Israel I support Israels right to exist but not the occupation. Unlike many other occupations, Israel did acquire the West Bank in a defensive war during the six day war. The six day war in 1967 begin after Israel attacked Egypt and Jordan following Egypt closing the straits of Tiran; an act of war along with massing Egyptian army alongside Israels border and calling for them to be pushed into the sea. Israel warned Jordan which at the time controlled West Bank and East Jerusalem not to join the Egyptian and Syrian armies in the war. Jordan ignored the warning and fired artillery against West Jerusalem from East Jerusalem causing Israel to respond and capture East Jerusalem and West Bank. However that doesnt give Israel an excuse for actions like ignoring settler attacks against Palestinians. http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Reports-English/SemblanceofLawfullreportEng.pdf To be fair, Israel within the green line(green line refers to Israels borders before the six day war which refers to Israel except for West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights) is the only free society in the Middle East according to Freedom House. Israels Arab citizens despite being discriminated against; most them in polls would rather stay in Israel than be in a Palestinian state. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3997051,00.html Israels founders would especially be turning over in their graves from attacks on democracy from the far right of Yisrael Bientiu and a new Likud that rejected previous relative moderates like Benny Begin in 2012. While Begin opposes a Palestinian state he has rejected anti democratic bills like the anti boycott bill that passed and others that have been attempted. These anti democratic bills have begin since Netanyahu became prime minister again in 2009. These bills usually are supported by members of Likud, the Jewish home party, Yisrael Bietuni, and some of them shamefully by centralist Kadima party. http://www.timesofisrael.com/which-anti-democratic-laws-actually-passed/ An example of a bill that passed is the boycott law. The law says that any Israeli that calls for a boycott of Israel including the settlements can be sued for civil damage even if it has no effect. Israeli policy does have two notable hypocritical policies. The first one is their settlement policy. Construction in the settlement bloc does make sense considering it will stay part of Israel in a final agreement. However, opposition against isolated settlements for the most part east of the fence is less understandable. If Israel wants to remain Jewish and democratic like its founders envisioned than holding onto isolated settlements among 2.7 million Arabs under military rule than they will have to be given up. This policy is especially hypocritical and cruel since Israel leaves thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem homeless by demolishing them for building without permits while at the same time rarely giving out permits in East Jerusalem and area C in the West Bank (in that area Israel has full civil and military authority). For example 94% of requests for permit requests submitted by Palestinians were rejected by Israel between 2000 to 2007. this meant only 91 permits were approved by Israel while over 18,0000 buildings were built in the settlements. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/15/israelandthepalestinians One reason the right give for withdrawing from the West Bank is the fear that the West Bank will turn into another Gaza by turning into a rocket base for the Palestinians. However, that is unlikely to happen. Hamas always has been more popular in the Gaza Strip due to its greater poverty than the West Bank. In addition, rockets have been launched from Gaza since 2001 before Israels withdrawal in 2005. The withdrawal from Gaza Strip also was not coordinated with the PA. Mahoud Abbas is moderate and a much better partner than Yasser Arafat ever was. This has been supported by the head of Israels Shin Bet or security agency; Yoram Cohen. http://www.timesofisrael.com/security-chief-says-palestinian-leaders-not-stoking-violence/ Although area C covers 70,000 out of 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank; it also covers 60% of the West Bank. Many are saying that the two state solution is dead or about to be dead because of the settlements. That is not true settlement buildings according to the Israeli human rights group Btselem consist of 1% of West Bank. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-israel-controls-42-of-west-bank/ The second area of hypercritical Israeli policy is Jerusalem. While Jerusalem is united politically living conditions for Arabs in East Jerusalem are far worse. In addition like in the West Bank Arab houses in are demolished for building illegally while rarely giving out building permits. http://www.acri.org.il/en/2014/05/24/ej-numbers-14/#fn1 Elections on March 17th provide little hope. The election consist of 120 seats in the Knesset (Israels parliament) being given to parties based proportionally on how much they get. Until recently the leftist Zionist Union consisting of Labor and Hutana was leading against incumbent Likud party. In the latest poll Zionist union is behind with 24 seats compared to project 25 seats for Likud. However, even if Zionist Union leads by a couple seats its not necessary the largest party that forms the next government. That happened in 2009 when centrist Kadima won 28 seats compared to Likuds 27 seats. In the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu formed the next government since Kadima was unable to form a coalition of 61 seats or more. The main problem is that the leftist bloc is projected to win only 51 seats. In contrast, the rightist bloc is currently polled at 69 seats. http://knessetjeremy.com/ United Statess unquestioned support for Israel should change. Until Israel at least stops demolishing Arab houses while refusing to give out building permits, ignores outposts(Israeli settlements in the West Bank built without approval or building permits ), and continues to ignore attacks by settlers against Palestinians, military aid should consist only of spare parts. Another measure that should be considered is banning bulldozers or bulldozer equipment to Israel considering they are used in East Jerusalem and area C in West Bank to demolish Palestinians homes while Palestinians are rarely allowed building permits. To be fair, military aide to Arab countries and other countries with abysmal human rights record like Pakistan should also consist of spare parts. I know many would oppose that for unfairly targeting Israel compared with countries like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran that have far worse human rights record. However, Israel prides itself on being a democratic Western state within the Green Line at least and most would shudder at the thought of being compared to regimes like Iran and Russia. Another difference between Israel and a country with a record like Iran or Russia is that we dont finance them in billions of dollars of military aide (Israel hasnt received any economic aide since 2007). Considering this, politicians on both sides of the aisle should consider these measures.
What "occupation" ? What "West Bank" ? Do you refer to Judea and Samaria ? They are no more "occupied by Israel" than the province of Holland is "occupied by the Netherlands" ! What "two-state solution" ? Read this to learn the true goals of Fatah and Hamas ! http://www.palwatch.org/ And do you know, who cooked up the very word "Palestine" ? The genocidal murderer Hadrian, who wanted to erase not only the Jewish State, but the very word "Israel". Hadrian also "renamed" Jerusalem into "Colonia Aelia Capitolina", massacred in cold blood many hundreds of thousands Jews, banned the circumsion and erected the temple to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish Temple. By the way-he also erected the temple to Aphrodite on the place where the Christians had venerated the tomb of Jesus. However, all loyal citizens of Israel should have the very same rights. No matter, whether they are Jews, Arabs, Druze, Armenians or somebody else. No matter, in what part of the country they dwell. See http://www.onestateplan.com/
What "occupation" ? The occupation of West Bank or Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem. Golan heights technically counts but doesn’t face the human rights situation like in the West Bank and there is no one to return it considering the situation in Syria. Due to Israel’s control of airspace and most of Gaza’s borders it could be considered semi-occupied but control of borders and airspace is understandable considering Hamas controls Gaza. The definition of occupation according the article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations occupation is " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “ https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm Israel takeover of West Bank and East Jerusalem fit the definition when its army took over and established its authority. The world is nearly unanimous that its occupation with the UN security council(I am aware U.N. resolution 242 doesn’t call for complete withdrawal from the territories), UN General Assembly, International Court of Justice, International Red Cross, and even the Israeli Supreme Court have called it belligerent occupation. For example,in response to the Levy committee which determined Israel was not an occupying force in the West Bank and should legalize outposts, Talia Sasson; former head of special tasks department of Israel’s state attorney’s office said “or 45 years, different compositions of the High Court of Justice stated again and again that Israel's presence in the West Bank violates international law, which is clearly opposed to Levy's findings. This is a colossal turnaround, which I do not think is within his authority. He can tell the government that he recommends changing legal status, and that's all”. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ank-it-must-give-up-land-held-by-idf-1.449909 In the aftermath of the six day war pm Levi Eshkol considered reestablishing Kfar Etzion(it was a kibbutz settlement that its inhabitants was massacred and settlement destroyed shortly before Israel’s independence) in the West Bank and asked Theodore Meron(Israel’s legal counsel to the foreign ministry at the time) whether it was legal. Meron responded by sending a secret memo that said My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention(Fourth Geneva Convention applies to occupied territory). In addition in the detailed opinion that accompanied that note, Mr. Meron explained that the Convention — to which Israel was a signatory — forbade an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The Golan, taken from Syria, was "undoubtedly 'occupied territory,' " he wrote. Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally. But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank. Despite the memo, Kfar Etzion was established(like I said before, I am aware that the settlement blocs will stay with Israel). What "two-state solution" ? Read this to learn the true goals of Fatah and Hamas ! http://www.palwatch.org/ Hamas’s dedication to Israel’s destruction is well known after all it’s in their charter and reflected through their actions of firing rockets at Israel’s civilians. PA/fatah under Yasser Arafat never did fully renounce violence against Israel and undermined Abbas when he was briefly pm under Arafat.(in addition to being throughly corrupt). As mentioned before the current Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen said Abbas is not interested in terror and is not inciting to terror. He's not even doing so behind closed doors," Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4593516,00.html (on a side note the past 6 Shin Bet heads came out against the occultation in the documentary GateKeepers). Abbas also defends PA’s security cooperation with Israel despite widespread criticism. http://news.yahoo.com/abbas-defends...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwNF8x Under peace talks in 2008 with then prime minister Ehud Olmert and Mahoud Abbas they were very close to a deal.This is something both Olmert and Abbas agree on. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 And do you know, who cooked up the very word "Palestine" ? The genocidal murderer Hadrian, who wanted to erase not only the Jewish State, but the very word "Israel". Hadrian also "renamed" Jerusalem into "Colonia Aelia Capitolina", massacred in cold blood many hundreds of thousands Jews, banned the circumsion and erected the temple to Jupiter on the site of the Jewish Temple. By the way-he also erected the temple to Aphrodite on the place where the Christians had venerated the tomb of Jesus. I know that Palestine is a term the Romans applied to the area after they brutally suppressed a Jewish rebellion. What does that have to do with the current situation now?How does justify for example denying permits to Arabs in East Jerusalem or West Bank and than demolish their houses?(while Israel ignores outposts which are illegal even by Israeli law and building thousands of buildings for settlers). How does that action improve Israel’s security? However, all loyal citizens of Israel should have the very same rights. No matter, whether they are Jews, Arabs, Druze, Armenians or somebody else. No matter, in what part of the country they dwell. Israeli citizens have equal rights under the law but face inequality in terms of infrastructure and housing. This is shown in Israel’s government Or commission. However, they still have better rights and higher living standards than in being in an Arab country. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/OrCommissionReport.html. Anti-democratic bills by the far right will unfortunately continue with the next Knesset. Example’s of that is to limit NGO’s critical of Israel such as bills that attempt to place 45% tax on foreign funding to NGO’s. http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...imit-foreign-funding-to-israeli-ngos-1.398787 Another example of that was the attempt to change the libel law by allowing newspapers to be sued for 300,000 shekels without proof of damages. http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...aw-passes-first-major-knesset-hurdle-1.396938 See http://www.onestateplan.com/ Annexing the West Bank still does threaten Israel as a Jewish state. Estimates range from 2020 will be when Palestinians outnumber Jews in Palestinians according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics to 2035 or 2040 according to other estimates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cs-are-still-a-concern-for-some-israeli-jews/ There is another issue of annexing the West Bank even if the demographic predictions don’t occur. Many Palestinians understandably after all the repression(not saying that the Palestinians are blameless) suffered would not want to live under Israeli control even if citizenship was offered. After much of the Palestinian population have suffered through abuses like torture and house demolition how would you expect them to respect Israeli sovereign and take the offer of citizenship if Israel annexed the West Bank. After all it was former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak who said in an interview with Gideon Levy If I was [a Palestinian] at the right age, at some stage I would have entered one of the terror organizations and have fought from there, and later certainly have tried to influence from within the political system. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/11/news/mn-27709 Annexing the West Bank would also reward settlement construction including outside the settlement blocs despite being against the 4th Geneva convention. Some point to Naftali Bennet’s one state solution. Bennet’s plan is to annex area C in the West Bank and offer citizenship to Palestinians in those areas with Israel having security control over areas A and B. That plan also doesn’t work. Area C includes 60% of the West Bank and includes the best fertile valleys and aquifers. A current example of why it wouldn’t work is the Palestinian city of Rawabi .It’s the first planned city in the West Bank and is being planned to house 40,000 people but residents haven’t yet moved in due to the city not being connected to water. The city is located in area A but needs Israel’s permission for a water pipe to reach the city since it goes through area C. Minister of defense Moshe Yaalon supports giving the city water along with Yoav Mordechai;coordinator of government activities in the territories but is being blocked by Silver Shalom; minister of energy and water. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4627501,00.html
Because Israel applies apartheid law in the Palestinian state. Where Palestinians, never a Jew, can get thrown behind bars for ever without them seeing a court. Where "evidence" can be held against a Palestinians, never a Jew, to keep him in jail for ever, but never gets to know what it is, so he can never defend itself. etc etc. Israel is a fascist like nation ruled by Jewish supremacists that celebrate ethnic cleansing and expanding their race beyond it's border.
Well that's just your silly opinion. The entire world is unanimously saying it's occupied. Your opinion on this matter is nill and void.
Op-Ed: ‘Occupied territories’ is a flawed and biased term JERUSALEM (JTA) — When New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie apologized to Republican donor Sheldon Adelson for using the term “occupied territories” to refer to the West Bank, critics pounced. Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” ridiculed the apology, insisting that the phrase is “widely accepted” and accurate. While the term is indeed widely used to describe Israel’s relationship to the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, that doesn’t make it accurate. Indeed, the use of the term “occupied territories” in this context is flawed legally, historically and factually. The phrase does not accurately reflect the status of the areas that it purports to describe. Yet it has regrettably become lingua franca in contemporary international and U.N. parlance, including for senior members of the U.S. administration and European leaders. The expressions “occupied territory” and “occupied Palestinian territory” are political terms frequently used in nonbinding political resolutions, principally in the U.N. General Assembly, representing nothing more than the political viewpoint of the majority of states voting in favor of such resolutions. These political pronouncements have never constituted, nor should they constitute, an authority for any determination that the territories are Palestinian or that they are occupied. Such determinations would appear to be based on incorrect and partisan readings of the factual situation and of the relevant international legal documentation. In the 1967 Six Day War Israel took control of Samaria, Judea, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. These areas had previously been seized by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt and held by them since the 1948 war, initiated by them against Israel. International law relates to occupation of foreign territory from a “prior legitimate sovereign,” and these areas never constituted the legitimate sovereign territory of Jordan or Egypt. Hence, the accepted international law definition of “occupation” of territory cannot be attributed to Israel’s status in these areas. The unique historic and legal nature of these territories, in which there has existed a basic indigenous Jewish presence since at least 1500 BCE, long before the arrival of Islam in the 7th-century CE, with concomitant Jewish historic rights, inevitably renders these territories as sui generis, or having a unique legal status. This status runs counter to any attempt to use standard definitions such as “occupied territories” in order to designate or describe these areas. Furthermore, the historic and legal rights of the Jewish people to this territory, rendering it unique and not “occupied,” have been acknowledged and encapsulated legally and historically in official, binding and still valid international documents: the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo Declaration, the 1922 League of Nations Mandate Instrument and the 1945 U.N. Charter. By any objective criteria, the status of the territory could therefore only be considered to be at the most “disputed territory,” subject to an agreed-upon negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinians aimed at determining its ultimate status by agreement. This negotiating process includes the requirement to agree on secure and recognized permanent boundaries. Demands that Israel withdraw to the “1967 lines,” which are in effect the 1949 armistice demarcation lines, are equally flawed and misleading. Such demands attempt to prejudge an open negotiating issue. Efforts by leading elements in the international community to assign the territory to the Palestinians, prior to a successful conclusion of the negotiating process, or to deny the rights and status of Israel, demonstrate nothing more than political ignorance and bias. (Alan Baker is director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, as well as of the International Action Division of the Legal Forum for Israel. He has served as the legal counsel to Israel’s Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.) http://www.jta.org/2014/04/08/news-o...#ixzz2ym0wkBHt I hope that this piece explains everything I understand that Jordan’s control of the West Bank was not legitimate with only Pakistan and United Kingdom(but not recognizing annexation of East Jerusalem) recognizing it. However that doesn’t mean its not occupied. As mentioned before the definition of occupation according to article 42 of the 1907 Hague regulations is when a hostile army takes over territory. In the case of the six day war it was the IDF capturing territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. It’s not just the UN that says their occupied even several Israelis say so. As mentioned before Talia Sasson; a former Israeli official in responded to the Levy committee which stated that Israel is not an occupying power by noting that the committee goes against Israel’s Supreme Court stating for four decades that the West Bank is under belligerent occupation. As noted before Israel’s foreign ministry legal counsel during the time immediately after the six day war; Theodore Meron noted that settlements are illegal due to the fourth Geneva convention which applies to occupied territory. Meron also argued against the argument of the territory not being occupied due to Jordan’s annexation not being recognized. For example he noted that the military issued an order for military courts to apply Geneva Convention after the six day war. As mentioned before Israel in a final agreement won’t withdraw to the pre 1967 lines. Baker correctly noted that U.N. resolution 242 doesn’t call for withdrawal of all the territories. It calls for withdrawal to secure recognized borders. Contrary to some in the right Obama hasn’t called for a return to the pre 67 lines. He has called for a return to the pre six day war lines with land swaps which is consistent with camp david, taba, and annapolis talks. In the negotiations with Abbas and Olmert mentioned before that nearly resulted in a deal Abbas agreed to Israel retaining the settlement blocs with the exception of Ariel in return for land swaps. Even the dovish Meretz party in Israel supports retaining the settlement blocs. I understand that the Jews have had a presence in Israel thousands of years including before the 7th century Arab invasion. Why does what happened thousands of years ago justify today’s policy? If you use the argument than the Native Americans or the Maoris or the Aboriginal have a right to take back their territory that they had. The balfour declaration guaranteed a Jewish home in Palestine which led to the British mandate which was than fulfilled when the state of Israel was formed so that is irrelevant legally to the present situation. For argument’s sake lets say that Israel is not an occupying power in the West Bank. How does that justify human right abuses I mentioned before like house demolition?
From wikipedia: The International Court of Justice,[4] the UN General Assembly[5] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[9] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation "an affront to international law."[10] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[11] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law. The ENTIRE WORLD says it's occupied. Even Israeli courts. Get it. Only the war criminal regime of Israel disagrees with that.
While I am critical of Israel its not a nation ruled by Jewish supremacists that celebrate ethnic cleansing and expanding their race beyond its border. Israel has offered Palestinians before a state consisting of over 90% in West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem at camp david(disputed if it was contiguous offer), taba(based on clinton parameters,both sides agree that it was a contiguous offer but partially failed due to early early elections), and with Olmert but was not accepted(also partially failed due to early elections following its resignation and Bibi refused to continue negations from Olmerts offer). Israel also left Gaza(although given Sharons record I wouldnt say it was for peace or to end the occupation). Israel within the green lines civil rights wise is better than Israel in its early days despite attempts by far right. For example Israeli Arabs was under military rule until 1966. In another example, David Ben Gurion regularly spied against opposition like Menachem Begins herut party. As mentioned before, Israel within the green line is the only society ranked free according to Freedom House. While Arab and Islamic regimes rightfully criticize the occultation they are being hypocritical. For example most residents in Arab Gulf countries are mistreated migrants. Another example is Saudi arabia holding 30,000 political prisoners. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9422550.stm Like I mentioned before, the Palestinians arent blameless. It wasnt until 1988 the PLO officially renounced terrorism. Yasser Arafat was a horrible leader something even several Arab officials agree on. If there was a different leader during the 1990s especially after sympathy Palestinians received from Israels brutal repression of the first intifada; the Palestinians would have had a state. As mentioned before Arafat was throughly corrupt stealing billions from international aide. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arafats-billions/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/09/in-a-ruined-country/304167/ Unlike Mahoud Abbas; Arafat never fully condemned violence in practice and it seems that he helped plan second intifada. http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/111P55.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/09/in-a-ruined-country/304167/ To be fair a fringe far right do want explosion of all Palestinians in the West Bank and even Israels Arab citizens like the despicable Baruch Marzel. Some on the far right like Nafti Bennet have called for annexation of at least part of West Bank(area c 60%) if not all. I wouldnt call Israel a fascist nation. However, the extreme far right like Marzel who also calls for Jews that dont support his vision to be expelled could be described fascist.
Substantially ... the Romans had so annoyed by the Jewish war of resistance that they decided to try and erase Israel from geography giving to the entire region a name coming from the little land [today almost corresponding to Gaza] where the "Philistines" lived in the far past.
Many thanks for confirming the standard western version of 1967 history, in a succinct way. Your clarity facilitates a structured critique. But in order to acquire that structure, we need to ask ourselves a few questions. 1) In 1967, what was the legal weight of a "defensive war"? What did this mean then? Was it a 'preventive' war or perhaps a 'preemptive war'? Are both justified in terms of international law? 2) You start your lead-up to war with the Egyptian closing of the Straits of Tiran. At the time of Israel's first strike, were the Straits in fact closed? In what way (had the Straits actually been closed) was that an act of war? Do you mean it was in violation of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)? Was it? What is meant by "innocent passage"? Do you claim that it was an act of war because the Israeli government at the time declared it to be so, or because the Egyptian actions violated the UN Charter or some other law? 3) You appear to view the massing of Egyptian troops along Israel's border as an act of war. Which binding agreement/law did Egypt violate in doing this? 4) But back to your very traditional (and understandable) pro-Israeli focus on the Egyptian actions; why did Egypt undertake them? Is it because Nasser had definitely decided (as opposed to rhetoric) to invade Israel? If so, why did he override Field Marshall Amer's plan? 5) But perhaps most important of all, why do you view the lead-up to Israel's first-strike in early-June 1967 started with the three Egyptian actions. Were there other events that prompted Egypt to embark on this course, or had Nasser just got up on the wrong side of his bed one day? Many thanks for your attention, KK
You probably are unaware that no Israeli flagged ship had passed thru the Strait of Tiran for 14 months prior to its closure or that Nasser called for a summit with Israel to discuss the Straits ... or that Egypt's military was deployed in Yemen fighting a civil war there between the Communists and the Royalists.
Israel should evacuate the Occupied Territories, forthwith. - - - Updated - - - the Jewish people lost their Holy Patrimony because they disobeyed God. and only God can undo the Galut, not man.
Neturei Karta have the same belief... Ecacuate yes... we should give Neturei Karta at Mea Shearim a one way ticket to Gaza...
correction: ALL Orthodox Jews believe this. There is not one single Orthodox Jew that believes the Galut has been ended by the actions of mankind.
You believe what you want to believe, maybe you need G-d to intervene on your behalf re <Galut> that is.
It was called Palestine since 500 BC by the Greek historian Herodotus.. Palestine was a province of Syria.. Get serious about ME history.. The Hebrews were a have not Canaanite tribe that had NO history at all until after the Babylonian exile.
These words is one reason, why I don't debate with Margot2 Because I have already twice (!) told to her this quote.
Calling Israel "Palestine" is like calling the Czech Republic "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia
The Holy Land has been commonly referred to as "Palestine", for almost 2,000 years. there is no logical nor rational reason to be offended by this. Its not different than calling the West Bank "Judea & Samaria".
Israel should be an impartial arbiter when it comes to ME affairs. we have good reason to support the Arabs and Israel
