Norwegian Ambassador claims that terrorism against Israel is morally acceptable

[Ginger_Warrior]

Examples are irrelevent. On several occasions in this thread (and others) you've tarred the whole of Palestine with the same brush the international community tarnishes Hamas with.

 

I could find plenty of examples where the Nazis supported the Vatican in pre-1939 Europe. Does it mean they were pro-religion? Most certainly not. But that's the single most common tactic you've used to justify Israel's actions against Palestinians.

 

You're the one of the most blinded people I have ever met in my life. More than happy to use questionable techniques to justify your own point of view, and instantly dismissing anything that counters it as "propaganda" or else claiming it's insignificant in some other way.

 

In a way it kind of saddens me, because this thread should've been about what happened in Norway, not what continues to happen around Israel.

[The_Gabe]

Examples are irrelevent. On several occasions in this thread (and others) you've tarred the whole of Palestine with the same brush the international community tarnishes Hamas with.

 

Examples are irrelevent unless they lead to a logical conclusion or a connection. I have maybe "tarred" Palestine as a whole a few times but it was for reasonable points.

 

 

I could find plenty of examples where the Nazis supported the Vatican in pre-1939 Europe. Does it mean they were pro-religion? Most certainly not. But that's the single most common tactic you've used to justify Israel's actions against Palestinians.

 

I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on this. I'm not seeing where you are getting at.

 

 

You're the one of the most blinded people I have ever met in my life. More than happy to use questionable techniques to justify your own point of view, and instantly dismissing anything that counters it as "propaganda" or else claiming it's insignificant in some other way.

 

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason. Same with claiming insignificant events. I do it and I provide reasons with those posts on why they were insignificant. I don't provide claims without backing them up.

 

In a way it kind of saddens me, because this thread should've been about what happened in Norway, not what continues to happen around Israel.

 

We have one. I'll link you to it. http://forum.tip.it/topic/298101-norway-attacks-at-least-80-dead/

[Giordano]

 

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason.

Ah, but there it is. There is no set definition and standard for reason, and your reason is most certainly not the same reason as mine or Gingers for this matter.

[The_Gabe]

 

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason.

 

Ah, but there it is. There is no set definition and standard for reason, and your reason is most certainly not the same reason as mine or Gingers for this matter.

 

3 Sentences later

I don't provide claims without backing them up.

:wink:

[Giordano]

 

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason.

 

Ah, but there it is. There is no set definition and standard for reason, and your reason is most certainly not the same reason as mine or Gingers for this matter.

 

3 Sentences later

I don't provide claims without backing them up.

:wink:

All I saw was the word troll.

 

As I said, reasoning is opinionated. To me, calling someone a troll is certainly not back-up.

[Napalm]

 

This is just as morally acceptable as you can get. If you say something is more morally acceptable than this, then you are clearly anti-semitic and there's something wrong with you, you sick [bleep].

 

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. You find one statement or picture you like that discriminates Israel, and you post it to try and generalize that all of them do it. Have you ever thought that using human shields is illegal? The cases with human shields are documented and the soldiers are tried. It's called a justice system. Not every person is a good apple.

 

 

I was making a satirical comment on how you jumped from the conclussion that the Norwegian Ambassador mentioned that he finds something more morally acceptable than Israel's occupation to stating he's antisemitic. But the point clearly went over your head, sorry, I'll be more direct next time.

 

Oh, by the way, in the link it says that out of the 15 cases in which human shields were used, which would probably involve at least more than 15 soldiers, since to do that you need the consent of a whole set of troops, only 3 people were demoted and given 3 months of suspension in prison. That doesn't seem to me like they are giving much of a priority to enforcing that law, which means that it's the same as if it weren't there.

[The_Gabe]

 

That's a blatant lie. If you'd actually look on the few pieces that I did dismiss it as propaganda, I did it with reason.

 

Ah, but there it is. There is no set definition and standard for reason, and your reason is most certainly not the same reason as mine or Gingers for this matter.

 

3 Sentences later

I don't provide claims without backing them up.

:wink:

All I saw was the word troll.

Then you may need glasses :lol:

 

As I said, reasoning is opinionated. To me, calling someone a troll is certainly not back-up.

I stated what I do. I can't really back up myself saying that I back up my claims. You can do that by looking at my previous posts.

[das1330]

 

This is just as morally acceptable as you can get. If you say something is more morally acceptable than this, then you are clearly anti-semitic and there's something wrong with you, you sick [bleep].

 

This has to be Photoshopped. No one is that stupid.

 

 

Answering the original assertion however, while attacks on civillians in general are always morally unacceptable, the Palestinians do have a decent claim for engaging in war with the Israelis. From what I have seen, Zionism in it's current form is a corrosive force preventing equality.

[Kimberly]

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. You find one statement or picture you like that discriminates Israel, and you post it to try and generalize that all of them do it. Have you ever thought that using human shields is illegal? The cases with human shields are documented and the soldiers are tried. It's called a justice system. Not every person is a good apple.

 

It's funny that this statement can be flipped around to say something similar:

 

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. You find one obscure law or misquoted politician that you don't like, and you post it to try and generalize that all of the nation is antisemetic. Have you ever thought that there are other animal activist-based reasons behind some of those blood sacrifice restrictions? Not every law that restricts a group means they hate that group.

 

Just saying that maybe you should take what you're saying to heart and be a little more open minded. I understand Israel faces a lot of heat over this issue, but I wouldn't think it's helping the cause to be hypocritical and close minded.

[Crocefisso]

Gabe;

 

On the topic of Netanyahu, I urge you to look at some very basic facts that I shouldn't need to post on here so you can have your silly little proofs. The fact he and his right wing Likud party were elected in the first place shows the sort of views held by a large number of the Israeli populace. Similarly, just go and look at his poll ratings for foreign policy - which involves such magnificent feats as causing the break down of talks with Palestine - and tell me it doesn't reflect badly on the Israeli populace.

 

Similarly, by calling lobbyists democratic, you quite clearly demonstrate a rather distorted view of what a democratic system should be. Israeli government and business figures paying politicians in DC to lobby for them does not represent the will of the American people. It's a shamelessly corrupt practic by a nation which, without spoon-feeding from the US, and indoctrinating part of the US electorate with the false assertion that Israel is a victim of something other than its own aggression, could not exist.

 

I do not feel the need to assert the notion that Israeli policy is based upon lies and terror needs backing up with some sort of empirical evidence. It is my take on the Israeli policies and reactions to their actions (they kill civilians, then lie about it). I see through the nonsense, as do most of us here, Gabe. If you choose to believe it, that's your error of judgement.

 

That terrible, patronising video you've posted (which convinces me that Israel should exist about as much as Menachem Begin's assertion that the Jews are the Master race) here, you've also posted on other threads. It's as if there's only one video supporting Israel's right to exist. And even that video is shameless propaganda with very little reasoning outside of petty Zionist radicalism that is incredibly similar to al-Qa'ida and Islamist ideologies (and more extreme than Hizbullah), if only you'd come out of your US right wing propaganda cocoon and listen to objective fact that isn't influenced by money or bribery, but by clear-sightedness, human empathy, and objective facts.

 

@Kimberly:

 

I don't think it's possible to support Israel without being both close-minded and hypocritical.

[The Dark Lord]

Dunno, man. If there were a lot of crazy [bleep]s in Israel who wanted to kill me because I wasn't Jewish, I'd bomb the [bleep] out of them too.

[Deathscythe]

Alex Jones Predicted Norway Attacks Day Before !

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4NohssAjDI

[Crocefisso]

Alex Jones Predicted Norway Attacks Day Before !

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4NohssAjDI

Spam, methinks - doesn't relate to the thread, really. There's a separate Norway-related thread for you to post this conspiracy theory.

[The_Gabe]

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. You find one statement or picture you like that discriminates Israel, and you post it to try and generalize that all of them do it. Have you ever thought that using human shields is illegal? The cases with human shields are documented and the soldiers are tried. It's called a justice system. Not every person is a good apple.

 

It's funny that this statement can be flipped around to say something similar:

 

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. You find one obscure law or misquoted politician that you don't like, and you post it to try and generalize that all of the nation is antisemetic. Have you ever thought that there are other animal activist-based reasons behind some of those blood sacrifice restrictions? Not every law that restricts a group means they hate that group.

 

Just saying that maybe you should take what you're saying to heart and be a little more open minded. I understand Israel faces a lot of heat over this issue, but I wouldn't think it's helping the cause to be hypocritical and close minded.

 

So a period where Jews couldn't even settle in Norway is not discriminant against that group?

 

Gabe;

 

On the topic of Netanyahu, I urge you to look at some very basic facts that I shouldn't need to post on here so you can have your silly little proofs.

 

I have spent close to 2 hours now reading about Netanyahu and the Likud party. While there are some claims I do disagree with, I still believe they are doing that needs to be done.

 

The fact he and his right wing Likud party were elected in the first place shows the sort of views held by a large number of the Israeli populace.

 

Of course it does. That's called an election in a democratic country.

 

Similarly, just go and look at his poll ratings for foreign policy - which involves such magnificent feats as causing the break down of talks with Palestine - and tell me it doesn't reflect badly on the Israeli populace.

 

There are prerequisites from both sides that should be deleted from the peace talks. I'm not saying Netanyahu is at fault alone here, but I am saying there is room for improvement on both sides.

 

Similarly, by calling lobbyists democratic, you quite clearly demonstrate a rather distorted view of what a democratic system should be.

Israeli government and business figures paying politicians in DC to lobby for them does not represent the will of the American people. It's a shamelessly corrupt practic by a nation which, without spoon-feeding from the US, and indoctrinating part of the US electorate with the false assertion that Israel is a victim of something other than its own aggression, could not exist.

 

I don't believe you understand the role of lobbyists, so without further ado, here's an article to help you understand what they do a little better.

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-role-of-lobbyists-in-america-a77481

 

I do not feel the need to assert the notion that Israeli policy is based upon lies and terror needs backing up with some sort of empirical evidence. It is my take on the Israeli policies and reactions to their actions (they kill civilians, then lie about it). I see through the nonsense, as do most of us here, Gabe. If you choose to believe it, that's your error of judgement.

 

Wait a minute. Are you trying to claim something with a lack of burden of proof, and because I don't agree with it, I'm wrong?

 

That terrible, patronising video you've posted (which convinces me that Israel should exist about as much as Menachem Begin's assertion that the Jews are the Master race) here, you've also posted on other threads.

 

I see. When I post a video, it's automatically invalid. Are you claiming the facts the video provided are false?

 

It's as if there's only one video supporting Israel's right to exist. And even that video is shameless propaganda with very little reasoning outside of petty Zionist radicalism that is incredibly similar to al-Qa'ida and Islamist ideologies (and more extreme than Hizbullah), if only you'd come out of your US right wing propaganda cocoon and listen to objective fact that isn't influenced by money or bribery, but by clear-sightedness, human empathy, and objective facts.

 

Prove the video wrong.

 

 

@Kimberly:

 

I don't think it's possible to support Israel without being both close-minded and hypocritical.

 

You... Left me speechless. And at that, there's only one thing I can do

 

 

 

[Crocefisso]

Gabe;

 

I think we need to go back to basics. Please regale me with the reasoning you see for the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, without just reposting a video. I also find that the brevity of your responses, and the clever way you answer only select points (and those you do answer are answered so quickly that it's difficult to see depth in your argument), makes engaging in a well-rounded discussion more difficult than it ought to be.

 

Your above post was too fatuous and too selective in what you chose to atually answer to warrant a response.

 

The only thing I will say is this: stop dredging up relics from the past. So what if Norway was anti-Semitic under Nazi occupation? That was over sixty years ago. I lived in Bergen for a year; it's really not an anti-Semitic country.

[The_Gabe]

Gabe;

 

I think we need to go back to basics. Please regale me with the reasoning you see for the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, without just reposting a video. I also find that the brevity of your responses, and the clever way you answer only select points (and those you do answer are answered so quickly that it's difficult to see depth in your argument), makes engaging in a well-rounded discussion more difficult than it ought to be.

 

Or you can go ahead and answer the questions at hand instead of trying to indirectly bypass them to arguments that were already discussed in a previous topic.

[Omar]

I did not have time to write long posts yesterday, and I apologize. However, I did post a link to read about Norway's history a bit more in depth. It's not my fault if you chose not to read it.

You're right, and I apologize for becoming frustrated, but that text is not much more convincing.

a) The historical background says nothing about today's Norway: France has driven out protestants in the past, but that doesn't mean that is the relationship they have towards protestants nowadays, does it? You could read antisemitic propaganda in any country in the 1930s, including France (notably against Leon Blum, and mostly from far-right groups). Does that mean the whole of France, to this day, is antisemitic?

 

Extreme instances of persecution include the First Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and the Holocaust by Nazi Germany.

Racism was widespread. There's no reason to single out Norway. And moreover, racism also exists in the mentality of some Israelis and Jews.

 

The most industrialized attempt at a kosher slaughterhouse, Agriprocessors of Postville, Iowa, became the center of controversy in 2004, after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released gruesome undercover video of cattle struggling to their feet with their tracheas and esophagi ripped out after shechita

I can agree that the decision to ban it in the late 19th century were partly racially motivated, but it was also called for by humane society activists. Does that mean the decision not to remove the ban is racially motivated? Highways were built in Germany to facilitate the Nazi's war ambitions, with a bonus effect of making transportation easier for citizens. Does that mean they're still used to make getting around easier for tanks? I've been in Germany and I saw none. All of this is to say that decisions called for by racist groups are not necessarily bad ones, even if they are racially motivated. While antisemitism is not a good reason to ban ritual slaughter, it isn't the only one. I would like more detail on this issue, as the article's comparison between hunting and ritual slaughter is a little too quick to be believable.

 

I might continue later on, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort, as I don't want to be answered with an image macro.

[Flodder450]

I havent read the Bible all that much

 

but as far as i know,it doesnt contain a map of "The promised land" and its geographical borders

 

So in my opinion,Israel is just using a book as an excuse to take other peoples lands

 

_{i might revise this opinion}

[Giordano]

 

 

So in my opinion,Israel is just using a book as an excuse to take other peoples lands

 

[cabbage], I want my free national tacos too.

 

 

But how to proceed...

[magekillr]

I have spent close to 2 hours now reading about Netanyahu and the Likud party. While there are some claims I do disagree with' date=' I still believe they are doing that needs to be done. [/quote']

 

"I know what America is," Netanyahu told a group of terror victims, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."

 

Netanyahu also bragged how he undercut the peace process when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]," he said. "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."

 

Netanyahu: 'America is a thing you can move very easily'

 

Look harder.

 

Netanyahu -- and basically every single Israeli PM since at least 1967 -- has been doing what the Chinese have done to Tibet: send settlers over in order to annex the land. Now the Tibetans in China have basically no argument; almost all of the citizens there are Han Chinese. The problem for Netanyahu and Israel is that the Arabs -- Christian, Jewish and Muslim -- overwhelmingly will not be overtaken by them.

 

A two state solution is neither viable, or moral, and it's because of these settlers.

 

Of course, when it comes to America...it's silly to blame AIPAC or the Israeli lobbyists for America's [cabbage] foreign policy. America does what it does because Israel is an important spot in the region, and the powers that be benefit from that stability. The MIC also benefits from it. Does anyone criticizing Israeli lobbyists ever look to our foreign policy towards...Latin and South America? Is that any more just? No, if not for the The Lobby, America would treat Israel like it treats China's crimes: write them sternly worded letters, and then continue business as usual. It's a nice thesis, but it takes blame away from the real culprits: the leaders of America.

[Kimberly]

So a period where Jews couldn't even settle in Norway is not discriminant against that group?

 

...You're citing something that happened in 1845 as a reason to blame an entire country as being antisemitic? It was banned and then a month after the guy who forced it through died, repealed.

 

Just as there are people who might be antisemitic in power in Norway, there are many who aren't, even officials. Just as I'm sure that there are people in Israel who object to the treatment of Palestinians as there are some who encourage it.

 

I can't pretend to understand what sort of hardships you must endure as being a proud Israeli citizen, considering the muddled public view of the conflict there. But I think that, as an intelligent individual like yourself, you have the sense to understand that some stupid politicians don't always represent the entirety of your people.

[The_Gabe]

So a period where Jews couldn't even settle in Norway is not discriminant against that group?

 

...You're citing something that happened in 1845 as a reason to blame an entire country as being antisemitic? It was banned and then a month after the guy who forced it through died, repealed.

 

Just as there are people who might be antisemitic in power in Norway, there are many who aren't, even officials. Just as I'm sure that there are people in Israel who object to the treatment of Palestinians as there are some who encourage it.

 

I can't pretend to understand what sort of hardships you must endure as being a proud Israeli citizen, considering the muddled public view of the conflict there. But I think that, as an intelligent individual like yourself, you have the sense to understand that some stupid politicians don't always represent the entirety of your people.

 

I can agree with that.

[Crocefisso]

Very well, Gabe, I will write a full and detailed response to that nonsense of a video, so that at least one of us can set a precedent.

 

-On the issue of the Palestinian state: True, there has never been a state called Palestine, but those who use this as a reason to dismiss the notion that there should be one have missed the point of the concept by a country mile. Palestine refers to a geographical area in the Levant which I believe is a Roman - and therefore not religiously or racially charged - appellation. Palestinian Arabs are the people who have inhabited said area for over a millennium. Though they have never had a state that is called Palestine, they have been allowed to live here in states whose names have varied but ultimately allow them residence in the area. Following al-Nakba, many Palestinians were forced to flee, unable to return because of Israel's Zionist assertion that the Jews need a homeland (because they are somehow superior to other minority groups, purportedly), thanks largely to a bunch of Biblical claims and the fact that there used to be two Jewish states between c. 930-586 BC. Jews inhabited this area up until the period of 70-135 AD, when Romans - Europeans - created a Jewish diaspora by selling Jews into slavery across the Empire, which was also at its peak in terms of size under Trajan and Hadrian (whose collective periods as Emperor span 98-138 AD), meaning that Jewish diaspora ended up being as widely spread as possible. From this point on, Jews intergrated into European and later the Americas following their colonialisation. Arabs have lived in the area since around 700 AD (give or take 50 years). This means a number of things: a) Arabs have a longer history in the area called Palestine, b) It wasn't even Arabs who threw the Jews out, but Europeans, and c) The massive time period that elapsed between 135 AD and Israel's creation in 1948 shows that the common argument that many of today's Palestinians weren't even born there, and that this period of 63 years somehow nullifies their claim to the land, but 1813 years did not do the same to the Jewish claim, is inherently illogical.

 

As such, the Palestinian state is a means to allow the native people of that land, outside of the artificial structures of Zionism (Theodor Herzl, the ideologue of Zionism, believed that Palestine was "loose" unless inhabited by Jews, which gives the distinct impression that Jewish occupation of Palestine is some sort of necessary or benevolent act), to live in their actual, rather than textual, Biblical or historical (from ancient history) homeland, as is the case with the Jewish claim. I am not saying that the Jewish people aren't entitled to live in said area of land, but their claim is weak from a rational perspective and does not override that of the Arabs. I also believe that the current state of affairs is deepingly anti-Semitism among Arabs and Islamophobia among Jews, creating massive societal divisions that only grow with time. I believe that a two state solution would inevitably result in a war between said states. As such, I think only a single, secular state - Palestine would have to be the name, because Israel is a religious and racially charge name - for both peoples is the only real way to heal the deep rift and ensure something close to a lasting peace.

 

My other points won't be as lengthy, I assure you.

 

-Six Day War: The Six Day War was the result of a build up of pressure, as both sides were unwilling to cooperate in the years prior. Technically, however, "the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces." - see wikipedia entry for Six Day War.

 

-Jordan & the West Bank: Jordan occupied the area? Wrong. They were encouraged to do so by the UK and US, the latter of which did also recognise this move. The Arab States did not recognise it because they had some disputes with Jordan at the time regarding King Hussein's policies - some Arab states even tried to get Jordan expelled from the Arab League -, and it was nothing to do with some sort of ethical or pro-Israeli decision.

 

-Occupied/Disputed Territories: The meanings in political jargon are identical. This really is splitting hairs.

 

-'Arabs Launched a War'... funny that. It's what one would expect after a Jewish army turned up on their land and demanded that they leave certain parts of it.

 

-The part where the narrator mentions the Balfour Declaration: it was not technically much more than a letter of support from the British Foreign Minister - to a prominent British Jewish banker and part of the Rothschild dynasty -, and never became policy. Following this declaration, the feeling in Parliamenent became less pro-Zionist, as Churchill noted in 1922: "In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine"

 

-The League of Nations may have endorsed this in 1922, but, then again, the LoN was pretty powerless (even more so than the UN). It also reached just 58 member states during its peak, in 1934-5, long after this 1922 endorsement. This pales in comparison to the 190+ UN member states and their overall animosity towards Israel's actions. Thus, the Balfour Declaration has little meaning in reality; it's more symbolic.

 

 

After 4:06 minutes, I'm afraid to say that the video broke, and I last saw it too long ago to remember what was said. If you'd like to recap, feel free.

[The_Gabe]

Very well, Gabe, I will write a full and detailed response to that nonsense of a video, so that at least one of us can set a precedent.

 

-On the issue of the Palestinian state: True, there has never been a state called Palestine, but those who use this as a reason to dismiss the notion that there should be one have missed the point of the concept by a country mile.

 

Good you're getting somewhere. There was never a state called Palestine, and they are trying to establish one now.

 

Palestine refers to a geographical area in the Levant which I believe is a Roman - and therefore not religiously or racially charged - appellation. Palestinian Arabs are the people who have inhabited said area for over a millennium.

 

Here's a good quote I found that will help talk about the people who inhabited said area.

 

 

 

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nation . . . Palestine is a name the

Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews . .

Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us?"

 

"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs

picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even

pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity."

-- Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig,

Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995

 

Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity.

There is no language known as Palestinian.

There is no distinct Palestinian culture.

There has never been a land known as Palestine

governed by Palestinians.

 

Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians

(another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

 

Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel

represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the

Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about

today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never

be enough.

-- from "Myths of the Middle East", Joseph Farah,

Arab-American editor and journalist,

WorldNetDaily.Com, 11 October 2000

 

From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the

area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no

frontiers, only administrative boundaries.

-- Professor Bernard Lewis,

Commentary Magazine, January 1975

 

 

 

Though they have never had a state that is called Palestine, they have been allowed to live here in states whose names have varied but ultimately allow them residence in the area.

 

Good. We're getting somewhere. They was never a state called Palestine but people did live there.

 

Following al-Nakba, many Palestinians were forced to flee, unable to return because of Israel's Zionist assertion that the Jews need a homeland (because they are somehow superior to other minority groups, purportedly), thanks largely to a bunch of Biblical claims and the fact that there used to be two Jewish states between c. 930-586 BC. Jews inhabited this area up until the period of 70-135 AD, when Romans - Europeans - created a Jewish diaspora by selling Jews into slavery across the Empire, which was also at its peak in terms of size under Trajan and Hadrian (whose collective periods as Emperor span 98-138 AD), meaning that Jewish diaspora ended up being as widely spread as possible. From this point on, Jews intergrated into European and later the Americas following their colonialisation. Arabs have lived in the area since around 700 AD (give or take 50 years). This means a number of things: a) Arabs have a longer history in the area called Palestine, b) It wasn't even Arabs who threw the Jews out, but Europeans, and c) The massive time period that elapsed between 135 AD and Israel's creation in 1948 shows that the common argument that many of today's Palestinians weren't even born there, and that this period of 63 years somehow nullifies their claim to the land, but 1813 years did not do the same to the Jewish claim, is inherently illogical.

 

As such, the Palestinian state is a means to allow the native people of that land, outside of the artificial structures of Zionism (Theodor Herzl, the ideologue of Zionism, believed that Palestine was "loose" unless inhabited by Jews, which gives the distinct impression that Jewish occupation of Palestine is some sort of necessary or benevolent act), to live in their actual, rather than textual, Biblical or historical (from ancient history) homeland, as is the case with the Jewish claim. I am not saying that the Jewish people aren't entitled to live in said area of land, but their claim is weak from a rational perspective and does not override that of the Arabs. I also believe that the current state of affairs is deepingly anti-Semitism among Arabs and Islamophobia among Jews, creating massive societal divisions that only grow with time. I believe that a two state solution would inevitably result in a war between said states. As such, I think only a single, secular state - Palestine would have to be the name, because Israel is a religious and racially charge name - for both peoples is the only real way to heal the deep rift and ensure something close to a lasting peace.

 

Please read this. I've read the historical lesson you're trying to show, but there is another.

http://www.netjudaica.com.br/novaNetJudaica/Arquivos/Hasbara1/OriginConflict.PDF

I don't expect you to read all of it. Maybe the first 10 would suffice to say the least.

 

My other points won't be as lengthy, I assure you.

 

-Six Day War: The Six Day War was the result of a build up of pressure, as both sides were unwilling to cooperate in the years prior. Technically, however, "the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces." - see wikipedia entry for Six Day War.

 

The attack was because of intelligence gathered that Egypt was going to launch an attack and soon. However Israeli intelligence gathered information on Egypt, and while their field marshal Abd-al-Hakim Amers plane took off to inspect the positions in Sinai, the Egyptian were told not to open fire while the commander was airborne. Israel used that to their advantage and wiped out the air force and took out all the militaristic threats from Egypt on the first hour of the war.

 

-Jordan & the West Bank: Jordan occupied the area? Wrong. They were encouraged to do so by the UK and US, the latter of which did also recognise this move. The Arab States did not recognise it because they had some disputes with Jordan at the time regarding King Hussein's policies - some Arab states even tried to get Jordan expelled from the Arab League -, and it was nothing to do with some sort of ethical or pro-Israeli decision.

 

This was in the Balfour Declaration, which passed through the League of Nations.

 

-Occupied/Disputed Territories: The meanings in political jargon are identical. This really is splitting hairs.

 

False.

The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas."5 Similarly in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the State Department describes the patch of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent republic by indigenous Armenian separatists as "the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh.

 

-The part where the narrator mentions the Balfour Declaration: it was not technically much more than a letter of support from the British Foreign Minister - to a prominent British Jewish banker and part of the Rothschild dynasty -, and never became policy. Following this declaration, the feeling in Parliamenent became less pro-Zionist, as Churchill noted in 1922: "In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine"

 

And in 1939, Churchhill notes, ""So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and

multiplied . . . ." This was directed at Israel.

 

-The League of Nations may have endorsed this in 1922, but, then again, the LoN was pretty powerless (even more so than the UN). It also reached just 58 member states during its peak, in 1934-5, long after this 1922 endorsement. This pales in comparison to the 190+ UN member states and their overall animosity towards Israel's actions. Thus, the Balfour Declaration has little meaning in reality; it's more symbolic.

 

The legality of it still stood.

 

 

After 4:06 minutes, I'm afraid to say that the video broke, and I last saw it too long ago to remember what was said. If you'd like to recap, feel free.

 

Try to watch it on YouTube. Might help.

[Napalm]

 

Good. We're getting somewhere. They was never a state called Palestine but people did live there.

 

The whole point of the British mandate was to keep the lands in order until it settled, when they would leave and the state of Palestine would have been created. There would have been a state called Palestine had the jewish zionists that were relocated to the british mandate not decided that the lands were now theirs, once the british had been forced to leave.