The Pro Palestinian protests and news thread

[rjs330]

Its not something advertised with all the other goings on. But Netanyahu has envoked the bible a few times such likening Hamas to the nation of Amalek who were at war with the ancient Isrealites or Ecclesiastes 3:8 "a time for war and a time for peace".

But I have also seen videos of soldiers coming together and praying and singing to God. I can understand such a deeply religious nation turning to God at this time. It seems that there is this feeling or intuition that this time is a very important time in this issue, its the culmination of everything that has been happening not just in Isreal and Palestine but in the middle east but the world.

Like this is the pivotal point of no going back to the old ways and that a fundemental change needs to happen. But in doing so it also provokes a likewise response to escalate things. Its like at least for the Isreali's and perhaps for many Westerners (Christians) that we are closer to a critical breaking point in our history which will either change things for the better or end in a bloody mess.

Yes thats the Narrative being pushed by the progressives. Sort of selective reporting and we know most of the media has a Left leaning. Just the fact that more media outlets, rights groups and individuals are hyper focusing on the Jews role whatever that is as opposed to 100s of other conflicts that are the same or worse and often involve Muslim killing 10s of 1,000's of Muslims is relatively quiet.

They equate Isreals actions with the same morality as Hamas even though the facts are that
Isreal didn't start this war, Hamas did and have done over and over.
Isreal could have wiped Hamas off the face of the earth but has chosen to risk their own lives in a slow and methodical deconstruction of Hamas.
Isreal gave many warnings ahead of attacks (which waring nations never or rarely do) to allow for the locals to go to safe spaces and safety corridors for the locals to escape.

Hamas stopped their own people going to those safe spaces and corridors, to get medical help and safety even killing those who resisted.
Hamas located their head quarters under a hosiptal where children and innocents are located. They use their own people as a bullet proof vest.
Many claimed to be killed by the Isrealis were actually killed by Hamas whether accidently or on purpose to blame the Isreali's as part of their proporganda to undermine anyone who tries to stop them.

And most important unlike the Isreali's who may have killed innocents as part of a war started by Hamas (war cost lives) Hamas did not give warnings, did not select opposition solders to target but purposely chose innocents mostly women and children with a surprise attack of the utmost brutality and animal like behaviour, no that is a blight on animals. Evil pure evil acts.

Thats not to mention all the other false narratives like Isreal is an apartheid State or which is not the case or that they are don't have any deep historical, religious and cultural tieds going back thousands of years. Nor is to say that Isreal has not engaged in any wrongdoing. Most of the people complaining about the Isrealis have no idea of what the actual facts are because they don't care about the truth.

The Left don't like facts they choose their battles because its not really about who is right but who they percieve as oppressed the most even if that means twisting the truth so that it makes the good look bad and the bad look good. Even if that means attacking their own nation and creating hatred and division.

To say that the acts of the Isreali's is the moral equivelant of Hamas is grossly false and even the mere mention I think shows those who push this rubbish are delusional and unpredictable and undermining our society by creating hatred towards the Jews and others and perhaps a threat to our way of life in the West.

Sorry about the rant but I have studied this issue and I think this issue is a reflection of the state of our own culture more than anything else for which we live in.

I while heartedly agree. Lives are lost in wars like this. This isn't a war with two armies battling it out in the French country side. This is street to street building to building urban warfare. And when that happens more civilians are going to die when the enemy is bunkered down among them. It's the nature of the war. There are no magic Hamas bullets or bombs.

Could have Israel used different types of bombs? Ones that don't blow up as big an area? Perhaps, but then they couldn't be guaranteed of taking out the Hamas targets.
It's nice to see someone with some common sense of what is going on and what needs to be done to defeat Hamas.

 

[rjs330]

Evicting these illegal settlers from the West Bank would go a long way toward improving the situation there.

The land in West Bank was not illegally taken by Israel. In the 1940s the British who controlled the area allowed the Jews to live there. Then when Israel declared it's independence and the Arabs attacked the Jews lost the area to the Muslims. Then a mere 20 years later the Muslims attacked Israel again and this time Israel beat them again and took the land back. In fact they seized more land in Palestine. They won. Yet they gave back a lot of the land they seized. This area they did not. They have no obligation to give it back when it was taken from them in 1948 and they took it back in 1967. I guess the Arabs should have left well enough alone. You lose a war that you started you don't get to just keep everything that you lost. You think for a second that if they would have beaten the Jews they would have just given all the land they took back?

And somehow you expect the Jews to do it though?

This is what much of the world is thinks. It just goes to show once again the anti-Semetism that exists in the world today.

 

[stevevw]

I have no idea if my neighbors are Jews, but that is irrelevant. Did you read my post carefully. I said "directly involved". I was specifically avoiding this, whatever you want to call it.

Its relevant because its not the case of knowing which culture your neighbour is but that a certain certain neighbours within your community do stuff to help wipe you out based on some ideological belief. There is no trust and that is not a good way to have a community if we ever want peace.

The West does the same thing when radicalism rises up by either arresting them or kicking them out. But imagine the majority wanted to do the same and not just the minority like in the West.

That's really the Israeli's problem now isn't it. They are the ones that built settlements on occupied territory in violation of international law. Otherwise it could be continuously Palestinian and there wouldn't be any Israeli's "scattered throughout",

Thats assuming that the West bank is occupied territory. According to the Isreali's that is their land and they were the ones disposessed. Evenso at the very least its shared land. Many of the towns and cities in the West bank like Hebrom and Jerusalem have long Jewsish histories and tradition going back thousands of years. I mean Jerusalem is where the City of David is going back nearly 3,000 years and where Christ preached and was crucified and Hebrom is the burial place of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

Why should the Jews be made out to be occuppiers of their own land such as Jerusalem. Thats not to say that the Isrealis are not being unfair and wrongly displacing some. But to say that all the resettlement is the act of colonialism is unreal in the historical context. If you want to say that Isreal has come in and are displacing peoples who have been there a long time and is wrong then the people that displaced the Jews from there in the first place is also wrong. Where do you draw the line.

I have no idea if my neighbors want to kill me. I don't really know them.

But the point is the Jews living in the West Bank do know that many of their neighbours want to do harm or kill them. That is not a good way to setup a community and perhaps goes to the root of what any mixed communities at this point is not going to work and will be forever looking over shoulders and living in fear.

Your solution is a crime against humanity (ethnic cleansing) and is not a viable solution.

No its not because no one is displacing anyone based on ethnicity. Its about land rights, safety and security. It doesn't matter what ethnic group people come from but whether they are a threat to peoples lives. We usually lock them up or deport people like that and thats not ethnic cleansing.

All the catch phrases like ethnic cleansing, apartheid and Settler State are designed to tar Isreal as a oppressor and used by ideologues who are not interested in what is truth but the narrative that paints the world as oppressors and victims. Thats why they mostly side with Hamas when compared to Isreal because Isreal is a powerful and successful nation and the Palestinians are downtrodden. But they are downtrodden by the own people and thats an inconvient truth they don't acknowledge.

There is no apartheid as Palestians can have business be in charge of Isreali's, be polititians over Jews. There is no Settler State as Indigenous peoples (Jews) cannot be settlers and there is no ethnic cleansing as most is voluntary resettlement and Palestians have a relative amount of freedom considering the situation which would have been totally denied under ethnic cleansing..

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its relevant because its not the case of knowing which culture your neighbour is but that a certain certain neighbours within your community do stuff to help wipe you out based on some ideological belief. There is no trust and that is not a good way to have a community if we ever want peace.

The West does the same thing when radicalism rises up by either arresting them or kicking them out. But imagine the majority wanted to do the same and not just the minority like in the West.

Let's keep "me" out of this. I have no connection, at all, to the region, so I don't find your analogies useful. Let's stick to the actual people and the actual issues instead of hypotheticals.

Thats assuming that the West bank is occupied territory.

According to international law it absolutely is.

According to the Isreali's that is their land and they were the ones disposessed. Evenso at the very least its shared land. Many of the towns and cities in the West bank like Hebrom and Jerusalem have long Jewsish histories and tradition going back thousands of years. I mean Jerusalem is where the City of David is going back nearly 3,000 years and where Christ preached and was crucified and Hebrom is the burial place of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

You are confusing "Jewish" and "Israeli". They are not the same.

Why should the Jews be made out to be occuppiers of their own land such as Jerusalem.

You are confusing "Jewish" and "Israeli". They are not the same.

Thats not to say that the Isrealis are not being unfair and wrongly displacing some. But to say that all the resettlement is the act of colonialism is unreal in the historical context.

I didn't say anything about "colonialism". I was quite specifically responding to your notion that all Palestinians should be removed from the West Bank. It doesn't matter if they are being colonized, or what. Removing an ethnic group from a region by force is ethnic cleansing.

If you want to say that Isreal has come in and are displacing peoples who have been there a long time and is wrong then the people that displaced the Jews from there in the first place is also wrong. Where do you draw the line.

You are confusing "Jewish" and "Israeli". They are not the same.

But the point is the Jews living in the West Bank do know that many of their neighbours want to do harm or kill them. That is not a good way to setup a community and perhaps goes to the root of what any mixed communities at this point is not going to work and will be forever looking over shoulders and living in fear.

No its not because no one is displacing anyone based on ethnicity. Its about land rights, safety and security. It doesn't matter what ethnic group people come from but whether they are a threat to peoples lives. We usually lock them up or deport people like that and thats not ethnic cleansing.

When the net effect (and your explicit description) is to remove every one of a particular ethnic group from a region of land -- THAT IS ETHNIC CLEANSING.

All the catch phrases like ethnic cleansing, apartheid and Settler State are designed to tar Isreal as a oppressor and used by ideologues who are not interested in what is truth but the narrative that paints the world as oppressors and victims.

I did not use "apartheid" or "Settler state" and the only one being tarred with proposing ethnic cleansing is YOU, because you did propose it. Ideology has nothing to do with this. (If you find and document some faction in Israel that wants the same as your ultimate solution to the "Palestinian Problem" then I will also tar them with advocating ethnic cleansing, but I doubt I'd be the first to say such for them.

Thats why they mostly side with Hamas when compared to Isreal because Isreal is a powerful and successful nation and the Palestinians are downtrodden. But they are downtrodden by the own people and thats an inconvient truth they don't acknowledge.

I don't really care about either side. It's just another pointless religious/ethnic conflict in an unimportant strip of land.

There is no apartheid as Palestians can have business be in charge of Isreali's, be polititians over Jews. There is no Settler State as Indigenous peoples (Jews) cannot be settlers and there is no ethnic cleansing as most is voluntary resettlement and Palestians have a relative amount of freedom considering the situation which would have been totally denied under ethnic cleansing..

Again, I didn't use most of these terms and only used "ethnic cleansing" to refer to *YOUR* solution. Maybe if you'd stop advocating for removing all Palestinians from the West Bank, I'd stop identifying it (correctly) as ethnic cleansing.

 

[stevevw]

Let's keep "me" out of this. I have no connection, at all, to the region, so I don't find your analogies useful. Let's stick to the actual people and the actual issues instead of hypotheticals.

If we in the West want to stick our nose into the affairs of Isreal then we need to understand things from their point of view. Knowing the actual facts on the ground and relating their situation back to how we would feel in the same situation is very relevant.

According to international law it absolutely is.

Well international law is wrong. Its not the first time. They are a Leftist organisation and bow to lobbyist. The simple fact is Isreal are the Indigenous peoples of the land so they cannot be occuppiers. They have a continious history with the land for over 3,000 years.

You are confusing "Jewish" and "Israeli". They are not the same.

Jews make up around 75% of Isreal. But they are all Isrealites regardless of which Tribe they come from. Jews are commonly refered to as Isrealites. Isreal has been around since before the Egyptian Pharoh Merneptah mentions going to war against them in 1207 BC.

You are confusing "Jewish" and "Israeli". They are not the same.

I am not sure what your point is. Isreal is the Nation State of the Jews. Isreals history is Jewish history. How is saying Isreal has any less historical connection with cities like Jerusalem than the Jews. Both have the same connection because they are mostly the same people. Christ and Abraham are historical figures for Jews and Isrealis. They lived in the Isrealite cities and have Isrealite histories.

I didn't say anything about "colonialism". I was quite specifically responding to your notion that all Palestinians should be removed from the West Bank. It doesn't matter if they are being colonized, or what. Removing an ethnic group from a region by force is ethnic cleansing.

Well their not removing any ethnic group completely from the region so its not ethnic cleansing. There are more Palestinians in the West Bank than Isrealites.

You are confusing "Jewish" and "Israeli". They are not the same.

This is silly. Whether you want to use the Isrealites or the Jews either is a native to the land and both were there and established the land long before the Muslims or Palestinians came along.

When the net effect (and your explicit description) is to remove every one of a particular ethnic group from a region of land -- THAT IS ETHNIC CLEANSING.

No if you would have read further I said they may end up allowing some to stay but it will be difficult to work out which ones, who want to kill them. Removing people from your own region who are planning and aiding to kill you is not ethnic cleansing.

I did not use "apartheid" or "Settler state" and the only one being tarred with proposing ethnic cleansing is YOU, because you did propose it. Ideology has nothing to do with this. (If you find and document some faction in Israel that wants the same as your ultimate solution to the "Palestinian Problem" then I will also tar them with advocating ethnic cleansing, but I doubt I'd be the first to say such for them.

You used the word Settler and we all know what that means or implies when it comes to Isreal. Perhaps you are unaware that your language supports the narrative that Isreal is a colonialist settler State. Its common knowledge that this is part of an ideology to change the narrative (because narratives are now reality as if you can change reality by words). Its a Post Modernist twist on truth.

The Decolonization Narrative Is Dangerous and False
Western academics, students, artists, and activists have denied, excused, or even celebrated the murders by a terrorist sect that proclaims an anti-Jewish genocidal program.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/
Responding to False Claims About Israel
Responding to False Claims About Israel

I don't really care about either side. It's just another pointless religious/ethnic conflict in an unimportant strip of land.

To you maybe but not to the Isrealis and Palestinians. Certainly not to Hamas. It should concern us because the same mentality of Hamas was in how Isis, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda when they were indescriminatley killing Westerners like 9/11. That will happen again to the West as its in their DNA. So what is happening in Isreal with Hamas is what could happen to us.

Again, I didn't use most of these terms and only used "ethnic cleansing" to refer to *YOUR* solution. Maybe if you'd stop advocating for removing all Palestinians from the West Bank, I'd stop identifying it (correctly) as ethnic cleansing.

But I wasn't advocating for the removal of Palestinians from the West Bank because of their ethnicity but those who are out to kill the Jews. I think that is a fair thing to do. Ethnic cleansing is purely about race and removing people because of race. There are many Palestinians in the rest of Isreal so they don't have anything against them perse. Its just trouble makers in certain areas and the difficulty of sorting out who is who.

Conflating the two is more or less buying into the false narrative that the Jews are some sort of Nazi regime or something when they are probably one of the most fair nations around especially when it comes to the Palestinians who they have compromised on peace deals about 10 times while the Palestinians throw it back in their face and continue to terrorise them.

How about focusing on the real ethnic cleansing of Hamas and many Muslims who want to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The land in West Bank was not illegally taken by Israel.

Under international law, they are Occupied Territories, and the occupation is illegal.

The general thrust of international law scholarship addressing this question has concluded that, regardless of whether it was initially legal, the occupation has become illegal over time. Reasons cited for its illegality include the violation of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory through force, that the occupation violates the Palestinian right to self-determination, that the occupation itself is an illegal regime "of alien subjugation, domination and exploitation", or some combination of these factors.

In the 1940s the British who controlled the area allowed the Jews to live there.

The British allowed everyone to live there.

But living there does not imply any ownership other than the ownership of individual houses and properties. Such as the properties that Palestinian refugees are prevented from returning to.

Neither the British plan nor the UN plan for partition would have given the West Bank to the hypothetical new Jewish state.

Then when Israel declared it's independence and the Arabs attacked the Jews lost the area to the Muslims.

Israel never had that land, so it couldn't lose it. Nor was that land slated to become part of the Jewish state in the international plans.

When hostilities ceased, the cease-fire line became essentially the first borders of modern Israel - the 'Green Line'.

Then a mere 20 years later the Muslims attacked Israel again

Israel initiated a surprise attack on Egyptian forces.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You used the word Settler and we all know what that means or implies when it comes to Isreal. Perhaps you are unaware that your language supports the narrative that Isreal is a colonialist settler State. Its common knowledge that this is part of an ideology to change the narrative (because narratives are now reality as if you can change reality by words). Its a Post Modernist twist on truth.

NO. I. DIDN'T.

This is what I wrote about your complaint that the Israelis have to live mixed in with Palestinians in the West Bank:

That's really the Israeli's problem now isn't it. They are the ones that built settlements on occupied territory in violation of international law. Otherwise it could be continuously Palestinian and there wouldn't be any Israeli's "scattered throughout",

Israel build settlements. That's what I wrote. And it is a simple fact that those who live in those Israeli settlements wouldn't be surrounded by those who despise them if they hadn't built the settlements. Settlements that are mostly in violation of international law.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am not sure what your point is. Isreal is the Nation State of the Jews. Isreals history is Jewish history. How is saying Isreal has any less historical connection with cities like Jerusalem than the Jews. Both have the same connection because they are mostly the same people. Christ and Abraham are historical figures for Jews and Isrealis. They lived in the Isrealite cities and have Isrealite histories.

This does seem to be the fundamental problem. You seemingly can't distinguish between "Jews" and "Israelis" (or spell Israel). You conflate Israeli history for Jewish history for Israelite history. This is the same kind of failure to understand that leaves a certain orange-faced idiot to tell a group of American Jews that Netenyahu was "their" prime minister. (Silly orange man, Americans don't have a prime minister, we have a president, and he was it at the time.)

The State of Israel only exists from 1947 onward. You can talk about the history leading to the formation, but it only goes back several more decades. There was once a kingdom of the same name, but it has been gone for a very long time. It's sister kingdom of Judah (from whence Jews get their name) existed for much longer. They are not the same.

"My (claimed) ancestors live here very long ago" is a very poor basis for a claim to control territory. What of the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Crusader States, the Greeks, the Romans, the Islamic caliphates, etc.? Do their descendants *also* have a claim to control the land of the Levant? I find all of these ancient land claims to be ridiculous.

I don't favor one group of civilians over another in the modern situation and I condone no atrocities by anyone.

 

[rjs330]

According to international law it absolutely is.

No it's not. That's an interpretation and not necessarily the correct one. The area was given to the Jews by Britain. And then it was lost to the Arabs in the 40's conflict. It was retaken by the Jews in the 60s when the Arabs attacked them again. So the claim that it's occupied territory is dubious at best. Unless if course one is anti-Semitic then it's a solid claim which the International folks are in spades.

 

[Pommer]

No it's not. That's an interpretation and not necessarily the correct one. The area was given to the Jews by Britain. And then it was lost to the Arabs in the 40's conflict. It was retaken by the Jews in the 60s when the Arabs attacked them again. So the claim that it's occupied territory is dubious at best. Unless if course one is anti-Semitic then it's a solid claim which the International folks are in spades.

“Ali, my good friend, great news!”

What could this be, friend Levi!?

“The British have said that this is my land now!”

__________________

How might’ve the rest of that gone, do you think?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The area was given to the Jews by Britain.

It was not. The British left, leaving no real succession plan in place.

The British plan, which was not put in to action, would not have given the West Bank to the Jewish state.

 

[rjs330]

This does seem to be the fundamental problem. You seemingly can't distinguish between "Jews" and "Israelis" (or spell Israel). You conflate Israeli history for Jewish history for Israelite history. This is the same kind of failure to understand that leaves a certain orange-faced idiot to tell a group of American Jews that Netenyahu was "their" prime minister. (Silly orange man, Americans don't have a prime minister, we have a president, and he was it at the time.)

The State of Israel only exists from 1947 onward. You can talk about the history leading to the formation, but it only goes back several more decades. There was once a kingdom of the same name, but it has been gone for a very long time. It's sister kingdom of Judah (from whence Jews get their name) existed for much longer. They are not the same.

"My (claimed) ancestors live here very long ago" is a very poor basis for a claim to control territory. What of the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Crusader States, the Greeks, the Romans, the Islamic caliphates, etc.? Do their descendants *also* have a claim to control the land of the Levant? I find all of these ancient land claims to be ridiculous.

I don't favor one group of civilians over another in the modern situation and I condone no atrocities by anyone.

And yet that's the claim of every group who had land and were conquered. It's the exact argument that those who want the land turned back to the Indians use.

And I agree that it's a bad argument. However that's the argument Pro-palestinians use. It was there's first so they should have it. But I'd you are going to use that argument then it's only right to say that we know that this area belonged to Israel first before the Palestinians. It was their nation. And you are correct it was taken from them several times.

This is why I don't support the whole it was so and so's land first. The land belongs to whomever has it and can control it.

The current satae of Israel obtained the land by claiming it after Britian and the UN offered it to them. The fact that the Arab nations objected is irrelevant. They had an opportunity to have international recognized land and refused to take it. They wanted it all. Well they didn't get it all and Israel claimed it and kept it. Well, a lot of it. Trans-Jordan was able to take a hold of some of it at the time.

It now is Israel's. And in 1968 Israel took some of it back when the ARabs attacked. I guess they should have left well enough alone.

Israel didn't do anything different than the Rabs have been doing forever. But somehow they are the bad guys? Nonsense.

 

[rjs330]

Neither the British plan nor the UN plan for partition would have given the West Bank to the hypothetical new Jewish state.

So? The Arabs rejected the offer. They should have accepted it. Britain ended the mandate and Israel decided to accept the offer anyway and they UN's offer for the land and the Trans-Jordan and the rest of the Arabs attacked to prevent it. They were able to grab the West Bank at the time. Which honestly I'm okay with. Because in the world th land only belongs to those to take it and control it.

Once again the Arabs tried to take out Israel in 1968 and couldn't do it and Israel took some of the Land including some of the West Bank. The Arabs declaires war upon Israel by their actions despite the fact that Israel warned them off. They then built a coalition and sent troops to the boarders after taking actions that Israel said they would do sidet an act of war.

The fact that they didn't see the pre-emptive strike coming is a failure of their war footing.

Look this has been d bated for years, but bottom line, the Arabs have been trying to get rid of the Jews for a long time. And they can't. And the fact that the Jews have actually fought back and won, to bad for the Arabs. The few settlements in the West Bank that the Jews have should be left alone cause they obtained them fair and square after the massive attack against their country.

 

[rjs330]

“Ali, my good friend, great news!”

What could this be, friend Levi!?

“The British have said that this is my land now!”

__________________

How might’ve the rest of that gone, do you think?

Once again you make sarcastic comment that has no legitimacy in the reality of history. The British just gave back land that belonged to the Jews in the first place if that's where you are trying to go with these types of comments.

 

[stevevw]

NO. I. DIDN'T.

This is what I wrote about your complaint that the Israelis have to live mixed in with Palestinians in the West Bank:

Israel build settlements. That's what I wrote. And it is a simple fact that those who live in those Israeli settlements wouldn't be surrounded by those who despise them if they hadn't built the settlements. Settlements that are mostly in violation of international law.

Yeah sorry I had it in my mind that you said settler, This is what you originally said "They are the ones that built settlements on occupied territory". It was an unusual word to use in my opinion which feeds into the narrative of a settler state. Especially when "occupied territory" is added.

As far as I understand according to the Oslo Accords they split the West Bank into three regional levels with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA): Area A (PNA), Area B (PNA and Israel), and Area C (Israel, comprising 60% of the West Bank).

 

[stevevw]

This does seem to be the fundamental problem. You seemingly can't distinguish between "Jews" and "Israelis" (or spell Israel). You conflate Israeli history for Jewish history for Israelite history. This is the same kind of failure to understand that leaves a certain orange-faced idiot to tell a group of American Jews that Netenyahu was "their" prime minister. (Silly orange man, Americans don't have a prime minister, we have a president, and he was it at the time.)

The State of Israel only exists from 1947 onward. You can talk about the history leading to the formation, but it only goes back several more decades. There was once a kingdom of the same name, but it has been gone for a very long time. It's sister kingdom of Judah (from whence Jews get their name) existed for much longer. They are not the same.

No the Jews setup the Kingdom of Isreal around 1,000 BC under King Saul, David, and Solomon, the entire land of Israel was under a unified Jewish kingdom and they have maintained a continious connection with the land especially in Hebron and its capital Jersualem both in the West Bank. Though many were forced from the land many stayed maintaining that connection and then many came back.

If you want to use the forced removal of Palestinians from the land as they right to the land then lets go back to the original enforcement from the land of the Jews who should then be given the same rights which would then restore their rights to the land they orginally inhabited.

The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation's capital.

Jewish Claim To The Land Of Israel

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

"My (claimed) ancestors live here very long ago" is a very poor basis for a claim to control territory. What of the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Crusader States, the Greeks, the Romans, the Islamic caliphates, etc.? Do their descendants *also* have a claim to control the land of the Levant? I find all of these ancient land claims to be ridiculous.

I don't favor one group of civilians over another in the modern situation and I condone no atrocities by anyone.

What about the Aboriginals and Scandinavians control of Australia or the Spanish, Incas and American Indians control of the US. Or the early Europeans, Normans and Romans who occupied Britain. Should we give control back to these ethnic groups. The fact is the Jews were the first to establish a national identity with the land just like the Brits did with Australia and Spanish did with the Americas.

If your going to use that logic then Palestine as a State never even existed until the West created it. Its not even a real entity to claim anything. Even so Palestinians acknowledged that.
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."

Jewish Claim To The Land Of Israel

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

There is no such thing as an historic Palestine with ties to the land. Its an invented entity which the Palestinians headed by groups like Hamas claim is God given. So how can an invented people lay claim to a history of Palestine when there has never been a destinct Palestine with a history. In fact the Palestinians believe that all the land (from the river to the sea) is Palestinian and the Jews have no rights to it.

The other problem is despite the Jews right to the land they have compromised several times in giving up the land for the Palestinians at times conceding up to 90% of the land to the Palestinians. Each and every time the Palestinians rejected any peace deals because they wanted all the land and the Jews completely reomoved. In other words they don't want the Jews there at all and to be homeless from their own land.

Hense they attacked the Isreal many times and in doing so Isreal captured more land as a result. But still then then went about sharing the land and still the Palestinians attacked them. I can understand after centuries of attacks on them from Muslims that they have had enough and no want many of them out. Or at to take control so that they can have some peace.

If we allow a two state solution that would only allow a massive group of people on the doorstep on Isreal building up to continue the attacks and eventually wipe Isreal out. Why would they want that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So?

So the British did not give it to the Jewish state, contrary to your statement.

Britain ended the mandate and Israel decided to accept the offer anyway

There was no British offer. The British plan was not put into effect.

and they UN's offer for the land and the Trans-Jordan

The UN plan did not offer the Jewish state the West Bank, much less the Trans-Jordan (aka Jordan). The UN plan also was not put into effect.

Once again the Arabs tried to take out Israel in 1968 and couldn't do it
The fact that they didn't see the pre-emptive strike coming is a failure of their war footing.

lol.

The few settlements in the West Bank that the Jews have should be left alone cause they obtained them fair and square

No, they were built illegally....

after the massive attack against their country.

...on land Israel has occupied (illegally) after its massive sneak attack. There was hardly even a feeble attack on Israel itself during the Six Day War.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about the Aboriginals and Scandinavians control of Australia or the Spanish, Incas and American Indians control of the US. Or the early Europeans, Normans and Romans who occupied Britain. Should we give control back to these ethnic groups. The fact is the Jews were the first to establish a national identity with the land just like the Brits did with Australia and Spanish did with the Americas.

How can you just a couple sentences after seemingly understand historical claims (and how fraught they are) including mentioning pre-Columbian groups in the Americas (like the Inca) then go claim that the first national identity in the Americas came with the Spanish?

Did the Inca not have any national identity?
Did the Aztec not have any national identity?
Did the Toltec not have any national identity?
Did the Maya not have any national identity?

And so on with the hundreds and thousands of polities that existed in the Western Hemisphere before the Spaniards showed up.

 

[stevevw]

How can you just a couple sentences after seemingly understand historical claims (and how fraught they are) including mentioning pre-Columbian groups in the Americas (like the Inca) then go claim that the first national identity in the Americas came with the Spanish?

Did the Inca not have any national identity?
Did the Aztec not have any national identity?
Did the Toltec not have any national identity?
Did the Maya not have any national identity?

And so on with the hundreds and thousands of polities that existed in the Western Hemisphere before the Spaniards showed up.

I am using this in the context of people saying that the Isrealites are occupying Palestinian land because there is some Indigenous connection. We don't say that for all other nations just the Jews. Why do people see the Palestinians right to the land and not the Jews who first establoished the land and maintained cultural connections with that land throughout time.

The Incas had a national identity but they completely disappeared unlike the Jews who always maintained that connection. If the Incas survived and still existed somewhere in America would they have a right to control all America. Why don't the Americans give all control to the American Indians. I am showing the inconsistency of the arguements against Isreal that is not applied to anyone else..

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am using this in the context of people saying that the Isrealites are occupying Palestinian land because there is some Indigenous connection. We don't say that for all other nations just the Jews. Why do people see the Palestinians right to the land and not the Jews who first establoished the land and maintained cultural connections with that land throughout time.

There are no more Israelites. That culture ended about 2500 years ago. Who is or is not indigenous to the land does not change the fact that under international law the State of Israel is occupying territory outside their legal borders and have taken measures to integrate it into their state in violation of international law.

The Incas had a national identity but they completely disappeared unlike the Jews who always maintained that connection. If the Incas survived and still existed somewhere in America would they have a right to control all America. Why don't the Americans give all control to the American Indians. I am showing the inconsistency of the arguements against Isreal that is not applied to anyone else..

Like most conversations with you, this is getting muddled and your respondents end up trying to argue positions they never started with. My argument with you is not about who has the more legitimate ancient claim, it is about the solution you are coming to. (And your failure to recognize basic facts under international laws, like occupation.)