it was not a country therefore it has no right to self-autonomy is just a slap in the face to your own arguments about "rights".

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist... There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

- Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

There are no legal, ethical, or historical justifications for the creation of Israel. Israel was created on anothers land, largely for the crimes and the anit-Semitism of Europeans. The creation of the state of Israel was engineered by Zionists who deliberately impeded the immigration of Jews who wanted to go any where else but Israel.

This is a poor excuse. There were people there and they existed as a communal society. The only thing absent was the title of country. Even so, if there was a country to be made there, it should have been Arab as that was the culture of the people living there.

Your neighbor would have a right to his home. Not the land all around him, including that of his own neighbors. The Jews did not plan on living within anothers community, they planned on taking it all. Think about what you are saying. Jewish settlements in Palestine are not contiguous. How could you even truly establish a Jewish nation on the little bits of land that Jews actually did settle in? It would be like declaring in a town of 100 houses, that 5 or 6 of them- separated by varying distances- would be declared their own town within a town. Doesn't make sense.

I'll point out again that this plan to take over was not the will of every Jewish immigrant. As mentioned before, many Jews had prefered to either remain in Germany, or go to places like England, the US, etc. But the Zionists forced them to go to Palestine by blocking there choices. There are testaments from Jews, today, who have explained the sentiments of their parents who did not like the racism they found in Palestine. The Jaffa incident started from the mis-interpretation by Arabs of a conflict between two Jewish parties that expressed this disagreement. However the Zionists were the ones exercising political control and influence.

There is still dissent in Israel, itself, over this question, but that minority is harrassed to no end in Israel in ways similar to the Nazi persuection of it's own Germans who disagreed with Hitler's ideals.

[video=youtube;Pa9lTvEr32w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa9lTvEr32w&list=PL6TfK9pR_hoI6Bn6dyTapq8Z NcLXfEo39&index=18[/video]

It's just that media silence, even in the 1920's, has always served to obscure the truth of what happens there, and in many other places around the world.

 

Not only Arabs and the name means nothing, the mandate job was to create an indipendant state of all residents not just the Arab ones.

And I think you mix intent with result, the intent was an indipendant state which 181 could have solved, the result was many Arabs losing their homes due to the war that broke after 181 was denied, not before.

No no no....the Arabs were not ignorant naive savages, other countries were forming around them and they wanted Palestine to be part of Trans-Jordan, they wanted an Arab-Muslim state from sea to river - again you falsly compare them to native Americans.

If I but a land from you, what makes it YOUR land exactly ? if I settle a barren land which NO ONE occupies what makes it some other person land that lives miles away ? only a country with clear borders can claim barren land as state land.

Those are established countries, but for argument sake, if America was not a country but of the path to be one, then yes, all immigrants that live inside the land have equel rights and it doesnt matter if one's family goes back a year or 200 years.

ISIS ? you are aware the almost the entire ME was created that way ?

If you take away order than might makes right, is that where you are going to ?

Same with Jewish culture, perhaps you think Jews came suddenly in one weekend but no, Jews have always been in Jerusalem and other holy places, point is if youo dont regulate Arab immigration - and no one did, no one should regulate Jewish one. what Jews bought and built was their own.

All the Baron colonies, all the First and second Alliya settelments were built on barren land and not on top of Arab villages unless there were vast massacres of Muslims during the Ottomans and early Mandate years that no one heard of.

The legal side comes from the fact both Arabs and Jews had communities when the Ottomans fell, since all nations have the right for self determination - so do the Jews that lived in Palestine

The ethical side Jews that were treated - at best and during golden years - almost equel to other nations - deserved a state

Historical - the land of our ancestors and the cradle of our nation, after 2000 years of exile.

Funny you talk about Judea culture and exclude Jewish culture and the Jews that lived there, it was that "me me me" rational that got them into truble.

RThat's all the Jews wanted hence agreed to 181, the land gained was the result of war.

No I disagree and all you have is accusations not facts, the only fact on the matter is the approval of 181 by the Jews accepted, Ben Gurion also accepted pop transfers of both Jews and Arabs tio create continous countries. taht's documented.

You realize you hand pick a few Jewish anti zionists and ignore the vast majurity that went throu hell to get to Palestine - including my grandparent that came from Bulgaria and spend months in Cypress prison.

I cant see youtube on this pc so I dont know what its about, if you suggest ppl are being held against their wishes in Israel or want to relocate but prevented - I' very much like to learn about it.

 

The mandate was not only corrupt, but unjust. I don't believe that Britain should have had any say whatsoever, but even so, the disproportionate allocation of land was outrageous.

The UN Partition plan called for the parceling of Arabic land to Jewish people who constitued a very small minority of the population. It was simply ridiculous.

The Native American's were not ignorant, naive savages. Their hospitality was a show of peace, a gesture of faith. Even so, the comparison is not a hair-for-hair one. The Arabs may have wanted their own state. That is fine because it's their land. They can decide what to do with it.

When you purchase land, this does not make you the absolute sovereign of that land that you bought. The absence of a country in the legal sense does not imply that the land is not occupied and you nor any other outside party gets to decide the procedures of how a people in that land define land use.

 

LOL, it actually doesn’t if you read it. And in fact it gains sovereign responsibility but not actual sovereignty since territorial boundaries are guaranteed by the UN. And its actions are curtailed by a number of words contained in the article if you actually have read it.

LOL. Under what law is it illegal and it what way does it justify violence?

LOL, oh really in what way and how does that harmonise with the UNs guarantee of the territorial integrity of member states?

LOL, all of which either support or are un related to Egypt in its right to nationalise the Suez canal company.

Time to stop getting high on your own sedative supply. LOL

LOL, I do love this stuff. You assume few people have ever read the accounts of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, just because you haven’t! You’ve just found it out!

I love the bit where you quote the wiki account of the war while not mentioning why it ended when it did or what the effect was on Israel and why it was so ready to talk peace; Think about this -

How Israel could be so powerful and so able to hang on to whatever it gained when it required Operation Nickel Grass to re supply it totally from US stocks.

Why did Golda Meir and her entire Cabinet resign?

What happened to the idea of Eretz Israel?

LOL, we're still talking about the right of Egypt to nationalise its own canal company in its own territory right?

1/ You stated that it is bound to continue the agreement for the stated number of years, you failed to mention who or what bounds it or what could have greater authority than itself to change its mind about the deal it had made.

2/ You indeed asked for proof that it doesn’t have to abide by its own agreements and I pointed to its own sovereignty, the definition of which being its having supreme authority to make that decision within and with regard to its own territory and without limit of time as that supreme authority has no time limit..

3/ Therefore, if you agree that Egypt, or the nation state of Egypt having sovereignty over the territory is the supreme authority within well known boundaries of that grouping of people then you also by dint of the definition of that term – sovereignty – also agree that Egypt is not bound by anyone or anything to go along with agreements made regarding matters within and regarding its own territory. That is why the definition of sovereignty is all the proof you or anyone needs.

LOL, except the same charter you rely on explicitly guarantees the territorial integrity of the member states in its very first articles. You really don’t bother reading much do you?

LOL, dealt with in post 146 onwards and above but oh sure go ahead just say its not substantive but don’t bother saying why. That’s about all you’ve got left.

Not my problem you don’t like reading.

LOL Ive provided you the proof and now ive even explained it for you. If you don’t think the very definition of sovereignty is enough youre free to say why or what you think specifically constitutes sufficient proof. Perhaps youd like to discuss the historical meaning of the term? Perhaps youd like to reference some books on the matter that I should go read? Go ahead, this promises to be interesting reading.

 

LOL Borat,

While obviously I have convinced you that international law is worthless, from your comments its clear that even you still do not actually think it is worthless. Nor do pro Israelis like yourself.

International law does indeed have great value - where it is applied in strictly international concerns and where it is applied with due diligence and ruled on by an appointed judiciary. For example the ICJ has made numerous sound rulings over the years..

Where it is of little value is in UNSC rulings where all sides have considerable skin in the game, particularly where they rule over matters geogrpahically far from them ie the middle east.

Specifically, you and your ilk do indeed value international law - but only where it suits you. In circumstances where it doesnt suit you or allow Israel to what it wants to see it as worthless and you are grateful that it cannot be enforced against Israel - but of course you are happy to see the UN or anyone enforce international law against anyone but Israel whether or not due process and path of true justice has been followed.

 

This isn't even formatted, so it's very hard to read.

If you have a point(s), please, kindly, paraphrase or put it into list format or something.

 

So if you want to read it (I can formated or otherwise) this is an official piece and you can take it anywhere formate it and study it.

I am not here to please one person... many did not complain but only you... You seem to have a resistance to the truth.
And you find all kind of excuses to hide behind.

 

Please format it. I will read it when you do. Promise.

 

Its Un Readable. Please format into clear text. Show us some respect please.

 

In your view perhaps, however the moment you strap a bomb belt to your son and send him to kill other ppl - you also take responsibilty for your opinions, in other words dont start a war and b!tch about it when you lose.

No, it called for a Jewish state on Jewish land, it doesnt matter if the Jews were 30% or 40% of total pop, the UN recognized they have rights. and like I said if you deny rights of others YOUR own rights will be denied.

It wasnt and they lost their homes when they tried to take it from others, they can decide on what they got left today - or make peace with Israel and get some of it back, peace is a good thing.

It does make it my land and in the absence of a state those land owners have an equel vote on the future of their land and in case of diffrent nations - even establish a self gov system aka state, you should realize the law does not see a diffrence between a 20 year owner and a 5 year owner, both are owners. if I buy something from you its not yours anymore and you have no say whay I do with it.

It was occupied......by Jews...., there were always Jews in Judea since ever, in the 19th century many more came and bought additional land, the land we are talking about was occupied - by Jews, and no the Arabs could not sell AND keep National ownership - without a state. when it was time to create a state the two nations were already there in relativly mass numbers.

lol, you made 3 long posts on nothing but your opinions on International law, UN decisions etc', not facts but opinions, well others also have opinions.

I didnt start or assisted in ISIS anymore that you did, in ISIS case - if it was mainly outsiders they would gain so much in Iraq, its mainly Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis that been oppressed.

Im not crying about it , I asked you if you are in favour of dismanteling all those countries made from Western "deals" as well ?

Just getting to know you that's all.

No Jews were there since ever, most were exiled that's true but they returned and bought land which made it thier own, the Arabs were there since Arab conqured the land, they are also immigrants you just count the years that matter to you and stop when it doesnt. however there is a "new" reality now isnt there ?

Yea.... that's the point you are supposed to supply those facts.....

Were, Are and Will be, that's how we created this state against all odds....., Hundereds of Thousands from across the world didnt just come here because of a marketing stunt, it wouldnt have worked if it was as you say.
And for the RIGHTS of self determination, that was already accepted a long time ago.

I dont think so, even if you were an autherised Judge on the matter- you missed the call by 70 years~

According to history, you read history books from time to time ? ever heard of Judea ? Jeuses? yea it has longer history even still.

A nation is not a race or an ethnic group, you shopuld learn on the subject before saying stupid things like "no connection between Jews and Hebrews", read about it and ill happily supply you with evidance.

Arab Palestinians......which sit in.......Judea!, yes Judean culture in Judea is relevant here.

Yes, that's true

It gave them their own cities at beach line and North + the Negev desert which was manily barren land till this day, nothing disproportionate about it.

Thats not "population transfers", the trasfer was a UN committy idea since Arabs and Jews lived so close to each other, the idea was to send Jews to their part and Arabs to theirs, Kfar Ezion for example was supposed to be tranfered (later massacred by Arab legion). that was what Ben Gurion talked about and it proves he was intrested in peace and two states.

ofc no Arab will "return" to Israel....we have a state now, their Pan-Arabian dreams for the area are long gone. they might have their own state if they so chose, so far they are not intersted.

 

The Zionists didn't buy much land... in 1948 they owned less than 6% of Palestine and until the flood of European Jews into the area the Arab Jews had been a tiny minority.. with numbers waaay behind Muslims and Christians..

Why weren't the rights of those people considered?

- - - Updated - - -

The Zionists didn't buy much land... in 1948 they owned less than 6% of Palestine and until the flood of European Jews into the area the Arab Jews had been a tiny minority.. with numbers waaay behind Muslims and Christians..

Why weren't the rights of those people considered?

 

The 6% of habital area, not total of Palestine, meaning the Arabs did not have 96% of Palestine, I think the Negev for example made 30-40% of that calculation, still, their ownership is their ownership.

The "flood" of both Arabs work immigrants and Jewish holocaust survivors were legit and in any case unstopable because it wasnt a state with immigrations laws yet. Jews had a much more motivation toward indipendance for many reasons that much is true.

181 considered both sodes rights but not reality it seems.

 

It seems both sides sends their sons to kill other people. One side is wealthy enough to commit false flag terrorism to further incriminate the other side...or a religion...by killing it's own people or any others.

The UN is dominated by imperialist nations. The "rights" you speak of are merely their opinions backed by their guns.

Israel makes a show of wanting peace ever since the beginning, even though it's history contradicts this. The numerous peace talks have always been obstructed by Zionists who are unwilling to negotiate and ceaselessly press for their state and when they have this, they press for more land. Read the terms of these various treaties that were made.

A racist state does not want peace. These people have Jew-only colonies, Jew-only roads, and if people think that Separation Wall is to keep terrorists out, they don't have a brain to spit at. These people allow any Jew the ability to immigrate their, but for anyone else it is extremely hard- for Palestinians impossible, and simply letting those Palestinians displaced by the war- the civilians- return to their own homes would have been a good statement of peace, but they did not.

The crimes of aggression against Israel is thick. They were brought up on charges in the UN 40+ times, and each time they were shielded by the US. That's similar to the mafia being brought to court 40+ times and the Governor coming in declaring Diplomatic Immunity. Israel commits crimes with impugnity and never sees justice for it. It has nuclear weapons which it acquired illegally, but does not conform to global standards for them, yet harasses other people for the possibility of having a...single...nuke...or even the capacity. What you are saying about a "peaceful, loving Israel" just doesn't fly.

You are making up your own rules, primarily based on your belief that it is already Jewish land which is false. The character of the land is not decided by a 4% majority living on it.

What does this have to do with Israel's creation?

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the people in those nations think. The people, not the governments...

Many people lived in the land occupied by the Jews, both before and after. Claiming land rights based on ancient history is silly. Jews came back and bought some land, but this little bit of land does not give them any right to the land around them. They only owned a very, very small part of the land and got the British to get them land that was not theres- regardless if it was barren or not, but that is not true either. The Balfour Decleration typically handed Jews the better part of the land.

I have.

Zionist's intentions are known.
Jewish terrorism against both the British and the Arab's and everyone around them, basically, is known- from the Irgun to the Mossad.
The Balfour Declerations land-grants to Jews in proportion to their actual number in the land or the land they owned before is known.

No. The whole point of Zionism was to establish a nation. The Jews of the modern world were "religious Jews" and when they came down to Palestine, they were emmigrants from another nationality. Many of these immigrants wanted to go to other places in the world. FDR, for one, is infamous for having blocked Jewish immigration. The only willing Jews were those from East Europe, fleeing the pogroms. Many of those in Germany actually wished to remain in Germany, even under the Nazi's. It took the Holocaust to force them to Palestine, in the desert, thousands of miles away in a land they knew they would struggle in.

[

More of this ancient history...

Provide the evidence that links the Jews of the modern world to the Hebrews of the old world.

More ancient land rights...

There was a people there before the Hebrew's. Are their descendants the Palestinians? Does it matter? It was thousands of years ago...

Britain did not have the right to hand Jewish people other peoples land, regardless of whether it was barren or not.

Britain, the UN, or Ben Gurion did not have the right to parcel out land or distribute the population against the wishes of the people living there.

Your state was created on someone elses land.

Israel killed a lot of innocents and pushed a lot of Palestinian civilians off their land in the course of the war. They still push people off their land.