Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Hossfly]

Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads. They just demonize the Jewish people. Look at the title of this thread. We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination). Its patently ridiculous.

I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.

To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel. (Your post #207 in this thread.) It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.

To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land. It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?" Goldmann, Nahum: Le Paradoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.

Living in Israel​

Zionism​

Politics of Israel​

Palestine​

Israeli–Palestinian Conflict​

​

See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:

....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.

Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​

 

[Shusha]

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land.

As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is: the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us. The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.

And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.

Self-determination. Return. A homeland in the place of our ancestors.

As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.

 

[Hossfly]

Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads. They just demonize the Jewish people. Look at the title of this thread. We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination). Its patently ridiculous.

I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.

To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel. (Your post #207 in this thread.) It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.

To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.

Well prior to 1948 it was not Jewish land.......that the rest of the world wanted to solve the Jewish question,the Jews were offered lots of places in the world prior to taking over parts of Palestine,it was the Zionists that wanted only parts/all of Palestine(which Israel have expanded over the years) So you may not call it theft but others disagree.....Eloy was NOT repeat NOT DEMONIZING Jews at all but stating the facts,what he should have mentioned is the barbaric way towards the Palestinian,the inhumanity of the Zionists have treated and continued to treat the Palestinians......if the boot was on the other foot,no doubt you would be the first to squeal and therein lies your total Hypocricy......Anyway I will give you a scenario,if the Palestinians say with Russia and China decided to ensure the Palestinians get their land back(like Israel and America have done)....would you then think that OK,just doing the same as the Israel/America did ???????thought not.

Since you hate the Zionists so much, why doesn't a "magnificent" man such as you rally the citizens to have your country cut ties with those "big, bad Zionists" Meanwhile, it looks like those involved had a very good time.

Ozraeli – celebrating Australia-Israel friendship

 

[Shusha]

Well prior to 1948 it was not Jewish land.......

And prior to 638 CE it was not Arab land.

And prior to 132 CE it was not Roman land.

And prior to 586 BCE it was not Babylonian land.

Who's land was it? It was Jewish land.

IF it became Babylonian land in 586 BCE, IF it became Roman land in 132 CE and IF it became Arab land in 638 CE, you give rights of ownership to conquerors. And so, the land became Jewish again in 1948.

IF you don't believe conquest gives rise to ownership then return the land to its original owners -- the Jewish people.


Either way -- the land IS most certainly Jewish land. Whatever else it might be, due to long residence in the land -- it most certainly is Jewish land as well.

 

[theliq]

SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????

 

[theliq]

Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads. They just demonize the Jewish people. Look at the title of this thread. We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination). Its patently ridiculous.

I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.

To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel. (Your post #207 in this thread.) It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.

To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land. It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?" Goldmann, Nahum: Le Paradoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.

https://www.quora.com/topic/Living-in-Israel
Living in Israel
Zionism
Politics of Israel
Palestine
Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
​

See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:

....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.

Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​

when the first Zionist delegation visited 1898,they said of Palestine Ït is a Beautiful Bride but Married to another,The Palestinians

 

[Shusha]

SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????

I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.

No. Try to keep up. I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.

I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

[Eloy]

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land.

As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is: the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us. The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.

And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.

Self-determination. Return. A homeland in the place of our ancestors.

As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.

Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.

 

[Shusha]

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land.

As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is: the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us. The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.

And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.

Self-determination. Return. A homeland in the place of our ancestors.

As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.

Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.

Neither do I.

I have NEVER argued from the point of view of religion.

 

[Eloy]

Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads. They just demonize the Jewish people. Look at the title of this thread. We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination). Its patently ridiculous.

I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.

To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel. (Your post #207 in this thread.) It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.

To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land. It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?" Goldmann, Nahum: Le Paradoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.

https://www.quora.com/topic/Living-in-Israel
Living in Israel
Zionism
Politics of Israel
Palestine
Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
​

See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:

....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.

Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​

I prefer to let Ben-Gurion's words speak for themselves. I can read English, you see.

 

[theliq]

SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????

I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.

No. Try to keep up. I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.

I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements that is exactly what your saying

 

[Eloy]

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land.

As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is: the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us. The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.

And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.

Self-determination. Return. A homeland in the place of our ancestors.

As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.

Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.

Neither do I.

I have NEVER argued from the point of view of religion.

Well, Ben-Gurion did believe the god of the Jews promised them the land of Palestine and this was his justification for establishing a Jewish state there.

 

[Shusha]

I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed. I was discussing YOUR beliefs. Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want. Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?

 

[Shusha]

SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????

I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.

No. Try to keep up. I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.

I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements that is exactly what your saying

Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow. But try. Please.

The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture. As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land. Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.

ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.

It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.

My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land. My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.

Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist. If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".

 

[Eloy]

I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed. I was discussing YOUR beliefs. Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want. Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?

I have never heard of Ben-Gurion being described as a red herring before. My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times. I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing. I have never demonized Jews and I do not do so because they want the same land as the Palestinians. I assume you mean they both want the same land. I do accept that the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution. The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries. So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs) and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed. The unmistakable problem is the occupation and blockading of the rest of Palestine, i.e. The Occupied Territories. The Jewish State of Israel (with a border along the 1967 cease fire line) is a member of the United Nations and recognized as fully sovereign. I hope this answers your question and thanks for asking.

 

[theliq]

SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????

I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.

No. Try to keep up. I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.

I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements that is exactly what your saying

Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow. But try. Please.

The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture. As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land. Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.

ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.

It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.

My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land. My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.

Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist. If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".

So according to you as Native Americans WE demand all of North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You totally ignored the stated intention. The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.

EXCERPT: The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
... ... ...
At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1
​

The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago. It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution (no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians). The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire. When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth.

The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation. They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement. The "victim mentality."

The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions. However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate (the establishment of a Jewish National Home), demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants. Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League. (Ranked 18th on the 2015)

View attachment 96409​

I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention. However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power. And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.

The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.

(COMMENT)

Again you are confusing things. Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning. Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual. HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority." Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.

View attachment 96414​

Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League. Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States (Egypt and Jordan) have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established. Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government. Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state. Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon (the al-Bekka Valley) to the Hezbollah. Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.

In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act. Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard. It does not.

Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate) became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.​

I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.

And again all you have is islamonazi propagandists spewing out islamonazi talking points based on LIES and BLOOD LIBELS.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed. I was discussing YOUR beliefs. Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want. Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?

I have never heard of Ben-Gurion being described as a red herring before. My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times. I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing. I have never demonized Jews and I do not do so because they want the same land as the Palestinians. I assume you mean they both want the same land. I do accept that the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution. The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries. So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs) and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed. The unmistakable problem is the occupation and blockading of the rest of Palestine, i.e. The Occupied Territories. The Jewish State of Israel (with a border along the 1967 cease fire line) is a member of the United Nations and recognized as fully sovereign. I hope this answers your question and thanks for asking.

And yet you fail to produce once instance of this being said by any Zionist leader officially, showing that it is just another of the hate site mantra's with no basis in truth.
The JEWS, not just the zionists, believe they have the right under international law enacted in 1923 to have a homeland and the means to defend it from attack. They want the international community to recognise this law in full and set up an armed task force to remove all the illegal immigrants and terrorists from Israeli lands.
The English promised nothing as it was the British, and it is about time you educated yourself on these matters. It would be like me saying that Washington granted the Germans surrender terms and leaving out the other 50 States as being irrelevent. Then you need to read the terms of the mandate to see that Britain was nothing more than a caretaker and had to follow the orders of the LoN in regards to the mandate. They could not take action without full approval of the LoN which included Washington as one of its members. Then you need to be educated on the influx of illegal arab muslim migrants starting in 1917 when it looked like the Jews would get their lands back. The Jews have already got a nation with fully recognised borders under International law, and those are the only ones that should exist. The islamonazi terrorists should shot on sight if they refuse to go back to the land they came from and threatened with eviction from the UN if they try to cause trouble. We have had enough of the muslims trying to take over with the help of the neo marxists and neo nazi's

 

[Phoenall]

The data is available from the Survey of Palestine, Vol. 1
View attachment 96491

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

Volume 1 page 212

59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the pur- poses of permanent settlement is insignificant.


A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

Which has been proven to be false and made up by arab muslims in the pay of the group sent to report on palestine. At the same time Winston Churchill was proclaiming on oath that the arab muslims were flooding into the mandate of palestine illegally

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,
... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...

Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.

Now how do you know that, Eloy? BTW, do you think the British people these days are happy with so many Muslims in their midst. No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.

I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.

The English promised nothing, it was the washigtonians that promised the arab muslims the whole of the world in return for oil.

It was the LoN, you know the forerunner of the UN that granted land they owned legally under international laws of 1917 to 1923 to the Jews and arab muslims, the English had no say or Authority in the matter. Yes Britain was anti semitic and very anti Jew once the neo marxists rose to positions of power. As for the British we have voted to leave the EU because of its racism and xenophobia towards the British and the forcing of migrants on our already over stretched facilities.


Try to get it right or is this the new mantra from the hate sites to blame the English, or is it your total stupidity to not understand that England is just a part of Britain and is like Washington in the USA.