It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


why do "palestinians" say they have a right to israel's land

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by defcon5

There are many reasons why Palestinian youth are so willing to die for their own people...we westerners also send our youth out to just don't like the manner in which they are doing it.

Palestinians live in abject poverty, imprisoned amongst their own sewage and waste, live in bombed out homes, and must fear daily the random anonymous assaults by Israeli thugs.

Here is a little piece of history for you Israel has many heroes just like Sharon.

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Legion2112
I'd actually try to interject facts for both Israel and the Palestianians, but as one who's fallen into that trap before I will simply say this; if I'm an old-school Jordanian from before 1948 reading this thread, I'm laughing so hard hooka water is coming out of my nose.

Ive tried to explain to people before that Yasser Arafat coined the phrase Palestinian because he could get the link that the bible supported there claims to the area. In reality they were cheap labor brought from Jordan by the British.Funny how popular belief and reality differ huh!

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:32 AM
cor dear, this is one of the most uninformed posts ive read, i suggest the op starts doing a little research rather than asking people what to think, start looking, its not hard to find, you just got to look and try and believe just how ridiculous it can get

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:13 AM
here we go again, in one corner we have the zionists who deny the fact that there were only 2-3 judaic kingdoms in 'the land of palestine', and even had the bible changed after 1945 and deny the fact that the bible I am holding in my hand says 'jesus of palestine' dated back to 1916.

then we have to revisit history and go back to the british mandate,.... then lawrence of arabia, and remember how the turks took over palestine, and the british promised the arabs their land back and then Rothchild one of the major zionists met with a senior british general and drew up the british mandate.

We also have to 'forget' the photos of the piles of bodies of women, men and children massacred by the IDF of the people who refused to leave their homes.

OH and we also have to forget how Rothchild met with martin gering and Heinrich himmler and even arranged camps to prepare peopel for their new lives in PALESTINE.

WOW, its amazing how history gets lost ... GOOD WE FORGOT IT.

Im just like everyone now, im an ignorant human being who forgets the past and forgets war crimes committed in the name of 'freedom'.

Its ALSO amazing how in Exodus GOD himself proclaims the jews as no longer being his chosen people and exiles them. It is also in the old testament that god even ordered a wall be built around him to protect him from israelite TRIBES out of fear.

I strongly suggest that before you make such a statement that you read into the books of history. The Philistines are the palestinians.

It has always been Arab land, and true jewish people from the traditional bloodline are BLACK.

ETHIOPIA is the homeland of the judaic religion, even the tablets that Moses brought down from mount sinai are there!!!!!!

sorry for stating the obvious but I get so exhausted of people forgetting history and war crimes against humanity.


These people abused the jews in Europe for their own political means and agendas.


[edit on 10-11-2009 by Lavey2]

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:20 AM
reply to post by resonance

I don't think anyone has a right to any land.

A lot of nations stole land - England stole NZ, Canada and heaps of others.

I could go on - but who has a right to any land?

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:34 AM
It really doesn't matter who was there first or who has the best ancestral claim to the region. It's completely irrelevant and academic.

What matters is the people who live there now and creating a situation which is favourable for everyone that lives there. That won't come about until the "we were here first" argument stops. It's never going to get resolved, because we are dealing with two completely opposing interpretations of history (one of which is deeply flawed and doesn't stand up to academic scrutiny, but that doesn't really matter either since enough people believe it).

In terms of who should govern Israel (or Palestine, call it what you like), I don't see what's wrong with the Israeli government system. Seems like quite a fair and inclusive form of proportional representation with universal suffrage.

The question is, what should happen with the disputed territories? Israeli politicians have gone out of their way to say they want to hand them over to Palestinians but not if it means another 50 years of proxy wars with Iran at their doorsteps.

Seems reasonable to me. The problem is that Palestinians are divided between those that want independence from Israel and those that want to get rid of Israel altogether, and of course those that don't care either way but just want to go to work and raise their families. Hence the current stalemate.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by shrike071

Couple of points:

The Yishuv accepted the partition plan. The Arabs did not. You can see which countries voted against it by researching the internet.

Secondly, your maps are deeply flawed and factually incorrect. Allow me to explain why:

1946: There was no such thing as Palestinian land. The region was governed by the British on behalf of the league of nations. Most of the bits coloured in green were uninhabited!

1947: Yes this is the UN partition plan, which never happened because the Arabs rejected it. Not really accurate to include it in "how things were" illustrations?

1949-1967: During this period the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt. So again to claim this was "Palestinian land" is disingenuous.

2000: Again, most of the white bits are uninhabited. The green zones represent autonomous Palestinian territory. If you had included a map from before 1993 it would have all been Israeli.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:53 AM
The Question really is, Should Israel as a Jewish State Exist At All?
Just because someone follows a Semitic faith does not make them a Semite.
90% + of Today's Jews are not related to the Hebrews of old any more than those big nosed of Greek origin like myself are. These 90%+ are Ashkenazi;,,, Eastern European!. How is it that they should have a "right to return" when they show no more hereditary connection (possibly less) to the land than me apart from 'faith'?
Just because They Believe in a right to claim land from the East Bank of the Nile (Egypt) to the West Bank of the Euphrates (Iraq) because the interpretation of an old amended text says so?... and expand they do.

The Jews that lived in Israel/Palestine (whatever you want to call it) region ARE related to each other. They are the people of that land... that lived in peace up until the onslaught inspired by Theodore Hertzel's and other non practising Zionist Ashkenazi 'Jews' like himself... including Karl Marx. Even though Marx called religion "opium of the masses" there is even reportedly Zionist supporting correspondence associated with him in existence.

If the Indigenous occupants of this region are happy to give Jews the land as set out in 1947.. It's their call.... It seems the case that they are willing to come to that compromise....
But the truth of the matter is that Israel has no right to exist at all... and that's why Israeli leaders are so keen to have Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist.... because it is nobody's land to give, other than the Palestinians (or Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druze) (All Semites) that were there before the Ashkenazis came marching in.

"the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council." But it never was.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by phoneyid]

[edit on 10-11-2009 by phoneyid]

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:55 AM
It's nobody's land! People migrated all over the face of this planet for tens of thousands of years. How can you say any part of it belongs to anyone?

There is no genetic distinction between "palestinians" or "israelis." All human.

The earth belongs to all of us, and we better take care of it, and each other.

Share already!

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:59 AM

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by shrike071
1946: There was no such thing as Palestinian land. The region was governed by the British on behalf of the league of nations. Most of the bits coloured in green were uninhabited!

Transjordan Palestine is the area that was under the British mandate. In fact, the league of nations mandate is titled "British Mandate of Palestine" Mandates were issued after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - Palestine was mentioned and a defined part of the Empire.

Please remember there was history in the Middle East prior 1946

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by 30_seconds
There is no genetic distinction between "palestinians" or "israelis." All human.

The whole region should be placed under a secular UN administration. I'm getting pretty exhausted of the hate being spread by both sides. Especially religious extremists on ATS.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by infinite

How would that help anyone that lives there? You wouldn't find a single Israeli that would agree to it, or a single Palestinian!

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by infinite

But that's my point - the British Mandate of Palestine is not "Palestinian" - it's a backwater of the former Ottoman Empire (actually part of Southern Syria) occupied by a foreign force in which the Jews had self-governance. The underlying implication of the map is that Arab Muslims had their own government and state which the Jews later stole, which isn't the case.

Arab Muslims did get their own government and state, it's called Jordan. Why is it unreasonable that the Jews should get their own state as well?

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:19 AM
yes I see but where could this all be coming from?

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:29 AM
A couple of points.

When you hear the word "settler" or "settlement" know that it means Israeli occupied land OUTSIDE of Israel proper, but in Palestine(not recognised by MSWord98).

The Israeli Government does not publish the figures, and the "settlements" have expanded and continue to expand; usurping more Palestinian land; in fulfilling the Zionist (not recognised by MSWord98) Wet Dream of a "Greater Israel"

There are estimates of over 250,000 up to 500,000 (best estimates appear to be at lower end) "settlers" in an estimated 200 + "settlements". All of these "settlements" with the exception of only a few are reserved exclusively for Jewish Israelis only, excluding from basically all of them Israelis who are Muslim, Christian or Druze.
The land of the Palestinians is left as a map resembling a piece of Swiss Cheese; with interconnecting roads reserved EXCLUSIVELY for use by Israelis, making the Swiss Cheese also a bit like Blue Vein Cheese.
Now this is where Zionists often come to the attack when people claim that there are no Jewish only roads.
It may seem like semantics, but the fact is that Only Israelis and their employees can use these roads, (Palestinians are largely boycotted from employment), and being that Israeli Druze, Christians, and Muslims have no real reason to travel on these roads; these roads are by and large used by Jews only (although some Muslims have been spotted on them
) A 20 minute drive along an Israeli road may take a Palestinian (on their own land) several hours to navigate all check points, at which Israelis are speedily ushered through.

These "settlements" are easy to spot on Google Earth.
They commonly occupy high vantage points, and are often in a circular defensive formation, and they sometimes even have the quaint habit of ringing them with pine trees, which drop their needles and render the land beneath unfavourable for planting. The inhabitants are machine gun toting, all day long and like to terrorise Palestinians. Many, many, have American Accents. (see youtube)

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:40 AM
Not sure if its already been stated but, the jews owned all of isreal up until the romans came into town. the romans allowed the jewish kings to rule but of course, rome really owned everything back then.

isreal revolted a couple of times under the romans... i believe the first time they got a slap on the hand.. but the last time, the romans marched in and destroyed the temple.. it was deemed to prevent the people from ever revolting again that isreal should be wiped from the earth, its name, history, everything.. so the land was renamed 'palastine' by the romans and they started actively moving in non jews into the area.

and thats the way it was, up till.. what 1947 or something like that, when isreal was officially reborn as a country.

so the palastinians kindof have a right to be mad, but they should really be mad at the romans. seeing as the romans caused the problem, maybe they could like hand over part of italy to the palastinans for a new real homeland.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:42 AM
If you want answers, all you have to look is look at what's happening. Israel has never had any peace--ever. That is God's curse for ashkanazi jews defying God's word that specifically states that jews are not to create an Israel except when the messiah returns. Well, as far as I know, the messiah has not returned. Of course, the rothchilds think differently, and that's probably why they played a part in recreating Israel. But don't let facts get in the way of ats's indoctrinations.

I just find it wonderfully funny how the christards are so loving of the jews when the jews don't even respect the New Testament. In fact, the jews even had a hand in killing christ, but that doesn't even matter to the christards. They'll still give money, hand over fist, to Israel. That's probably why America's economy is going down the toilet.

At least the Muslims acknowledge Jesus Christ and his message, but of course, that's not enough for the christards. Neither is giving oil to the christards enough either. It's never enough for the hypocrite christards, so let's just blame everything on the muslim al-qaeda terrorists, even the california forest fires.

It all comes down to karma. You can accept what is as what is, or you can try to put band aids on everything, treat the symptoms, and beg for one more grand experiment that destroy people's lives. christards and ashkanazi jews prefer putting band aids on everything. Life to them is meaningless.

Me, i'm just going to sit back and watch all you shills and hypocrites rot in hell.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:47 AM
well... if you accept that the bible was inspired by a god that created everything and has a plan put in place

then everything happens because its supposed to happen, regardless if its good or bad

its like writing down your grocery list, then after work you go buy grocerys

at least it all ends good, with that huuuge spaceship landing in isreal

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:54 AM
The names of lands and races, religions, is confusing people here.

There were people on THAT land. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze.
They were all indigenous.... Semites. (same 'race')
The term comes from the name of One of Noah's sons "Shem" The term Semite means a member of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites.

Then came the European Jews (different 'race') Jews are not a race, they are a religion. They follow a 'Semitic' religion.
90%+ of Jews are NOT indigenous to that land.... They are Europeans.
Although ironically the term 'antiSemitism' has come to be understood as 'antiJewish' and not include a hatred of the other real Semites.
The term was coined by a German antiJew Wilhelm Marr in the late 1800's to 'soften it's appeal'.

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:26 AM

Originally posted by mattpryor

In terms of who should govern Israel (or Palestine, call it what you like), I don't see what's wrong with the Israeli government system. Seems like quite a fair and inclusive form of proportional representation with universal suffrage.

Fair and inclusive? There is only ONE Palestinian in the knesset. I will continue to debunk all the isfaki myths you put out there. You've got all the AIPAC talking points down pat. And yet you still offer no evidence, sources or research supporting your claim. Your opinion don't mean squat,bub

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in