How much of Palestine should the Arabs get back? - <MOD WARNING>

Good. So the historical Jewish ownership of the land is not in dispute then. Do you care to explain what makes your and that Canadian dude's presence in North America just?

 

That was a shot in the dark. My ancestrors, French colons, made alliances with all but one amerind nation. We espoused their women. We married the land. Today we are a metis people, with an identity of our own, that was born here. If Israel was established like that, I suspect nobody would object. But no, they decided that they were the grafted hand that will reject the whole host body.

Ah, spare me the Hasbara pamphlet. The Palestians are more semitic than the Khazar-stock Ukrainians that invaded them. Funny, also, how you consider this one UN resolution as a good one but reject all of the others.

 

just cause you live somewhere doesn't mean you own it

- - - Updated - - -

nonsense, disputed by all the genetic research

 

Right, French occupiers came uninvited to another continent they had no connection with, took it over, stole all the land, massacred the native population and resorted to forced assimilation of the few who survived. Why don't you go back to France, your presence in Canada is not just.


Oh, lol coming from you, you don't recognize a UN member nation's right to exist and then turn around and bleat daily about UN resolutions.

 

This certainly applies to Arabs who lived on the Jewish land while the rightful owners were expelled, don't you think? Still no explanation of your presence in North America, right?

 

You are again shooting in the dark. It would be advised to learn at least a bit about a subject before making oneself champion of it, don't you think? You'll regret what you wrote once you know better. The French's history in NA isn't the anglo one. Beside, it's only an exercise of deflection from your part, isn't it? You're not interested in learning, just make a big enough noise in the hope that I will focus less on the debate at hand, do you?

Pardon me? I think you are confusing me with a strawman of yours.

 

Unjust? The world is unjust. So what is your alternative? What would you do? And how would it be less unjust than the status quo?

How i would view it if i was a palestinian is irrelevant. You are supposed to make objective arguments...

 

This is the debate at hand. The complaints of a French descendent in Canada (or the US, Australia etc) about the "unjust" nature of the existence of a UN created Jewish state in the Jewish land is quite ironic. You are yet to explain the legitimacy of your presence in Canada given that your ancestors invaded, occupied and completely took over the land.

 

So I take it the Third Reich was perfectly justified persecuting the Jews/Gypsies/homosexuals in pre-1941 Nazi Germany, on virtue of being able to oppress them the way they saw fit? If anything it is these minorities' fault if they were not able to defend thenmselves, right? Just askin' - not building a strawman here; If you don't approve of what the 3rd Reich did, then you contradict yourself, and I want to know why.

You can't expect someone to accept something you wouldn't in the first place... It's not getting any more objective than that. If they don't accept it, you'll have to enforce it on them, and that will breed resentment. Resentment will bring troubles. It isn't different from the status quo - it is the status quo.

 

there is no such thing as "rightful owners".

the Jews controlled the land, invited the Romans in, the Romans took control, and that was that.

just as the Jews conquered, expelled, and murdered the Canaanites and others centuries earlier.

there is no such thing as a eternal land deed based on previous settlement.

Manhattan Island is not "native" land in 2016, just cause the Indians controlled the land back in 1653.

 

No - you are to explain the illegitimacy of our presence in Canada. And up to here, you did a sloppy job at it, confusingly mixing our history with that of the English.

For my part I can explain why I think that the zionists' claim to an ever-existing state of Israel is hogwash. In fact I did before you tried to deflect me with your clumsy theory.

 

Well, your premise confirms that the Partition was an absolutely correct and just way to handle the situation. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs did not and have been trying to wipe Israel off the map ever since. That the Arabs are paying the price for their own intransigence is their own fault.

The Europeans massacred the Indians, stole their land and now claim land ownership and moral superiority over Jews...because Jews did not massacre the Arabs and were willing to split the land. Ironic, isn't it?

 

I thought I did. The French were colonizers, they came uninvited to occupy and colonize the land that was not theirs. Based on your own logic you should go back to wherever your ancestors came from and leave the stolen land to its rightful owners.

Two peoples (arabs and jews) lived in Palestine in 1947, all of them were there legally according to the law of the land at the time. The land was divided into 2 countries by the UN. Israel was accepted as a UN member nation by both the UNSC and UNGA shortly thereafter. The arabs did not accept the partition then and still don't.

 

we're talking about today.....not 200 years ago.

 

Today we have the US, Canada, Australia and a bunch of other countries established by massacres and conquest and existing on stolen land. And we have Israel established by the will of the world through a UN resolution on a small part of historically Jewish land. The irony that European settlers of overseas continents are bashing Jews who returned home and share their land with Arabs should be quite obvious.

 

Israel was established through conquest, land theft, and expulsions.

including in 1967.

and you think The West should just accept this, cause Manhattan used to be controlled by Indians.

 

Israel was established by the UN, then it was repeatedly attacked by hordes of Arabs bent on wiping Israel off the map. Yes, the Arabs attempted conquest and land theft but it failed. Their expulsion of Jews was successful though (read my sig).

The West does not have a problem with having stolen continents and massacring millions but it finds the Jews' right to have a country and to self-defense morally unacceptable? don't you see a problem with that?

 

Yeah, looks like you did, since I don't see anymore mentions of massacres and other terrible woes we would have inflicted, but still being a 10min expert isn't enough; Yes, we were invited. We were allies with almost every tribe in here and they were avid traders. We beneficiated from their knowledge, protections and women. In fact, the French couldn't bring colonists fast enough to supply to the demand. Read about it some more.

Would you have, knowing that you were among the un-desirable ethnies, and were going to be displaced? This nice consensus from the UN had one opinion missing - that of the Palestinians themselves, who were treated like cattle in the deal. Ah, but in 1948, the Jews were holy martyrs (and still are); To refuse them anything wold have been the same as siding with Hitler in exterminating them.

 

1. Oh please. The french colonizers invaded and occupied the continent, it was not their land and no one gave it to them, they stole it. You are living on a land that was stolen by your ancestors and there is absolutely no way you can spin it. And based on your own logic you should go back to wherever your ancestors came from.

2. The land populated by 2 peoples was partitioned into 2 countries. Jews got a country where they were a majority. So did the arabs (never mind other 22 arab countries). This was absolutely fair and just. The arabs could move to the Arab side of the partition or stay in their homes, retain their property and possession and become citizens of Israel with equal rights and all freedoms. They chose to go to war instead. Too bad for them.

 

Unfortunately for the Jews there Colonization of Palestine came too late in history, by the time they got around to it the world had moved on. You sound like a slave trader, still trying to justify slavery 200 years late.

 

the Jews only owned around 13% of the land.

that's not much to steal.

 

The arabs owned 45% of the land and that's what they got during the partition. Why are they complaining? Jews got the Negev desert which constituted like 2/3 of their partition.

It wasn't about individual ownership anyway, just administrative division of the land into 2 countries. The arab land owners were to retain all their property in Israel and those who remained loyal (or at least neutral) citizens did. All bets were off for those who sided with Israel's enemies committed to wiping it off the map.

 

Look I don't want to call you racist. So I won't. I'm not sure you are really. It seems your just willing to overlook alot in the name of Israels complete security which isn't possible under the current situation anyway.

One has to give real peace a real chance.

Just end settlements. Agree that Israel can patrol the Palestinians borders and control it's outer most lines in cooperation with the PA.

That way you reduce tension while affording security.

Willing to give that a shot?

 

No in 1945 Palestinians were a majority in every district.

 

nothing all the land now occupied by Israel was obtained from either given, legal purchase, or the result of an unprovoked attack on them
should we give any of the land taken from Germany and Japan that they had before they lost WW2