Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[Coyote]

Thread has cleaned and violative posts removed.

Please note, the Administration and the Moderation Team are serious in their efforts to have a civil discourse as it pertains to the OP and any further posts which violate Zone 2 rules will be viewed in a more serious manner where infractions will be administered on a case by case basis.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Neither is the concept that the Jewish Immigrant was a "foreigner."

These related terms are often used in deliberately confusing and conflicting ways. Here is a set of definitions that will help you sort out the difference.

IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions: Alien, Immigrant, Illegal Alien, Undocumented Immigrant

It seems that the Palestinians use the same definition as the US. Do you disagree with the US?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The definition is fine. Your application is faulty. Immigration and Nationalization Laws are unique to each country. There is no uniform citizenship model. While the US laws work for the US, they are not applicable for any other country.

Neither is the concept that the Jewish Immigrant was a "foreigner."

These related terms are often used in deliberately confusing and conflicting ways. Here is a set of definitions that will help you sort out the difference.

IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions: Alien, Immigrant, Illegal Alien, Undocumented Immigrant

It seems that the Palestinians use the same definition as the US. Do you disagree with the US?

(COMMENT)

As I pointed out previously, and as you copied in the Posting Number 439, supra, by treaty, all Jews in the undefined territory were made citizens on the Treaty coming in force; and the territory covered by the Mandate is defined.

From that point on, Article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine, takes the lead on awarding citizenship. As neat as the US Immigration and Naturalization Law is, it is not relevant to any aspect of the Palestine Question. The Mandatory (UK) had full powers over the administration Palestine; and that administration was responsible for enacting a nationality law. That included legal provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by all Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine and who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home (Article 4). With citizenship, the Jewish immigrant ceased to be anything other that a Territorial Citizen.

Incidentally, there was no country to pledge allegiance to until 15 May, 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

The other major flaw in the analogy is the lack of a sovereign local power to which it was given to accede-to or bar immigration, at the time that the immigration occurred.

In the case of so-called Palestine, at the time of such immigration, no such sovereign local power existed.

Consequently, the analogy collapses, for lack of a foundation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The definition is fine. Your application is faulty. Immigration and Nationalization Laws are unique to each country. There is no uniform citizenship model. While the US laws work for the US, they are not applicable for any other country.

Neither is the concept that the Jewish Immigrant was a "foreigner."

These related terms are often used in deliberately confusing and conflicting ways. Here is a set of definitions that will help you sort out the difference.

IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions: Alien, Immigrant, Illegal Alien, Undocumented Immigrant

It seems that the Palestinians use the same definition as the US. Do you disagree with the US?

(COMMENT)

As I pointed out previously, and as you copied in the Posting Number 439, supra, by treaty, all Jews in the undefined territory were made citizens on the Treaty coming in force; and the territory covered by the Mandate is defined.

From that point on, Article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine, takes the lead on awarding citizenship. As neat as the US Immigration and Naturalization Law is, it is not relevant to any aspect of the Palestine Question. The Mandatory (UK) had full powers over the administration Palestine; and that administration was responsible for enacting a nationality law. That included legal provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by all Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine and who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home (Article 4). With citizenship, the Jewish immigrant ceased to be anything other that a Territorial Citizen.

Incidentally, there was no country to pledge allegiance to until 15 May, 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians that Palestine was not their country.

Good luck with that.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And we are back to the beginning.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians that Palestine was not their country.

Good luck with that.

(COMMENT)

For more that couple Generations, Palestinians have been telling themselves that the arbitrary demarcation of Palestine [(pursuant to Article 95 of the Treaty) (less the allocation for the Hashemite Kingdom)] was theirs by some right of longevity; yet also undefined. I don't think anyone can convince the Palestinian otherwise. That is what makes the situation so dangerous.

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control, we've all seen it, most Palestinians will not to acknowledge it.

And this is what makes it so risky in Occupation Disengagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And we are back to the beginning.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians that Palestine was not their country.

Good luck with that.

(COMMENT)

For more that couple Generations, Palestinians have been telling themselves that the arbitrary demarcation of Palestine [(pursuant to Article 95 of the Treaty) (less the allocation for the Hashemite Kingdom)] was theirs by some right of longevity; yet also undefined. I don't think anyone can convince the Palestinian otherwise. That is what makes the situation so dangerous.

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control, we've all seen it, most Palestinians will not to acknowledge it.

And this is what makes it so risky in Occupation Disengagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control,

Indeed, they went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation.

Occupation does not negate rights it only delays the exercise of rights.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't like these kinds of questions.

reabhloideach, et al,

Well, I agree that a Jewish is not a racial category. So, right off the bat, its not a matter of "apartheid" under the international criminal code. As you can see, "apartheid" is defined as crimes committed "by one racial group over any other racial group;" a major element of the offense.


(COMMENT)

No, you are not wrong.

But more importantly, being Israeli is not a racial category either; it is a nationality. And, you can be Israeli and Palestinian simultaneously; however you define a Palestinian.

But it is also important to understand that when speaking of "apartheid" --- you are speaking of treatment difference with a given country. That is to say, the crime of "apartheid" doesn't apply to the "Occupied Territories" because it is not "sovereign Israeli territory." The crime of "apartheid" is "committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." So, in order to determine if there is the crime of "apartheid," you have to examine if an "Israeli" of one racial class is being treated differently than an "Israeli" of another racial class within the same regime.

Of the LINK cited, I did not see one "apartheid" issue mentioned.

Most Respectfully,
R

Is "Arab" a race?

(COMMENT)

No, Arabs are Semitic (including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Maltese, and Amharic) language speaking people, that speak Arabic as a primary language.

It has no relationship to race.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well if we go back far enough Jews were part Arab.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And we are back to the beginning.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians that Palestine was not their country.

Good luck with that.

(COMMENT)

For more that couple Generations, Palestinians have been telling themselves that the arbitrary demarcation of Palestine [(pursuant to Article 95 of the Treaty) (less the allocation for the Hashemite Kingdom)] was theirs by some right of longevity; yet also undefined. I don't think anyone can convince the Palestinian otherwise. That is what makes the situation so dangerous.

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control, we've all seen it, most Palestinians will not to acknowledge it.

And this is what makes it so risky in Occupation Disengagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,the same could be said of the Jordanians(Hashemites) and Jewish Israelis(Jews) neither had rights to either part of this area,the Hashemites were from Saudi and the Jews were mainly European.....and neither had any claim to either land......infact the only people who had a claim was the Palestinians,just sayin steve

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And we are back to the beginning.

Now all you have to do is convince the Palestinians that Palestine was not their country.

Good luck with that.

(COMMENT)

For more that couple Generations, Palestinians have been telling themselves that the arbitrary demarcation of Palestine [(pursuant to Article 95 of the Treaty) (less the allocation for the Hashemite Kingdom)] was theirs by some right of longevity; yet also undefined. I don't think anyone can convince the Palestinian otherwise. That is what makes the situation so dangerous.

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control, we've all seen it, most Palestinians will not to acknowledge it.

And this is what makes it so risky in Occupation Disengagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control,

Indeed, they went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation.

Occupation does not negate rights it only delays the exercise of rights.

Who is they? There was no country of Palestine nor were there any people called Palestinians under the three stages mentioned. Palestinians are a recent made up invention. They are Arabs who decided to call themselves Palestinian, the name given exclusively to Jews, as of the 1960's.

Therefore, there exists no "rights" that need to be exercised. And they certainly won't get anywhere, especially with the Israelis, using violence and aggression.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't like these kinds of questions.

Is "Arab" a race?

(COMMENT)

No, Arabs are Semitic (including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Maltese, and Amharic) language speaking people, that speak Arabic as a primary language.

It has no relationship to race.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well if we go back far enough Jews were part Arab.

Thousands of years before the moon god worshippers of Saudi Arabia were hunting for lizards to eat in the deserts of Arabia, the monotheistic Jewish scribes were writing and documenting knowledge, history, science, philosophy, and ethics, to pass on to next generations.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't like these kinds of questions.


(COMMENT)

No, Arabs are Semitic (including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Maltese, and Amharic) language speaking people, that speak Arabic as a primary language.

It has no relationship to race.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well if we go back far enough Jews were part Arab.

Thousands of years before the moon god worshippers of Saudi Arabia were hunting for lizards to eat in the deserts of Arabia, the monotheistic Jewish scribes were writing and documenting knowledge, history, science, philosophy, and ethics, to pass on to next generations.

You should read "The Empire of the Assyrians" who dispersed Jews(circa 3000 souls) and other minorities out of Babylon. Nice to see you again Roudy still struggling with your history and relevant timelines. steve

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And we are back to the beginning.


(COMMENT)

For more that couple Generations, Palestinians have been telling themselves that the arbitrary demarcation of Palestine [(pursuant to Article 95 of the Treaty) (less the allocation for the Hashemite Kingdom)] was theirs by some right of longevity; yet also undefined. I don't think anyone can convince the Palestinian otherwise. That is what makes the situation so dangerous.

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control, we've all seen it, most Palestinians will not to acknowledge it.

And this is what makes it so risky in Occupation Disengagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

While there is plenty of documentation that shows the trail of control,

Indeed, they went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation.

Occupation does not negate rights it only delays the exercise of rights.

Who is they? There was no country of Palestine nor were there any people called Palestinians under the three stages mentioned. Palestinians are a recent made up invention. They are Arabs who decided to call themselves Palestinian, the name given exclusively to Jews, as of the 1960's.

Therefore, there exists no "rights" that need to be exercised. And they certainly won't get anywhere, especially with the Israelis, using violence and aggression.

Sad to tell you most Israelis are moving towards a 2 State solution.Educated Jews

Except those Ultra's imported from the USA and those wretched Jew Settlers mostly from America..........Which most/the majority of Jews in Israel can't abide.

steve

 

[theliq]

Any sign of Matching Funds yet from the Muslim world, in support of the Palestinians, to match the subsidies going to the Israelis?

Or does the Muslim world know that for what it is... throwing good money after bad?

Silly Quote Kondor,if you knew anything about Middle Eastern Politics,you should be aware that other Muslim States want the Status Quo between Palestinians and Israelis.....I have always said that only the Palestinians and Jews will in the end will resolve this on going situation........other Arab nations plus Iran are a waste of space,as far as Israel and the Palestinians are concern....a total waste of space.steve

 

[Kondor3]

Any sign of Matching Funds yet from the Muslim world, in support of the Palestinians, to match the subsidies going to the Israelis?

Or does the Muslim world know that for what it is... throwing good money after bad?

Silly Quote Kondor,if you knew anything about Middle Eastern Politics,you should be aware that other Muslim States want the Status Quo between Palestinians and Israelis.....I have always said that only the Palestinians and Jews will in the end will resolve this on going situation........other Arab nations plus Iran are a waste of space,as far as Israel and the Palestinians are concern....a total waste of space.steve

Well, of course the Arabs haven't been much help to their Palestinian brethren, comparatively speaking...

That much is obvious to even the worst dullard and dolt...

And I'm a higher-end dullard and dolt, good sir...

I wrote that on behalf of our colleague Tinny, who begrudges Israel for the aid it receives from the US and other sources...

Rubbing salt in the wound of Arab tight-fistedness and miserliness, in connection with their Palestinian clients...

Saying, by inference, if their Arab brethren cared so much about the Palestinians, they would have matched Western and US funding and so-called subsidies all along, since 1948 to the present day...

But the Arab States have NOT done that; instead, throwing them a few million here and there over the years as a bone, and allowing them to continue their downward slide towards total collapse and dissolution, as a focal point for anti-Western anti-Infidel feelings and as a diversion from domestic problems...

I understood that years ago... long before I wrote that paragraph, which had another purpose in-mind altogether, as I've just outlined...

Hope that helps.

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, Kondor3, et al,

Well, actually, the Arab League (AL) does provide some funding, but usually in trickle amounts and only after US Aid has been exhausted. For instance, in 2011, when the US Congress cut funding to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi of the Arab League said the AL would provide for the PNA. But when push came to shove, and the PNA could not make payroll, Congress released $190M+ for assistance. So, in that regard, our friend "Kondor3" has a double-bulleyes.

The AL generally doesn't fund in parallel to US financial aid. It will fund projects and programs that are beyond authorized limits US aid. And example of the limit is the recent proposal for the creation of a Arabic and Islamic Heritage Fund for the Preservation of Jerusalem and Holy Ground. The Emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has already pledged to contribute about 25% (about $250M) towards the proposed effort.

Earlier this year, a strange (very strange) thing happened.

At least one Palestinian leader is honest enough to blame his “brotherly” Arab states for the cash crisis faced by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, in an interview with the Associated Press on Sunday, January 6, 2013 complained of an immense financial crisis in the PA, largely due to the Arab countries’ failure to dispatch promised millions of dollars in aid. Ironically, it is the Jewish state of Israel that the Palestinians regularly vilify and seek to destroy, which hitherto, provided the financial wherewithal to the PA by transferring $100 million in tax rebates to Ramallah, an amount that covers a third of the PA monthly operating costs.

SOURCE: The Arabs? Betrayal of the Palestinians | FrontPage Magazine

It was an interesting event. (Fact is stranger than fiction!)

Any sign of Matching Funds yet from the Muslim world, in support of the Palestinians, to match the subsidies going to the Israelis?

Or does the Muslim world know that for what it is... throwing good money after bad?

... Muslim States want the Status Quo between Palestinians and Israelis.....I have always said that only the Palestinians and Jews will in the end will resolve this on going situation...

(COMMENT)

In the excerpt of "Steve's" comment, there is some very disturbing truth; but truth none the less. (2x Single Bullseye.)

The AL does not want to be any more entangled with the Palestinians, than anyone else. While they make, from time-to-time, anti-Israeli comments (many with solid prima facie justification - nothing radical), they even more rarely make pro-Palestinian comments (except for domestic consumption - that is purely political in religious appeasement). There are many anti-government elements surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the AL would rather be pinned-down and focused on Israel, contained --- rather than cut loose and looking for a cause to incite elsewhere in the Region.

Oddly enough, while much of the world (that actually cares) sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a critical issue and humanitarian concern, within the Middle East Region, the leadership echelon see it as more of a imperfect solution to Regional Security in a time when they would like to limit radical resources that might further fuel the Arab Spring and Arab Spring like events. There are several other lesser security concerns, but chief among those is the Iranian involvement and (the unspoken elephant in the room) - the non-state actor; and the baggage all that brings with it in the form of a potential to induce a Sunni-Shi'ite disturbance and the spread of violence beyond the borders in dispute.

So, while we (in this discussion group) can say that the core issues over the more than half-century dispute include borders, Palestinian refugees, Jewish settlements in the West Bank, AND the status of Jerusalem (politically and religiously); there are other critical aspect angles. In the rarified gaseous chambers behind the closed doors of political intrigue, where dark agendas are played-out, and the stability and survival of nations and regimes are discussed, none of the issues that we discuss (the way we discuss them) are black and white, a true matter of compliance versus non-compliance, or isolated and distinct as we address them here. What may seem to us, to be individually corrupt, villainous, and violations of this, that and the other treaty, law, or convention ---> there is more (much more) to those that have solution keys in hand. And not everyone sees a solution as the best alternative; at least not yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

theliq, Kondor3, et al,

Well, actually, the Arab League (AL) does provide some funding, but usually in trickle amounts and only after US Aid has been exhausted. For instance, in 2011, when the US Congress cut funding to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi of the Arab League said the AL would provide for the PNA. But when push came to shove, and the PNA could not make payroll, Congress released $190M+ for assistance. So, in that regard, our friend "Kondor3" has a double-bulleyes.

The AL generally doesn't fund in parallel to US financial aid. It will fund projects and programs that are beyond authorized limits US aid. And example of the limit is the recent proposal for the creation of a Arabic and Islamic Heritage Fund for the Preservation of Jerusalem and Holy Ground. The Emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has already pledged to contribute about 25% (about $250M) towards the proposed effort.

Earlier this year, a strange (very strange) thing happened.

At least one Palestinian leader is honest enough to blame his “brotherly” Arab states for the cash crisis faced by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, in an interview with the Associated Press on Sunday, January 6, 2013 complained of an immense financial crisis in the PA, largely due to the Arab countries’ failure to dispatch promised millions of dollars in aid. Ironically, it is the Jewish state of Israel that the Palestinians regularly vilify and seek to destroy, which hitherto, provided the financial wherewithal to the PA by transferring $100 million in tax rebates to Ramallah, an amount that covers a third of the PA monthly operating costs.

SOURCE: The Arabs? Betrayal of the Palestinians | FrontPage Magazine

It was an interesting event. (Fact is stranger than fiction!)

Any sign of Matching Funds yet from the Muslim world, in support of the Palestinians, to match the subsidies going to the Israelis?

Or does the Muslim world know that for what it is... throwing good money after bad?

... Muslim States want the Status Quo between Palestinians and Israelis.....I have always said that only the Palestinians and Jews will in the end will resolve this on going situation...

(COMMENT)

In the excerpt of "Steve's" comment, there is some very disturbing truth; but truth none the less. (2x Single Bullseye.)

The AL does not want to be any more entangled with the Palestinians, than anyone else. While they make, from time-to-time, anti-Israeli comments (many with solid prima facie justification - nothing radical), they even more rarely make pro-Palestinian comments (except for domestic consumption - that is purely political in religious appeasement). There are many anti-government elements surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the AL would rather be pinned-down and focused on Israel, contained --- rather than cut loose and looking for a cause to incite elsewhere in the Region.

Oddly enough, while much of the world (that actually cares) sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a critical issue and humanitarian concern, within the Middle East Region, the leadership echelon see it as more of a imperfect solution to Regional Security in a time when they would like to limit radical resources that might further fuel the Arab Spring and Arab Spring like events. There are several other lesser security concerns, but chief among those is the Iranian involvement and (the unspoken elephant in the room) - the non-state actor; and the baggage all that brings with it in the form of a potential to induce a Sunni-Shi'ite disturbance and the spread of violence beyond the borders in dispute.

So, while we (in this discussion group) can say that the core issues over the more than half-century dispute include borders, Palestinian refugees, Jewish settlements in the West Bank, AND the status of Jerusalem (politically and religiously); there are other critical aspect angles. In the rarified gaseous chambers behind the closed doors of political intrigue, where dark agendas are played-out, and the stability and survival of nations and regimes are discussed, none of the issues that we discuss (the way we discuss them) are black and white, a true matter of compliance versus non-compliance, or isolated and distinct as we address them here. What may seem to us, to be individually corrupt, villainous, and violations of this, that and the other treaty, law, or convention ---> there is more (much more) to those that have solution keys in hand. And not everyone sees a solution as the best alternative; at least not yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you suppose "those that have solution keys in hand" chose to slap at Anwar Sadat's peace proposal in 1971?

"The disagreements over interpretation came to a head in February 1971, when UN mediator Gunnar Jarring presented a proposal to Egypt and Israel that called for full peace between them in return for full Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

"Egyptian President Sadat accepted the proposal. Sadat's acceptance of Jarring's "famous" peace proposal was a 'bombshell,'

"Prime Minister Rabin recalls in his memoirs, a 'milestone.'

"While officially welcoming Egypt's expression 'of its readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel,' the government of Israel rejected the agreement, stating that "Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines.

"The reasoning was explained by Haim Bar-Lev of the governing Labor Party: 'I think that we could obtain a peace settlement on the basis of the earlier [pre-June 1967] borders. If I were persuaded that this is the maximum that we might obtain, I would say: agreed. But I think that it is not the maximum. I think that if we continue to hold out, we will obtain more.'"

The Israel-Arafat Agreement, by Noam Chomsky

How much more do those who never miss a chance to miss a chance to choose expansion over peace think they are entitled to?

 

[Kondor3]

"...How much more do ...<the Jews of Israel>...think they are entitled to?

See above.

Makes perfect sense... historically, emotionally, spiritually, militarily, economically, culturally, politically, and with respect to sustainability.

And they are getting very, very close to their goal.

I wish them well, in the coming end-game.

 

[georgephillip]

"...How much more do ...<the Jews of Israel>...think they are entitled to?

See above.

Makes perfect sense... historically, emotionally, spiritually, militarily, economically, culturally, politically, and with respect to sustainability.

And they are getting very, very close to their goal.

I wish them well, in the coming end-game.

What eastern border do you imagine for the Jewish super-state?

 

[Kondor3]

"...What eastern border do you imagine for the Jewish super-state?"

Just the way you see it laid out in the 1922 map, as imagined by the British Mandate Authority and the League of Nations.

That map encompasses all of the old Jewish kingdoms of the region and is almost identical to the outline of borders that has been slowing materializing for the past 65 years.

I seriously doubt they'll need or want anything more... they just want their old homeland back again... and they'll get it... they're almost there, already.