Bullshit
Learn to deal with facts and not expect media to be sycophants to your bias.
Instead they should be shills for your favorite ideologies? That's not how I see things.
Do you miss Pravda?
So, in your mind if the media isn't shilling for you bias it's shilling for someone else? s reporting of events and news ever not biased your sycophant's mind?
We know the media shills for the left and Muslim terrorists.
How can Muslims be "terrorists" when they are just defending their homelands?
Israel is not their homeland, moron.
WRONG!
Go read some history books.
Hebrew did not come from Palestine, but the Sinai.
Why do you think they went to Egypt for 400 years to escape a drought in the Sinai, if they came from Palestine, which never had a drought like that.
And why is it Palestine then was known of the Land of Canaan if it was the homeland of the Hebrew?
The Hebrew did invade around 1000 BC, but only ruled for a couple hundred years before being defeated and driven out by the Babylonians. They kept sneaking back, but were later defeated and driven out again and again, by the Assyrians and finally the Romans
The Hebrew never belonged there and were always illegal, brutal, invaders.
And they again were illegal foreign invaders in 1948.
They do not belong there.
It is NOT their homeland and never was.
Counter argument since YOU OFFERED NO LINKS...JUST your guesses.
Why is it so difficult to provide sources? As a result I assume you are guessing!
Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the
Balfour Declaration of 1917; the
League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations
partition resolution of 1947; Israel's
admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
That is easy to prove is lies.
First of all, lets establish that Joshua was a brutal invader who massacred the native Canaanite in Jerusalem, around 1000 BC.
Then lets prove the claim of uninterrupted Jewish settlement is a lie.
Did not the the Assyrians defeat the Jews and force them all to leave in 701 BC?
Did not the the Babylonians defeat the Jews and force them all to leave in 587 BC?
Did not the the Romans defeat the Jews and force them all to leave in 70 AD?
Did not the Crusaders massacre any remaining Jews from 1099 on?
As for the Balfour Declaration, England did not own Palestine at the time, so was invalid.
But it never intended or gave any hint of Jewish ownership, only facilitated immigration.
Read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the
Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}
And as for who does own Palestine, I suggest you refer to the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, which legally created the Moslem Palestine as agreed by the British for helping the Allies in WWI.
The British Mandate for Palestine was not a whim, but a contractual obligation to the Arab Moslems.
And finally, the hundreds of war crime resolution by the UN against Israel invalidate it utterly.
There has hardly ever been such a criminal country as Israel.
thehill.com
