These WJE and Boers said the same thing, same tired rhetoric about the Xhosa and San of South Africa. They said the land was vacant with nothing but a few hunters. That is until Mandela was released and some British scholars began to debunk the white supremacist myths. South Africans gained alot back but till this day, it is still in the grip of the white banksters, not as bad as the Palestinians have it but still bad. Palestine will need a Julius malema type figure but I don't see that materialising any time soon. Perhaps the circumstances are slightly differing.
I didn't say you did. You're basically claiming that nobody owned it. And that does go hand in hand with the idea that it's vacant and so Jews could not be ethnically cleansing it. Point you still avoid, that you are refusing to admit the land was not vacant, and Arabs were living there and using those lands for centuries on end. Everybody with some kind of decency would agree that those lands is than theirs. And that map shows it. And there you go. You deny the nakba, far right winger would deny the holocaust.
Why? There were 630,000 Jews vs 1,324,000 Arabs in 1947. So the Arabs should have gotten 2/3 of the mandate, and not just half.
I never denied the Nakba or that the Jews committed ethnic cleansing against hundreds of thousands of Arabs. I acknowledge it happened.
Point is still that you avoid / you are refusing to admit the land was not vacant, and Arabs were living there and using those lands for centuries on end. Everybody with some kind of decency would agree that those lands is than theirs. And that map shows it.
irrelevant. The west gerrymandered the mandate in such a way that the Palestine would consist of a massively high Arab majority, while Israel would consist of a utterly tiny majority. And by doing so, the Jews got about half of the land.... while looking at who owns who and looking at how many of who were around.... the divide would have been made totally different. So it's only logical that Arabs would not accept it. And it's not as if you are not aware of this.
the map: It doesn't say privately owned anywhere. You inserted this. It's part of the dogma that extremists use to claim the lands were vacant and nobody got ethnically cleansed. You're still parroting that dogma.
You're not responding to how Israel got gerrymandered for the sake to give Jews a massive proportion of the country. Do note, the west did this in the day and age where white supremacy was a thing over brown people and black who got violently oppressed in colonies world wide, and in the US who was a fully fletched apartheid state.
I never said any land was vacant. State land does NOT equal "Palestinian land". It was for the use of Arabs and Jews, together.
First of all: You previously claimed... "Labeling all State land as "Arab private property" is dishonest propaganda.", and that's you who pushed the goalpost. So now we are back to your idea that it is not "Palestinian land". When you insist it is not, than you do mean large parts were vacant. And so we are also back to denial of the nakba, since you can not ethnically cleanse parts of lands who are vacant. The only logical way of thinking is accepting the historic fact that Arabs were living in cities and town, and also living on the land while using it as nomads. And because of that it can only be seen that all where they were is to be considered as Palestinian land. While your fake news show contains the dishonesty of never minding the nomads part. I aint playing that game.
No, it was a BBC poll that rated Israel as one of the world's least popular nations: “BBC Poll: Israel Among World's Least Popular Nations” http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/bb...tions-1.525890 EXCERPT“The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.”CONTINUED I wonder why.
Thank you, Grau. I have been to Israel twice. I traveled just about everywhere both north and south and from my experience, I know instinctively that Israel, as a rogue state, isn't a very well-liked place but I didn't know there is actually an international consensus published on it. Dumned-down population except for the old-timers from 1940's Europe. Sabras in particular are unfriendly, hot-headed & always looking for a fight, racist attitude, lazy, dishonest, and uninspired boring and dreadful food. See the view from Masada, float in the Dead Sea, then get back on your plane and fly out of there. Unless you are a die-hard Christian (and want to see all of the biblical landmarks) then I recommend not more than 3 days in the place.
I had planned to go to Israel while I was hitch hiking and walking throughout the region but got caught up in the '73 War Wars seem to have a way of ruining a good time. Enjoy your day,
I hitched around the world myself for several years. I even hitched in Israel but that was 1977 so it was relatively calm then, but Beirut was a nightmare. I forged on regardless of wars and went to and through several war zones in Africa and Asia but the only time I was actually deterred was Afghanistan in 1979. I avoided it by going through Esfahan (rather than Tehran) and the southern desert to the border at Taftan into Pakistan. I'll bet we could share some memories, you and I. And you too.
