Call for a Peaceful End to Zionism

[CDNBear]

Israel is just dishing out what it gets? You must be kidding.

How many Israel homes have been demolished by Palestinians?
This is a link to an Israeli source:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200411_Punitive_House_Demolitions.asp

OH brother, we're back to this again?
So if the little mouth piece at the end of the bar thinks its funny I'm just drinking Gingerale, and I ignore his comments, but keep an eye on him, because of his manner, then he tries to pick a fight with me, by throwing a punch and I beat him to a pulp, I'm the bad guy, because I'm tuffer and better trained?
Give your head a shake!

You should read more of my posts:
Israel's creation caused the first wave of Palestinian refugees in 1947. Back then Palestinians weren't nearly so violent or numerous as they are today. Over time they have become more organized, more hostile and more numerous.

You should really read my posts...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html
They are factual, and contain less emotion.

Hezbollah arent terrorist group, only 8 nation defines them as terrorist, according to me, they are liberators period.

What is shameful is the people who support the destruction of palestinians, lebanon,iraq,in the last year about 3000 innoncent peoples from lebanon and palestine has died, that is beside iraq, everything you guys support, when in fact hezbollah and hamas combined together havent killed 300 peoples including military and civilians, and you have the guts to claim others are terrorists, that is outrageous at the highest level.I think You have lost common sense for quite some times.

See my first response to earth, and the Hezbollah is a terrorist group, prove it isn't??? Or shut up!!!

Well that's certainly a truism hermanntrude. Ultimately, its not up to us. But Canada isn't an innocent bystander either.

Canada voted in favor of creating the Jewish state called Israel back in 1948. As a result, 800,000 non-Jews who lived in the area we voted to make Israel were ethnically cleansed off their land by Jewish militants.

What a load of emotional, ahistorical, aped BS. They were relocated at the worst. Your emotion aside, a wrong for sure, but hardly worth the outcome.

They were born there, they are citizens of no other country and have a right to the land of their birth and no right to the land of their ancestors.

Except that as has bene discussed previously, Ashkenazim Jews are NOT descended of Abraham and have no ancestral claim to the Promised Land. By contrast, those who say Jesus is Messiah (as do all Muslims) have a right to that Land as per the book of Galatians.

Therefore, as Israel is a member of the UN I repeat what I said previously -- the only solution is a one state solution.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html

That's up to the people themselves - at least it will not involve any foreign people and the citizens can solve their own problems without international intervention.

In a generation Muslims because of their higher birth rate will be the majority. We'll see then what the outcome will be.

Hopefully, it will mean peace.

Highly unlikely, as the numbers of Muslims grows, so will their need for land and then Israels fertility will seem like a ripe fig, ready for picking.

Zionism, not religion is the root cause of war in Palestine.

No it was part of the problem. It is not the main basis of Israels policy at present, so it is hardly relevant. The other MAJOR contributor here is the nazi roots in Islamic fundamentalism embedded in the militias poised agianst Israel and the propoganda spewed endlessly by their benefactors and trumpeted by you, that Palestine is for Palestinians, which is not true. It was for the most part Jewish and built by Jews, Druze and Arabs, before outside interference.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html

Jewish refugees which fled Europe for Palestine are immigrants.

People born in Palestine/Israel are not immigrants, even if their are born from immigrants.

People born in Palestinian refugee camps have the same right of return as their parents.

This article pretty much sums up their case:

Wow, if I followed that correctly, I see hypocracy.

Good point. Anyone in North America (other than Natives) who doesn't support Jews living in Palestine (either one state or two) is a hypocrite, considering that what the Jews did to Arabs is very similar to what many of us immigrants did to the Natives. Thus, the only question is will that be one state or two?

Yep, not much to argue with there only...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html

Very true. 2 state is the solution, however i doubt it will happen.

I support the palestinians, since they are the ones who are oppressed, human right violated on a daily basis, enough to take their side.

OH brother you need to read some history...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html

You should say, if you are a top notch hypocryte, you should support israel.

Again...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html

I would love you to support this?


How can a Canadian, be a hypocrite for supporting Israelis right to live on the land of their birth, even if their ancestors acquired the land immorally.

Thats exactly what Canada is.

You know, that country your in without Asking the permission of the Natives here? Kinda like how you complain about Jewish people who Immigrated to Israel without asking the permission of Palestinians who's ancestors rightfully owned (past tense) the land.

If you truly believed Israel was in the wrong logic7, you would be staying in Canada.

Because you are in Canada, your either a Hypocrite or you really are against Israeli simply because you are an anti-semite.

I believe she is leaning to the latter.

Palestinians are oppressed. But what indication have their leaders given that they would not oppress Jews and commit injustices against them if they controlled the Holylands?

None, in fact they have made it quite clear they would rid the earth of the jews.

Ah. So the USA, wanting control of the planet, is a Zionist. Liberals and Conservatives are Zionists because they want control of Canada. I must be a Zionist; I have control of this 50 acres. Cool.
Um, yeah, war is repugnant. Stupid, too.

Now you're getting it LG. You might want to get to a Doctor quick, and get rid of it though, lol.

 

[Colpy]

Again, I think the best thing to do is let them do there own thing and the rest of the planet stay the hell out of their biz.

Precisely.

So, I assume this means you would have no problem if the Israelis merely ejected the Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, and annexed it all.

They could you know, easily.

And it would solve most of their problems, and leave those problems solidly in the hands of Egypt and Jordan, where they belong in the first place.

I am, BTW, NOT advocating this course of action. Just putting out a "what if?"

 

[CDNBear]

So, I assume this means you would have no problem if the Israelis merely ejected the Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, and annexed it all.

They could you know, easily.

What do you think is stopping them Colpy?

All the apologists seem to feel Israel is hell bent on squashing the Palestinians and taking their land, yet they gave up the Sinia, and have the military force to wipe out most if not all their nieghbours.

Could it be, that the whole opinion put forth by the apologists is based on propoganda?

And...

Israel, really just wants the Arabs to Foff and leave them be?

 

[Colpy]

Oh Yeah:

WELCOME BACK, BEAR!

 

[CDNBear]

Oh Yeah:

WELCOME BACK, BEAR!

Thanx Colpy,

What do you think the reasons are for Israel's restraint?

 

[Colpy]

I think their reasons for NOT doing it are many:

1. They are a peace with Egypt and Jordan. If they pushed 2.4 million refugees across their borders, peace would not last. Given the choice of terror from the WB&G, or war, they choose the lesser of two evils.

2. Israel DOES care what the rest of the world thinks.......their early withdrawal from Lebanon proves that. The Israelis understand no nation is an island.....The Rest of the world would go NUTS!

3. There would be massive unrest within Israel itself. Israel is far from monolithic, and a large portion of the Israeli population would be agast at such a move. This could even contribute to unrest within the military........not a good idea when you are provoking everybody.

4. Despite the beliefs of many on this board, the Israeli leadership are NOT monsters. Ejection of 2.4 million people would cause a refugee problem of immense proportions..........The Israelis are very sensitive to accusations of genocidal behaviour. Most of all, they wouldn't do it simply because it would be wrong.

 

[CDNBear]

I think their reasons for NOT doing it are many:

1. They are a peace with Egypt and Jordan. If they pushed 2.4 million refugees across their borders, peace would not last. Given the choice of terror from the WB&G, or war, they choose the lesser of two evils.

2. Israel DOES care what the rest of the world thinks.......their early withdrawal from Lebanon proves that. The Israelis understand no nation is an island.....The Rest of the world would go NUTS!

3. There would be massive unrest within Israel itself. Israel is far from monolithic, and a large portion of the Israeli population would be agast at such a move. This could even contribute to unrest within the military........not a good idea when you are provoking everybody.

4. Despite the beliefs of many on this board, the Israeli leadership are NOT monsters. Ejection of 2.4 million people would cause a refugee problem of immense proportions..........The Israelis are very sensitive to accusations of genocidal behaviour. Most of all, they wouldn't do it simply because it would be wrong.

I couldn't have said it any better myself...

I pretty much had an idea of what you would say. I was just curious as to your interpretations.

I wonder if the apologists will understand your rather well thoughtout reasonings?

 

[earth_as_one]

Welcome back bear

I have read your posts. Your logic is flawed.

Your argument is that counting TransJordan, non-Jews ended up with most of the land. That may be true, but its still a flawed argument.

At the time of the division only about 800,000 people lived in Transjordan east of the Jordan river and almost none were Jewish. What rights do Jews have to a region where they don't live?

If you count just the British Mandate of Palestine where nearly all Jews lived, they only made up 31% of the population yet were awarded 55% of the land. By the end of the war they claimed 75% of Palestine. The remaining 25% of Palestine was invaded and occupied during the 1967 war. Since then, Israel has maintained a rolling annexation of this land, seizing land owned by Palestinians and awarding it to Jewish immigrants for settlements. By the time the wall is completed, Israel will have taken about 90% of what used to be the British Mandate of Palestine.

If you count arable land in Palestine, then 31% of the population got 85% of the arable land. The other 69% of the population got mostly unihabitated desert.

No matter how you slice it, Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe got more Palestinian land in terms of both quantity and quality than their population warranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(mandate)#Population_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine

British Mandate of Palestine 1945
Total Population: 1,764,520

1,061,270(60%)Muslim
553,600(31%)Jewish (450,000 immigrants)
135,550(8%)Christian
14,100(1%)other.

But if you think its fair to factor in low population density land where Jews don't live, then why not include the Sahara desert too.

 

[earth_as_one]

I think their reasons for NOT doing it are many:

1. They are a peace with Egypt and Jordan. If they pushed 2.4 million refugees across their borders, peace would not last. Given the choice of terror from the WB&G, or war, they choose the lesser of two evils.

2. Israel DOES care what the rest of the world thinks.......their early withdrawal from Lebanon proves that. The Israelis understand no nation is an island.....The Rest of the world would go NUTS!

3. There would be massive unrest within Israel itself. Israel is far from monolithic, and a large portion of the Israeli population would be agast at such a move. This could even contribute to unrest within the military........not a good idea when you are provoking everybody.

4. Despite the beliefs of many on this board, the Israeli leadership are NOT monsters. Ejection of 2.4 million people would cause a refugee problem of immense proportions..........The Israelis are very sensitive to accusations of genocidal behaviour. Most of all, they wouldn't do it simply because it would be wrong.

1) Egypt and Jordan: These countries are well paid to keep the peace with Israel.

Israel - The largest recipient of US largesse in 2003, getting $2.1 billion in military aid annually; $600 million in economic aid.

Egypt - Out of a US foreign aid budget of about $14 billion in 2003, Egypt was the second largest recipient with $1.3 billion in military aid; $615 million for social programs.

Jordan - Got $250 million in economic support; $198 in military financing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

The day Egypt or Jordan make a move against Israel, the US will stop this aid. Without this aid, these country's rulers would fall.

2) Israel withdrew from Lebanon because they were getting their butts kicked on the ground and one fifth of Israel's population was forced into underground bunkers by Hezbollah rockets. Sure Israel ruled the skies and could kill Lebanese civilians at will, but each bomb they dropped only united Lebanese against Israel.

By the way, Israel could have ended Hezbollah's rocket attacks. All they had to do was agree to stop bombing Lebanon from the air.

August 3, 2006

...Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said his militant group will stop firing rockets on Israeli cities if Israel stops its attacks on Lebanese towns.
"You attack our cities, villages, civilians and our capital, we will react," he said in a televised speech. "Anytime you decide to stop your campaign against our cities, villages, civilians and infrastructure, we will not fire rockets on any Israeli settlement or city."...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/08/03/mideast-fighting.html

If Israel's ground forces had been effective, Israel would still be in southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon because it was too dangerous to stay.

Asia Times
HOW HEZBOLLAH DEFEATED ISRAEL
PART 1: Winning the intelligence war
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html

PART 2: Winning the ground war
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ13Ak01.html

PART 3: The political war
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ14Ak01.html

3) Sure Israel could round up every Palestinian and drop them off at their borders. But now these people would be outside Israeli control. No longer could Israel starve them, or restrict what these people have access to. No doubt Iran would be pleased to provide them with all the necessary military hardware.

The only solution besides peace is extermination. Even then I doubt Israel could kill all four million Palestinians. The survivors would likely dedicate themselves completely to Israel's destruction.

4) Many of Israel's leaders are/were monsters.

Ariel Sharon was responsible for some 66 to 70 civilian deaths in a raid on Qibya in October 1953 (two-thirds of the victims were women and children) and he was found, even by the Israeli Kahan commission, to have been “indirectly responsible” for the mass killings at Sabra and Shatila, estimated by various authorities as somewhere between 800 and 3,000 Palestinian civilians, a large fraction once again women and children. The Kahan commission was protecting Israel’s own high official in making Sharon only “indirectly responsible,” but he was on the scene, was Minister of Defense in charge of operations in the area, and knowingly invited the Christian Phalange into the killing fields. He was quite aware of what was going to happen and failed to intervene during the 30 hours of killings.

[COLOR=#000000]http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jun02herman.html

[/COLOR]

Many of Israel's former leaders were wanted for acts of terrorism, like Menechem Begin who led the group responsible for the King David Hotel bombing.

...The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun — a militant Zionist organization.
The Irgun, dressed as Arabs, exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). Ninety-one people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel[1]: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured.

The attack was initially ordered by Menachem Begin, the head of the Irgun, who would later become Israeli Prime Minister...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

 

[gc]

.......their early withdrawal from Lebanon proves that.

Early withdrawl? 8-O Are you talking about the 2006 conflict?

Early as in AFTER killing over a thousand people and wounding countless others, all to get back two soldiers they knew they probably weren't going to get back anyhow (and lost more in the process)? If that's an early withdrawl, I'd hate to see what would happen if they were on time...

 

[CDNBear]

Welcome back bear

I have read your posts. Your logic is flawed.

Your argument is that counting TransJordan, non-Jews ended up with most of the land. That may be true, but its still a flawed argument.

At the time of the division only about 800,000 people lived in Transjordan east of the Jordan river and almost none were Jewish. What rights do Jews have to a region where they don't live?

If you count just the British Mandate of Palestine where nearly all Jews lived, they only made up 31% of the population yet were awarded 55% of the land. By the end of the war they claimed 75% of Palestine. The remaining 25% of Palestine was invaded and occupied during the 1967 war. Since then, Israel has maintained a rolling annexation of this land, seizing land owned by Palestinians and awarding it to Jewish immigrants for settlements. By the time the wall is completed, Israel will have taken about 90% of what used to be the British Mandate of Palestine.

If you count arable land in Palestine, then 31% of the population got 85% of the arable land. The other 69% of the population got mostly unihabitated desert.

No matter how you slice it, Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe got more Palestinian land in terms of both quantity and quality than their population warranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(mandate)#Population_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine

British Mandate of Palestine 1945
Total Population: 1,764,520

1,061,270(60%)Muslim
553,600(31%)Jewish (450,000 immigrants)
135,550(8%)Christian
14,100(1%)other.

But if you think its fair to factor in low population density land where Jews don't live, then why not include the Sahara desert too.

Yes of course it is I who is flawed...

Ever read the history of the region?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/55217-history-israel-palestine.html

 

[Zzarchov]

What relevance does the region where peoples ancestors hail from matter? The people in Israel now where born there. Those in Jordanian refugee camps were not, they were born in Jordan and are Jordanian.

 

[CDNBear]

What relevance does the region where peoples ancestors hail from matter? The people in Israel now where born there. Those in Jordanian refugee camps were not, they were born in Jordan and are Jordanian.

Your logic and arguement is flawed because it does not mesh with the policies and beliefs of those that oppose Israel's existance!!!

I'm actually just starting to wonder why I argue the facts of history with people like earth and Logic7, when their grasp of it is tenuous at best.

Whatever does not support their paper platform, is flawed and therefore somehow irrelevant. The propoganda and misconceptions that do support their agenda, is somehow more accurate then the real history and demographics of the area in question.

 

[earth_as_one]

What relevance does the region where peoples ancestors hail from matter? The people in Israel now where born there. Those in Jordanian refugee camps were not, they were born in Jordan and are Jordanian.

So let me get this straight. In your "objective", "unbiased" opinion, Jews have a right of return after 2000 years and hundreds of generations, but Palestinians don't have right of return after 60 years and 1 generation. In fact, people who converted to Judaism and their descendants have a right of return to Israel even though they never originated from there and aren't in fact returning, while Palestinians born in a refugee camp on Israel's border, don't have a right of return.

Obviously you are only looking at this problem from one side. If you want to be objective and unbiased you are also going to have to see the Palestinian refugee problem, from a Palestinian's viewpoint.

According to International law:
Refugees have a right to return to their homes, or what used to be their homes.
Countries with refugees are not obligated to grant citizenship to them or their descendants.

Reality:
The Palestinian birthrate is higher than Israel's. Jewish Israelis have a lower birthrate than non-Jewish Israelis. Eventually Jews will be a minority in Israel and Palestinians living in refugee camps will outnumber Israelis.
Each year that goes by, Israel's military superiority over its enemies shrinks.

Israel cannot defeat these people forever. Palestinians will continue to be a thorn in Israel's side until they have freedom and justice. Israel must keep winning wars to survive, but Palestinians only have to win once. No empire lasts forever.

Sooner or later these people will have freedom and justice. They may achieve this peacefully or the same way they lost it. I hope this happens peacefully.

 

[earth_as_one]

Your logic and arguement is flawed because it does not mesh with the policies and beliefs of those that oppose Israel's existance!!!

I'm actually just starting to wonder why I argue the facts of history with people like earth and Logic7, when their grasp of it is tenuous at best.

Whatever does not support their paper platform, is flawed and therefore somehow irrelevant. The propoganda and misconceptions that do support their agenda, is somehow more accurate then the real history and demographics of the area in question.

I said your argument is flawed. I never attacked you, I attacked your points... with logic. Try to be respectful of people who disagree with you. Think how boring our debates would be if we all had the same opinion.

I will repeat my logic.

Transjordan had very few Jews and a lot of empty desert. Palestine had a few Jews and less empty desert. The Sahara has even fewer people and even more empty desert.

If you look at just Palestine in 1945, its clear that Jews got more land and better quality land than their number would warrant. 31% of the people got 55% of the land and most of the arable land.

If you look at Palestine and Transjordan, it would appear the 1946 division plan was relatively fair. But that argument is distorted by the fact that few Jews lived in the Transjordan and most of it was empty space. That's why your argument about including the Transjordan is flawed. 30% of the people got about 30% of the total land. But 70% of the people got mostly empty desert.

If you look at Palestine, Transjordan and the Sahara desert, you could say that the Jews definitely did not get their fair share, because 29% of the population (Jews) got less than 1% of total land area of Palestine, Transjordan and the Sahara desert. But that same 29% still got most of the arable land, because most of Transjordan and the Sahara desert is unihabited desert. Also very few Jews lived in Transjordan and the Sahara desert.

The more empty land you bring into the equation, the more land which has few Jews in it, the more it distorts the reality of what happened.

A better way is to look at who controlled/owned land before and after the division. Before the division, by far most of the land and most of the arable land in Palestine was owned and controlled by non-Jews. After the division, most land and most arable land was controlled/owned by Jews. The division transferred far more land to Jewish immigrants, than the other way around. That's why the division wasn't fair. The division took control/ownership of land and arable land away from one group of people and gave it to another based on religion/ethnicity. If the division was fair, the amount of land and arable land owned and controlled by Jews and non-Jews would have remained the same.

So yes including mostly empty land where no Jews lived as part of the division is flawed. Its not meant to inform people about what happened but distort the reality of what happened.

Now if you really want to distort things, we could include Antarctica, the Gobi Desert, Australia's outback and other places like the TrransJordan which are mostly uninhabitated and has even fewer Jews. By that logic you could justify giving the Jewish immigrants Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, while the non-Jews could have Antarctica, the Gobi desert and Australia's outback and make it sound fair.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually my logic is that is irrelevant if the Jews had any right to return or not, They are all dead so it has ceased to matter. But I would say they in fact had no right to return against the wishes of any local governing body.

But those there now where born there, those wishing to "return" have never been there and cannot by definition return, and have no right.

To support any other platform would make me a hypocrite with no right to be in Canada.

 

[CDNBear]

I said your argument is flawed. I never attacked you, I attacked your points... with logic. Try to be respectful of people who disagree with you. Think how boring our debates would be if we all had the same opinion.

I will repeat my logic.

Transjordan had very few Jews and a lot of empty desert. Palestine had a few Jews and less empty desert. The Sahara has even fewer people and even more empty desert.

If you look at just Palestine in 1945, its clear that Jews got more land and better quality land than their number would warrant. 31% of the people got 55% of the land and most of the arable land.

If you look at Palestine and Transjordan, it would appear the 1946 division plan was relatively fair. But that argument is distorted by the fact that few Jews lived in the Transjordan and most of it was empty space. That's why your argument about including the Transjordan is flawed. 30% of the people got about 30% of the total land. But 70% of the people got mostly empty desert.

If you look at Palestine, Transjordan and the Sahara desert, you could say that the Jews definitely did not get their fair share, because 29% of the population (Jews) got less than 1% of total land area of Palestine, Transjordan and the Sahara desert. But that same 29% still got most of the arable land, because most of Transjordan and the Sahara desert is unihabited desert. Also very few Jews lived in Transjordan and the Sahara desert.

The more empty land you bring into the equation, the more land which has few Jews in it, the more it distorts the reality of what happened.

A better way is to look at who controlled/owned land before and after the division. Before the division, by far most of the land and most of the arable land in Palestine was owned and controlled by non-Jews. After the division, most land and most arable land was controlled/owned by Jews. The division transferred far more land to Jewish immigrants, than the other way around. That's why the division wasn't fair. The division took control/ownership of land and arable land away from one group of people and gave it to another based on religion/ethnicity. If the division was fair, the amount of land and arable land owned and controlled by Jews and non-Jews would have remained the same.

So yes including mostly empty land where no Jews lived as part of the division is flawed. Its not meant to inform people about what happened but distort the reality of what happened.

Now if you really want to distort things, we could include Antarctica, the Gobi Desert, Australia's outback and other places like the TrransJordan which are mostly uninhabitated and has even fewer Jews. By that logic you could justify giving the Jewish immigrants Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, while the non-Jews could have Antarctica, the Gobi desert and Australia's outback and make it sound fair.

First off...

Have you read the history of the area?

Did you follow the link I have posted several times?

If you had, you would be better equiped with the reality of the history, then to contemporary revisions you continuously post and preach from.

The Jews Druze and Muslims lived in the area. They were all considered Palestinian by the Romans, the Jews as did the others, built and formed the land into one of a prosperous nature. This led to migration of Arabs, looking for a place to hang their "NOMADIC" hats. Thats right "NOMADIC" hats.

This led to an influx of Arabs, non Jews, that eventually led to conflict, where by the Arabs began to try and push the Jews out, this was ignored by the powers that be, due to oil concerns.

So your %'s are flawed and do not reflect the history accurately, nor factually.

Hence your logic is flawed, you can argue well, but if you continue to use the graphs and revisionist history %'s as your data, your logic will always be flawed.

btw, why have you not answered my questions...

If it is all about land as you have claimed, why did Israel return the oil rich Sinia to egypt?

 

[earth_as_one]

Actually my logic is that is irrelevant if the Jews had any right to return or not, They are all dead so it has ceased to matter. But I would say they in fact had no right to return against the wishes of any local governing body.

But those there now where born there, those wishing to "return" have never been there and cannot by definition return, and have no right.

To support any other platform would make me a hypocrite with no right to be in Canada.

I am not talking about making Israelis leave. I'm talking about the right of Palestinians and their descendants to return home.

International laws, treaties and conventions are clear regarding the Palestinian refugee issue. Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return. The question is when is the "earliest practical date". They've been waiting for nearly 60 years and the earliest practical date still hasn't arrived.

In 1948 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 on the Question of Palestine, which "resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return..."

Today there are more than 3.7 million Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps throughout the Middle East and many more exiles worldwide. Their right of return is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The refugees have a claim to citizenship, financial settlement and, in some cases, return to former homes and property in what is today Israel. The government of Israel, however, opposes Palestian immigration, in order to maintain the Jewish character of the state. Whatever the details of any future agreement, a lasting and effective settlement must find a solution for Palestinian refugees that recognizes and accommodates their “right of return” and their claim to full citizenship in a state they can call home.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/returnindex.htm

The legal details of why Palestinians and their descendants have a right to return home are here:

THE RIGHT OF RETURN
OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE​

PRELIMINARY NOTE​

This study has been prepared for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 32/40B of 2 December 1977, by the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights in keeping with guidance provided by the Committee.

United Nations
New York, 1978​

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85...805c731452035912852569d1005c1201!OpenDocument

Its not hypocritical to say that Palestinians have fundamental human rights and that international laws, treaties and conventions apply to Palestinians and Israelis as much as they apply to everyone else.

 

[CDNBear]

I am not talking about making Israelis leave. I'm talking about the right of Palestinians and their descendants to return home.

International laws, treaties and conventions are clear regarding the Palestinian refugee issue. Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return. The question is when is the "earliest practical date". They've been waiting for nearly 60 years and the earliest practical date still hasn't arrived.



The legal details of why Palestinians and their descendants have a right to return home are here:



Its not hypocritical to say that Palestinians have fundamental human rights and that international laws, treaties and conventions apply to Palestinians and Israelis as much as they apply to everyone else.

Here's the problem earth...

"In 1948 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 on the Question of Palestine, which resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return..."

Tooooo many do not wish to live like that. They want it all and are controlling the others, which was discussed in another thread here, not to long ago.

 

[earth_as_one]

First off...

Have you read the history of the area?

Did you follow the link I have posted several times?

If you had, you would be better equiped with the reality of the history, then to contemporary revisions you continuously post and preach from.

The Jews Druze and Muslims lived in the area. They were all considered Palestinian by the Romans, the Jews as did the others, built and formed the land into one of a prosperous nature. This led to migration of Arabs, looking for a place to hang their "NOMADIC" hats. Thats right "NOMADIC" hats.

This led to an influx of Arabs, non Jews, that eventually led to conflict, where by the Arabs began to try and push the Jews out, this was ignored by the powers that be, due to oil concerns.

So your %'s are flawed and do not reflect the history accurately, nor factually.

Hence your logic is flawed, you can argue well, but if you continue to use the graphs and revisionist history %'s as your data, your logic will always be flawed.

btw, why have you not answered my questions...

If it is all about land as you have claimed, why did Israel return the oil rich Sinia to egypt?

Yes I am familar with the history of this area.

Yes I have followed your links to pro-Israeli propaganda websites and I read them. Their tortured logic is amusing.

Do you follow my links?

If you did, then you would know that in 1945, most people living in what is now Israel and the occupied territories were Muslim Arabs:

Population of the British Mandate of Palestine

In 1922 the British undertook the first census of the mandate. The population was 752,048, comprising 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups. After a second census in 1931, the population had grown to 1,036,339 in total, comprising 761,922 Muslims, 175,138 Jews, 89,134 Christians and 10,145 people belonging to other groups....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(mandate)#Population_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html#graph3

I'd like know how you got the idea that most of the people living in the British Mandate of Palestine were Jewish. Non-Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine outnumbered Jews in total population and in every district. Non-Jews owned more land in total and owned more farmland than Jews.

Jews didn't outnumber non-Jews until Jewish terrorist organizations ethnically cleansed 800,000 non-Jews out of Palestine. That was between 1947-1948. It was only after the Jewish terrorists beat, raped, tortured, murdered the native population, that these people fled to neighboring countries. That's when Jews in Israel finally outnumbered non-Jews.

I am aware that most Jews who fled to Palestine from Europe during the 1930's and 40's did not harm Palestinians, but they did benefit from crimes committed by a minority of fellow Jews. Most Palestinians did not participate in the 1948 war, but they suffered the consequences.

Now that I posted my references. Please post yours. Find an objective website which shows how Jews were a majority in Palestine when they were awarded a majority of the land. Otherwise, admit that you were mistaken.