Who Are The Palestinians?

[ChrisL]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to be more specific than that.

I see you have no answer to the basic fact, which is, if Europeans had not facilitated the colonization of another continent by Europeans of a particular religion, the current problem between colonizer and colonized in Palestine would not exist.

As far as your characterization of me. leave it at home. You couldn't be more deluded.

Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.

It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.

I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.

But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.

The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.

Ancient history. The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.

That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.

Israel came in late in that game.

(COMMENT)

What has Israeli taken by conquest?

What the law actually says is:

• 
  Article 5 A/RES/3314(XXIX)
  14 December 1974

• 
  1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
  
  2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
  
  3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

This is basically a restatement of UN Charter, Article 2's proscriptions which has been interpreted as to mean that it prohibits the acquisition of territory by war; and of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories in which the parties to the conflict have entered into Peace Treaties. Israel did not take any territory from the Palestinians by either war or aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, and let's be honest. The only reason why there is a Palestine is because of the Arabs who hated the idea of sharing ANY of their land with the hated Jews. Palestine was specifically designed to be a thorn in the side of Israel, I think that much is clear.

 

[montelatici]

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

 

[ChrisL]

50 years or so is not the definition of ancient. The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave. Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.

.........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.

Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa. Thanks.

Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable. Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?

How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?

I've read plenty of your posts on here. You are a Muslim who hates Jews and Christians, just as your holy book tells you too.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to be more specific than that.

Little Pumpkin, there's just no reason for me to answer to your fact regarding European colonization... your "fact" is simply not relevant to the point I made.

It is literally irrelevant to the situation. Israel was a recognized nation, it was invaded, certain Israelis sided with the invaders, and the invaders lost. Those are facts not in dispute.

I refuse to be drawn into your retarded rationalizations regarding who chucked the first rock at whom so many generations in the past. Such stories from both sides are full of lies, and the lies weigh equally against each other. Peddle your dopey crusade to someone who will share in your mawkish outrage--I'm not a buyer.

But if you want to dispute the conclusions drawn from the indisputable facts presented, I'm an eager audience. But if you're just going to catalog all the crimes you perceive that were committed against your preferred people, then I'm telling you now I will not be persuaded by such bullshit emotional manipulations.

The indisputable fact is that Europeans went to another continent, expelled the people living there and created a nation.

Ancient history. The fact is that MOST lands were taken over by one group or another.

That is true. However, about a hundred years ago or so conquest became illegal.

Israel came in late in that game.

(COMMENT)

What has Israeli taken by conquest?

What the law actually says is:

• 
  Article 5 A/RES/3314(XXIX)
  14 December 1974

• 
  1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
  
  2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
  
  3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

This is basically a restatement of UN Charter, Article 2's proscriptions which has been interpreted as to mean that it prohibits the acquisition of territory by war; and of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories in which the parties to the conflict have entered into Peace Treaties. Israel did not take any territory from the Palestinians by either war or aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, and let's be honest. The only reason why there is a Palestine is because of the Arabs who hated the idea of sharing ANY of their land with the hated Jews. Palestine was specifically designed to be a thorn in the side of Israel, I think that much is clear.

The Europeans were just people from Europe to the Palestinian Muslims and Christians. They could have been Lutherans, it would not have made a difference. The Christians and Muslims did not want o be ruled by Europeans, that's all.

 

[montelatici]

50 years or so is not the definition of ancient. The fact is that when lands are taken over by colonizers, the colonizers must achieve demographic advantage, or else eventually they are either forced to blend in or are forced to leave. Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.

.........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.

Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa. Thanks.

Your hatred for the Jews is quite palpable. Did your imam teach you how to be a bigot, or did you read it in your holy book?

How does my statement, in any way, demonstrate "hatred of the Jews"?

I've read plenty of your posts on here. You are a Muslim who hates Jews and Christians, just as your holy book tells you too.

I am a Roman Catholic that hates no people of any particular religion.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination ---establishong the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

.........Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa.........."Palestine".........Fixed that for ya.

Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa. Thanks.

What happened to the European colonizers of America?

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

 

[montelatici]

Well, yes, you are right, the European colonizers of Palestine will end up in the same position as the European colonizers of Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa. Thanks.

What happened to the European colonizers of America?

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

You wrote:

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

(COMMENT)

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution. It was a basic objective in the original Mandate. It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

What happened to the European colonizers of America?

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

You wrote:

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

(COMMENT)

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution. It was a basic objective in the original Mandate. It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that embraced Jihad and Armed Struggle as the means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine simply resisted eviction and/or death perpetrated by the Europeans. The Europeans began attacking and evicting them well before partition. There was nothing friendly about it. The Europeans wanted to evict 45% of the population that was Christian and Muslim in the area assigned to the Zionist Organization, before partition, and they were successful through violent conquest.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

(COMMENT)

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution. It was a basic objective in the original Mandate. It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?

Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?

 

[Hossfly]

montelatici, et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

(COMMENT)

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution. It was a basic objective in the original Mandate. It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?

Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?

Tinmore, you're pissin' me off.

 

[montelatici]

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

You wrote:

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then

The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated. That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France. The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred years the French had to leave. Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained. You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.

 

[Kondor3]

Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

You wrote:

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then

The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated. That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France. The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred years the French had to leave. Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained. You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.

They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before.

montelatici, et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

(COMMENT)

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution. It was a basic objective in the original Mandate. It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?

Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?

(COMMENT)

Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state. However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.

Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.

The UN says: 4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations

The international dispute is as previously stated.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

You wrote:

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then

The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated. That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France. The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred years the French had to leave. Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained. You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.

They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...

If the Israeli Jews manage to eliminate and/or evict the non-Jews and maintain a Jewish demographic advantage for the long term, then it will become like the Americas, Australia etc. But, it will be difficult given the fact that within and around the Jewish state the non-Jews outnumber the Jews more than the non-whites outnumbered the whites in South Africa, and Rhodesia or the the non-Europeans in Algeria. But, anything is possible..

As far as the Christian Palestinians they lump themselves in, they do have that right.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before.

montelatici, et al,

Their point of departure is of no consequence.

montelatici, et al,

European settlers did not take ANY LAND.

How did the European settlers take the land from the Christians and Muslims Rocco?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants under the Mandate, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as adopted by the General Assembly; --- and exercising their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

But, they came from another continent and did evict the local inhabitants through violent conquest. They certainly have a right to self determination, but not at the expense of the people already living in the area on another continent. It's like saying the Treaty of Tordesillas had any legal validity.

(COMMENT)

The same body that wrote all the other international laws, determined the solution. It was a basic objective in the original Mandate. It fulfilled the goal of establishing a Jewish National Home.

The Arab Palestinian rejected participation in the process that ultimately created the conditions that allowed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in the treaties or in the mandate did anyone call for an exclusive Jewish state?

Israel is in Palestine. Where is the international dispute?

(COMMENT)

Nothing until the UNSCOP Recommendation adopted by the General Assembly calls for an exclusive state. However, nothing prohibited it either; as a possible solution.

Israel is in the territory former under the Mandate for Palestine.

The UN says: 4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations

The international dispute is as previously stated.

The decisions and path the Arab Palestinian took, the path that they embraced --- Jihad and Armed Struggle --- was the means of solving international disputes they chose; including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian, as a matter of publish Policy objected to settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their choice IAW the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The only fact Rocco, is that the indigenous Christians and Muslims resisted the imposition of foreign rule. It was not a Jihad, it was simply local people resisting European colonization. Your use of the word Jihad, demonstrates that you are simply a partisan. Just partisan BS.

 

[theliq]

Don't ya'll just love it, how Monty tries to portray Palestinian Christians as lumped-in with Palestinian Muslims?

Well, there are many millions to eliminate a population many times larger than the Jewish population in the general area.. It did not prove feasible in Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa. Maybe the Jews will be able to to eliminate those millions, maybe not.

Who said anything about eliminating?

I think you are forgetting what you wrote.

I wrote:

They were able to eliminate the local people as a demographic threat from North to South America.

You wrote:

Which us exactly what Israel will do, for as long as they are threatened by them.

Oh, eliminate as a threat. I thought you meant eliminate as in kill. Never mind then

The Christian Palestinians may leave eventually, as they have the means and the support of Christians throughout the world, but the Muslim Palestinians will not and they will resist until,, and if, they are literally eliminated. That the same situation the French in Algeria found themselves in, and Algeria was a part of France. The colons immigration and their birthrate was not sufficient to overcome the local demographics and by 1962 after over a hundred years the French had to leave. Had they negotiated and compromised earlier, perhaps they could have remained. You know the story in Rhodesia and South Africa.

They will resist until they've been evicted, anyway...

Kondor they will always support the Palestinian cause...steve Christian or not.