The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Coyote]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

No mention of the 1 million Jewish refugees that were disenfranchised of their lands and property by the arab muslims. The Palestinians were involved in this and had laws made to stop the Jews from reclaiming their lands, a pity they lost the land and then lost their protection when they tried to steal Jordan and ended up being kicked out of Jordan.

What property? Are you referring to the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries?

What laws did the Palestinians make?

If you look at the UNWRA method statement you will see that they were expressly told to find new homes for the few Palestinian refugees that were created by the war started by the arab muslims. The arab muslims decided to use the refugees as a propaganda statement and this led to them increasing in number.

Under international law, the refugees were also to have been allowed to return to their homes when the conflict was over.

And yes, I do agree the fact that they are STILL unsettled is partly due to Arab political ambitions.

THEY ARE THE ONLY REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR NUMBERS OVER THE YEARS. ALL OTHERS ARE NOT SEEN AS REFUGEES WHEN THEY BREED, BUT AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION THEY ARE LIVING IN.

Your point? Let me reiterate - I don't believe in intergenerational rights for refugees.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

These inconvenient facts and quotes keep cropping up, don't they?


Prior to 1967, no news headlines ever referred to Arabs as "Palestinians". The Middle East conflict was known as the Arab-Israeli Conflict and not the "Palestinian"-Israeli conflict.

During a 1958 interview with Mark Wallace entitled 'The Arab-Israeli Conflict', Abba Eban referred to the Arabs in as such, and there was never an instance when Arabs were referred to by any other name:

Yep -- we have an entire alternate history created retroactively.

I'm not Jewish, but I can still remember quite vividly watching the 6 day war unfold. I was in seventh grade at the time, and had a top notch history/current events teacher that taught the accelerated classes. We had a t.v. set in the room, and we would watch Walter Cronkite and others as Nasser bragged about pushing Jews into the sea, all the blustering of pan-Arabism and watched as he along with the others staged their enormous armies at the border preparing for an invasion . There was never a mention of "Palestinians" as it was this aggressive pan Arabism that was all the rage.

To listen to these repulsive antisemites today, (few of whom were even alive, then) one would think an entirely different history somehow occurred. Maybe it is just one of the gifts of being of an age old enough to know when something is complete bullshit, but I have very little patience for these double-talking morons acting as useful idiots for the Islamists they champion at every turn.

I know better because I lived through it.

 

[Coyote]

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel.

Speaking of mythologizing things...this sounds suspiciously like you are justifying the mass explusion and ethnic cleansing of a specific minority ethnic group.

Not at all. But unlike some other refugees - for example, currently in the news is the possible closure of Dadaab, the largest refugee camp of Somali's fleeing the conflict with Al-Shabaab. They have no where to go - no one wants them. Palestinians are in a similar situation - no one wants them and they are barred from going back.

What I do think though, is those that were forceably expelled should get compensation from those who took their property.

Edited to add: Do you realize that this exact argument is used to justify the persecution of the Jewish people in European and other countries today?

Pointing out that the refugees HAD a place to go that WANTED them is justifying persecution?

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians themselves --- understand what they mean when they say "they have been denied their right of self-determination."

First, let's make sure we understand the terminology:

• Palestine, no matter what the territorial status, is NOT considered among the "Non-Self-Governing Territories" (NSGTs). It is a lawless Arab territory that is not able to stand alone, meeting the old Article 22 Standard (LoN) Covenant. It presents a demonstrated threat to adjacent nation-states. It is completely unable to orchestrate a peaceful change in leadership from one government to the next elected successor.

• Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources (A/RES/51/190) February 1997. The Palestinians claim that the Armistice Lines are not borders. There has been no good faith effort to establish negotiation that would boundaries. Similarly, Syria has made no attempt to find settlements in the territorial dispute.

• Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes (A/RES/50/172), February 1996.

• Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148) February 1994. No Israeli program has denied the Arab Palestinians to exercise their "right to self-determination."

Not in 1948 when they rejected the UN adopted Partition Plan.
Not in 1950 when they voted to become part of Jordan.
Not in 1970 when the Palestinians attempted to overthrow the Jordanian King.
Not in 1988, when they declared independence.
​

• Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514)(1960), where in the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. This is not applicable to Israel. The Jewish State of Israel is more diverse in its population pertaining to race, sex, language or religion.
​

How can they oppress and prevent the Palestinian right to self determination when it is a concept and not a tangible thing. And how can the lands have ancestral value when they never saw them until the arrived in the middle of the 20C.

(COMMENT)

This is one of those assets which we are unable to be touched; not having physical presence. One of those intangibles, it the reputation of Jews in Israel, as well as Jews around the world.

These intangibles fall in the area of honesty, integrity, moral judgement and the maintenance of peace. Usually these are diametrically opposed to that held by the opposition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Supporting the Palestinian right to self determination does not equal antizionism unless it means the irradiation of Israel.

This speaks to my point above in my response to Challenger's post and linked op ed.

One can support the Palestinian right to self determination and ALSO support the Jewish right to self determination and not require the oppression of one over the other. (Exception noted*).

Just so, one can support the Jewish right to self-determination and ALSO support the Palestinian right to self-determination and not require the oppression of one over the other. Its not a zero-sum game where supporting the one means the oppression of the other.

Absolutely agree...

(*But since we are noting exceptions -- please note that the exception is NOT Jewish self-determination but the particular brand of Palestinian self-determination which denies and rejects Jewish self-determination and does actually seek to oppress and prevent Jewish self-determination on lands which have ancestral, historical and religious value to the Jewish people. Its another odd reversal where Zionism is labelled as oppressive, while it is actually only the Palestinians calling for exclusive access to lands and holy sites -- at the expense (oppression) of the Jewish people).

That seems ok - but, what happens when Jewish self-determination seeks to opress and prevent Palestinian self-determination on lands which have ancestral value to the Palestinian people?

How can they oppress and prevent the Palestinian right to self determination when it is a concept and not a tangible thing. And how can the lands have ancestral value when they never saw them until the arrived in the middle of the 20C.

Because most of them have been there long before the 20C.

 

[Coyote]

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Arab leaders saw them as propaganda tool. Instead of Arabs absorbing their fellow Arabs, they decided to create an entirely new people called "Palestinian" to act forever as an open challenge to Israel's legitimacy. Through this cynical manipulation, they change the equation from Arabs vs Jews to Palestinians vs Jews, and thus invert the relationship of perceived power. This was sold to the low functioning portion of the left overly eager to support the "little guy" (even, as we have seen in Coyote and others, even if it involves mass murder).

Instead of ARABS vs Jews, it is now sold to leftist antisemites as Jews vs paletinuians


Arab propaganda was aimed at inverting the relationship between David and Goliath, and has been highly successful by turning a disgusting hatred into some sort of virtue..

Again, where I have I supported mass murder?

 

[Mindful]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

No mention of the 1 million Jewish refugees that were disenfranchised of their lands and property by the arab muslims. The Palestinians were involved in this and had laws made to stop the Jews from reclaiming their lands, a pity they lost the land and then lost their protection when they tried to steal Jordan and ended up being kicked out of Jordan. If you look at the UNWRA method statement you will see that they were expressly told to find new homes for the few Palestinian refugees that were created by the war started by the arab muslims. The arab muslims decided to use the refugees as a propaganda statement and this led to them increasing in number.

THEY ARE THE ONLY REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR NUMBERS OVER THE YEARS. ALL OTHERS ARE NOT SEEN AS REFUGEES WHEN THEY BREED, BUT AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION THEY ARE LIVING IN.

How did the numbers of the orginal Arab refugees swell to more than 1.5 million individuals, I ask myself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, et al,

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians themselves --- understand what they mean when they say "they have been denied their right of self-determination."

First, let's make sure we understand the terminology:

• Palestine, no matter what the territorial status, is NOT considered among the "Non-Self-Governing Territories" (NSGTs). It is a lawless Arab territory that is not able to stand alone, meeting the old Article 22 Standard (LoN) Covenant. It presents a demonstrated threat to adjacent nation-states. It is completely unable to orchestrate a peaceful change in leadership from one government to the next elected successor.

• Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources (A/RES/51/190) February 1997. The Palestinians claim that the Armistice Lines are not borders. There has been no good faith effort to establish negotiation that would boundaries. Similarly, Syria has made no attempt to find settlements in the territorial dispute.

• Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes (A/RES/50/172), February 1996.

• Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148) February 1994. No Israeli program has denied the Arab Palestinians to exercise their "right to self-determination."

Not in 1948 when they rejected the UN adopted Partition Plan.
Not in 1950 when they voted to become part of Jordan.
Not in 1970 when the Palestinians attempted to overthrow the Jordanian King.
Not in 1988, when they declared independence.
​

• Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514)(1960), where in the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. This is not applicable to Israel. The Jewish State of Israel is more diverse in its population pertaining to race, sex, language or religion.​

How can they oppress and prevent the Palestinian right to self determination when it is a concept and not a tangible thing. And how can the lands have ancestral value when they never saw them until the arrived in the middle of the 20C.

(COMMENT)

This is one of those assets which we are unable to be touched; not having physical presence. One of those intangibles, it the reputation of Jews in Israel, as well as Jews around the world.

These intangibles fall in the area of honesty, integrity, moral judgement and the maintenance of peace. Usually these are diametrically opposed to that held by the opposition.

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link: A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

1.

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

From: A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

12. Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
----------------------
It seems that your assessment is incorrect.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Because most of them have been there long before the 20C.

Most of the Palestinians are in excess of 116 years old?

You will have to tell us more about this really strange idea of yours. Most of those with whom you are argue are a little more familiar with reality, you know.

 

[Coyote]

Because most of them have been there long before the 20C.

Most of the Palestinians are in excess of 116 years old?

You will have to tell us more about this really strange idea of yours. Most of those with whom you are argue are a little more familiar with reality, you know.

Where did you get that whacko idea? Are you going to convince me that most of the Jews are over 3000 years old?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al

Criminal containment is sometimes harsh; especially when dealing with psychopaths.

From your link: A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

1.

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

(COMMENT)

While the non-binding Resolution does say that, nowhere in the text does it say anything about either Israel or Palestine; or the applicability of this Resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

In fact, the Resolution in Paragraph 5, talks about the:

• Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,​

The State of Palestine is NOT a UN listed as either a Trust or a Non-Self-Governing Territories.

From: A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights.

(COMMENT)

• There is NO evidence that any legal entity prevented the Arabs of Palestine a right to self-determination.
• Pursuant to the direction from the Council and the Mandate, there was not attempt to retard the Arab Palestinians of an opportunity to achieve the Article 22 Standard. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Even before the ratification process of the Treaty of Lausanne began, the Arab Palestinians declined at least 3 time to participate in the Article 22 Tutelage and the self-governing process.
• The territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was not a "colonial country." It was an "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq) -- the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone.
• I see no evidence that any post-War Allied Power did purposely deny the 1920's Era Rights customarily extended to native inhabitants. In fact the Council included in the Mandate the requirement to protect the two general rights of the time: the "civil" and "religious rights."

12. Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

(COMMENT)

This quote comes from another non-binding UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 3 December 1982 concerning the "
Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights. This is a 1982 Resolution that is no longer applicable, in that during the period in which the Resolution was written, the West Bank was sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. One the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties with the West Bank, in 1988, the PLO declared Independence stating (in part):

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit conferences; By the authority of the international legitimacy, -as embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947; In implementation of the Palestinian Arab people's right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty on their soil; The National Council proclaims, in the name of God and the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian land, with the Holy City of Jerusalem as its capital.
​

* The State of Israel did not dismember the Palestinian Territory. The topography and distribution is a result of a failed set of aggressor military incursions; the last being the sneak attack of 1973.

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

(COMMENT)

Israel is not a country that fails to recognize the "right of self-determination." Thus, it is not included in the condemnation.

As you can see from the Declaration of Independence that the PLO acknowledged that:

• 
  • By the authority of the international legitimacy, -as embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947;
  
  • In implementation of the Palestinian Arab people's right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty on their soil;

As for this continuous mantra about the "colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation." There
the prevention or abatement of terrorism
action taken to offset Palestinian threats and prevent, mitigate or degrade successful outcomes ias a result of Hostile Arab Palestinian attacks.

• Palestinian Extremist leaders organized and ambushed the king’s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings.
• Summer Olympics Massacre in Munich by Palestinians.
• Bombing of Jerusalem supermarket.
• PLO attack on Israeli collective farm in Maalot.
• Palestinian terrorists invaded a school dormitory in Ramat Magshimim in the Golan Heights.
• Bombing on bus.
• IED car bombing.
• Cruise Ship Piracy
• Airline hijackings.
• Suicide Bombing.
........... etc ...........
​

It seems that your assessment is incorrect.

(COMMENT)

We can agree to disagree; but I would expect nothing different. The Palestinians have a past record of the presenting themselves as perpetual victims. Nothing is ever their fault. When Black September rolled Leon Klinghoffer's over the side, it was Klinghoffer's fault. When HAMAS 2016 bombed a Jerusalem Bus bombing, it was the worshipers fault.

When the Hostile Arab Palestinians launched 4000(+) Rockets into Israel, that was somehow Israel's fault.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

er

Who here has EVER claimed mass murder as a human right? Who?

all those claim that Arabs mass murdering Jews is a legitimate product of some sort of "liberation" movement or who rationalize such actions within the context of human rights.

Take this Coyote chick, for instance.........

You can't answer a simple question?

Where have I ever claimed mass murder as a human right?

I'll add one more:

Where I have I ever claimed that targeting and killing civilians is in anyway legitimate or a legitimate product of a "liberation" movement?

It should be easy for you to come up with a link since you claim I post thousands....

Heck -- you have gone well beyond that by all your usual aggressive and disingenuous crap involving the rewarding of a genocidal mass murderer of Jews with a Nobel Peace prize.

Again - link to support your claim that targeting and killing civilians is in anyway legitimate or a legitimate product of a "liberation" movement?

 

[Coyote]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

With all due respect, I'm not comfortable arguing this topic with you.

So therefore I'm not going to.

You're choice but frankly I don't understand why you come into these debates with little sniping comments directed all around at those you disagree with, but then "don't want to argue" topics that you start. With all due respect of course.

 

[Coyote]

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

Well, remember I reject the idea that a Palestine exists and the idea that this non-existent entity is "occupied". (Yes, I am aware what the international community thinks about that).

An existing nation invading another existing nation is not the same thing as independence movements and fledgling nations. The current conflict is the result of two independence movements in conflict over territory at best, and the anti-semitic rejection of one independence movement, at worst.

There is no occupation because there is no, and has never been any, settlement of which territory actually belongs to which existing or non-existing entity. That is the fundamental dispute. And that dispute can only be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

Unless you are of the mind that Israel has no right to exist. In which case, Israel is the nation with a right to resist its own destruction.

Israel's territory was defined when it declared itself an independent state.

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

Criminal containment is sometimes harsh; especially when dealing with psychopaths.

From your link: A/RES/15/1514 - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

1.

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

(COMMENT)

While the non-binding Resolution does say that, nowhere in the text does it say anything about either Israel or Palestine; or the applicability of this Resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

In fact, the Resolution in Paragraph 5, talks about the:

• Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,​

The State of Palestine is NOT a UN listed as either a Trust or a Non-Self-Governing Territories.

From: A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights.

(COMMENT)

• There is NO evidence that any legal entity prevented the Arabs of Palestine a right to self-determination.
• Pursuant to the direction from the Council and the Mandate, there was not attempt to retard the Arab Palestinians of an opportunity to achieve the Article 22 Standard. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Even before the ratification process of the Treaty of Lausanne began, the Arab Palestinians declined at least 3 time to participate in the Article 22 Tutelage and the self-governing process.
• The territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was not a "colonial country." It was an "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq) -- the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone.
• I see no evidence that any post-War Allied Power did purposely deny the 1920's Era Rights customarily extended to native inhabitants. In fact the Council included in the Mandate the requirement to protect the two general rights of the time: the "civil" and "religious rights."

12. Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

(COMMENT)

This quote comes from another non-binding UN Resolution A/RES/37/43 3 December 1982 concerning the "
Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights. This is a 1982 Resolution that is no longer applicable, in that during the period in which the Resolution was written, the West Bank was sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom. One the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties with the West Bank, in 1988, the PLO declared Independence stating (in part):

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit conferences; By the authority of the international legitimacy, -as embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947; In implementation of the Palestinian Arab people's right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty on their soil; The National Council proclaims, in the name of God and the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian land, with the Holy City of Jerusalem as its capital.
​

* The State of Israel did not dismember the Palestinian Territory. The topography and distribution is a result of a failed set of aggressor military incursions; the last being the sneak attack of 1973.

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

(COMMENT)

Israel is not a country that fails to recognize the "right of self-determination." Thus, it is not included in the condemnation.

As you can see from the Declaration of Independence that the PLO acknowledged that:

• 
  • By the authority of the international legitimacy, -as embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947;
  
  • In implementation of the Palestinian Arab people's right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty on their soil;

As for this continuous mantra about the "colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation." There
the prevention or abatement of terrorism
action taken to offset Palestinian threats and prevent, mitigate or degrade successful outcomes ias a result of Hostile Arab Palestinian attacks.

• Palestinian Extremist leaders organized and ambushed the king’s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings.
• Summer Olympics Massacre in Munich by Palestinians.
• Bombing of Jerusalem supermarket.
• PLO attack on Israeli collective farm in Maalot.
• Palestinian terrorists invaded a school dormitory in Ramat Magshimim in the Golan Heights.
• Bombing on bus.
• IED car bombing.
• Cruise Ship Piracy
• Airline hijackings.
• Suicide Bombing.
........... etc ...........
​

It seems that your assessment is incorrect.

(COMMENT)

We can agree to disagree; but I would expect nothing different. The Palestinians have a past record of the presenting themselves as perpetual victims. Nothing is ever their fault. When Black September rolled Leon Klinghoffer's over the side, it was Klinghoffer's fault. When HAMAS 2016 bombed a Jerusalem Bus bombing, it was the worshipers fault.

When the Hostile Arab Palestinians launched 4000(+) Rockets into Israel, that was somehow Israel's fault.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing the Palestinians have done that is not a response to Israel's colonialism and occupation. Israel can end these responses any time it wants by decolonizing and ending the occupation.

I am opposed to violence by either side. However, Israel has declared itself to be a law free zone. It is like the wild west of the middle east. Israel violates the law first and by far the most. To hold the Palestinians accountable for their piddly violations while giving Israel free pass is a huge double standard.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

Well, remember I reject the idea that a Palestine exists and the idea that this non-existent entity is "occupied". (Yes, I am aware what the international community thinks about that).

An existing nation invading another existing nation is not the same thing as independence movements and fledgling nations. The current conflict is the result of two independence movements in conflict over territory at best, and the anti-semitic rejection of one independence movement, at worst.

There is no occupation because there is no, and has never been any, settlement of which territory actually belongs to which existing or non-existing entity. That is the fundamental dispute. And that dispute can only be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

Unless you are of the mind that Israel has no right to exist. In which case, Israel is the nation with a right to resist its own destruction.

Israel's territory was defined when it declared itself an independent state.

Was it? Link?

It took territory in a war and occupied it. Now, it is not occupied but disputed and the Palestinians don't have the right to resist.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. It is illegal to acquire land by war.

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Again - link to support your claim that targeting and killing civilians is in anyway legitimate or a legitimate product of a "liberation" movement?

I do realize that as a Hllbilly-American,. you probably were not taught that posting in great, big fonts is considered shouting, and rude as such, but I forgive you for your lack of upbringing.

As to the subject matter, however, making excuses for members of an Arab majority murdering a Jewish minority is definitely a product of antisemitism.

 

[Boston1]

Would you have said that to the Jews who were fighting the British?
What about the French resistance (and the other national resistance movements) fighting Nazi occupation?
What about the countries that rose up against Soviet occupation?
How about the current conflict in Iraq and Syria where ISIS is occupying territory?

Well, remember I reject the idea that a Palestine exists and the idea that this non-existent entity is "occupied". (Yes, I am aware what the international community thinks about that).

An existing nation invading another existing nation is not the same thing as independence movements and fledgling nations. The current conflict is the result of two independence movements in conflict over territory at best, and the anti-semitic rejection of one independence movement, at worst.

I don't quite agree here though...I'll grant I think the IP situation is unique to some degree because of it's origins, and territory that has never been legally resolved.

Most of the Palestinians are resisting Israeli control over territory they had claimed and that later Israel took in a war initiated by the Arabs. I think that is legitimate resistance in the same way as any other resistance movement as long as civilians aren't the target. Now the segment of Palestinians that want to irradicate Israel, that is different - but I'm talking about the ones that have been fighting for a two-state solution. If Israel's independence movement is legitimized but the Palestinians is denied, then it seems to me that the Palestinians are being treated as a seperate class.

There is no occupation because there is no, and has never been any, settlement of which territory actually belongs to which existing or non-existing entity. That is the fundamental dispute. And that dispute can only be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

It's debatable in my opinion. If there is no occupation why are Palestinian minors adjucated under Israeli Military law?

Unless you are of the mind that Israel has no right to exist. In which case, Israel is the nation with a right to resist its own destruction.

Not at all, but I think the Palestinians have a right to resist the Israeli's in what they claim as their territory for the second state. It may benefit them - but it is their right.

LOL

Sorry but you can't be serious.

The conflict is unique only in its treatment of the refugee issue. The total bias and bigotry obvious in the consideration of each sides refugees is astounding in the extreme, yet ignored by the revisionist Arab Muslim narrative.

Since when are descendants of unvetted hoards ever considered refugees and pandered to for generation upon generation ?

And since when is this unbelievably biased treatment awarded to one sides refugees and not the others ?

How about if the Israeli's count their million or so refugees plus their descendants generation after generation and demand equal aid and privilege ? Exactly as the Arab Muslims have recieved without complaint from our beloved UN

Claiming this conflict isn't fraught with bigotry and racism on a worldwide level is laughable in the extreme.

The simple fact remains, The Arab Muslim diatribe is based entirely on lies and half truths. Whereas claims that anti Zionism is perfectly synonymous with any other anti Israeli rhetoric is extremely well established.

 

[Boston1]

Those who fled did so for a variety of reasons, true, but the overriding factor was that they were more loyal to the Nazi al Husseini clan than they were the more moderate Nabashiki clan, and were openly hostile to Jews and the establishment of an Israel state in which they were invited to participate freely. They either left at the behest of Arab leadership, left because they were leaving the area to make way for Arab armies or left because they were enemy combatants involved in hostilities.

The moderate and more peaceful Arabs remained in Israel, which now contains over 1 1/2 million of their descendants.

Interestingly enough, a LARGER number of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. Somehow, the antisemites all fail to acknowledge this fact as they are only interested in persecuting Jews.

Why have the "Palestinians" carried this refugee status for so long without being rehabilitated and absorbed? When Israel was declared a sovereign nation in 1948, nearly one million Jews were evicted from their homes in Arab lands -- countries in which they were born. Where are these "refugees"? Historical record shows that they weren't refugees for long. Israel absorbed them, and they were effectively assimilated into Israeli society. In fact, history shows that refugees from any ethnic group over the years were at some point absorbed into society, thus making their status as "refugees" quite temporary--Except for one group -- the "Palestinians". They are the only people who willfully choose to keep their refugee status, thus passing it on from generation to generation.

Israel wanted them and they wanted Israel. Personally, I think they are owed compensation for their losses.

The Palestinians are in a somewhat different category - they don't want to go elsewhere and their situation has never been resolved. Part of it is the Arab politics that refuses them any official status that will allow them move on (other than Jordan who took a huge number). Part of it was Israel's unwillingness early on to allow them to return and the creation of special laws that prevented them from returning and reclaiming property.

I'm not exactly sure they "chose" to keep a refugee status...what are the options for refugees? They are not allowed citizenship in the countries their camps are in, they aren't allowed to work, are they even allowed to immigrate. Their status in Syria was particularly tragic because of ISIS - they lacked documentation and citizenship to escape to other countries.

No mention of the 1 million Jewish refugees that were disenfranchised of their lands and property by the arab muslims. The Palestinians were involved in this and had laws made to stop the Jews from reclaiming their lands, a pity they lost the land and then lost their protection when they tried to steal Jordan and ended up being kicked out of Jordan.

What property? Are you referring to the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries?

What laws did the Palestinians make?

If you look at the UNWRA method statement you will see that they were expressly told to find new homes for the few Palestinian refugees that were created by the war started by the arab muslims. The arab muslims decided to use the refugees as a propaganda statement and this led to them increasing in number.

Under international law, the refugees were also to have been allowed to return to their homes when the conflict was over.

And yes, I do agree the fact that they are STILL unsettled is partly due to Arab political ambitions.

THEY ARE THE ONLY REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR NUMBERS OVER THE YEARS. ALL OTHERS ARE NOT SEEN AS REFUGEES WHEN THEY BREED, BUT AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION THEY ARE LIVING IN.

Your point? Let me reiterate - I don't believe in intergenerational rights for refugees.

The palestinians made no laws because there is no such thing as a palestinian, If on the other hand you are referring to the Arab Muslim colonists in Israel or the surrounding areas, thats an entirely different story.

The conflict isn't over and no person who participates in hostilities against the controlling power maintains their refugee/protected persons status. Ergo your refugee population is significantly reduced if not eliminated completely.

End of legitimate refugee status and begin the half truths and lies.

 

[Shusha]

It really sounds like there are two different standards at play here: one for one group (resistance is legitimate) and another for another group (resistance is illegitimate).

Only because you are not listening. Where have I said that Israel is resisting anything? Or that Israel's resistance is legitmate and Palestine's is not?

Resistance is either legitimate or illegitimate. And in order not to be anti-semitic it must apply to both peoples equally.

IF Palestine claims the territory and it is legitimate to resist occupation then it is equally legitimate for Israel to claim the territory and resist occupation. Every action taken by either group is thus legitimized (as long as it doesn't target civilians).

If we agree, in principle, that EACH group has the right to self-determination then its just a border dispute -- which territory is yours and which is mine? And THAT is a simple exercise in treaty negotiation.

The ONLY way for you to argue that Palestinians have a unilateral right to resist is to argue that the borders have already been set and that Israel is unilaterally encroaching upon Palestinian territory (a position absolutely untenable in law and so clear that even Tinman and I agree on it).