reply to post by jonnywhite
If the palestinians stop their support of Hamas and cut off the rocket attacks and smoke out those who oppose Israel violently, then yes, I think it
would be fine to see them achieve statehood. But I do not believe statehood is their goal. I think that conquering all of Israel is their goal. They
believe Israel does not rightfully exist.
. . .
Until this hatred for Israel is exhausted and the people of former 'palestine' put down their weapons in favor of peace, I see no end of this war
until all of the palestinians are either killed or put in jails.
There are two streams of history (actually there are more) that don't always coincide; the stream of evolution of human capacity for justice, and the
stream of actual performance (facts on the ground).
At the time of the establishment of the UN and signing of the charter,which came into force on 24 October 1945, it was already decided that 'right of
conquest' was not the way forward for civilized nations and people. Yet, that's how the State of Israel came into existence, through violence and
conquest. Some people hold the opinion that the second stream of history (facts on the ground) do not invalidate the first stream (human capacity for
The Derailing of Balfour Declaration
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours
to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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."
What is suggested in Balfour
is really quite reasonable: "nothing shall be done which may 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". Yet, the actual facts on the ground
indicate that the aims of Balfour
were completely derailed.
1) The Nakba of 1948 was an extreme prejudice against the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, including the
forced eviction of 800,000 Palestinians.
2) The Current Israel Right of Return
which states that any Jew anywhere in the world can be regarded as a citizen of Israel, completely
jeopardizes the clause: "or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". In the same way that Jews anywhere have the
potential of being citizens of Israel, so also any Jew has the potential of being a citizen of a hostile nation within another nation, acting as a
fifth column, if you will. This can cause great prejudice against Jews.
The case of number 2) above, is quite evident in the United States, wherein perfectly decent American Jews are pressured into supporting the Zionist
regime of Israel even at the cost of not supporting the best national interest of their native United States in which they were born.
So the World stands at the crossroads. Should we strive to live up to the highest justice that humans can achieve, or shall we be dictated to by
facts on the ground
State of Israel or Jewish State of Israel
Believe it or not, Palestinians by and large, recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state. By and large the Palestinians do not recognize the
right of Jewish
state of Israel to exist. Wouldn't a good beginning point for negotiations be the dropping of Jewish
from the name?
Because that is the real issue.
Suggested further reading: International law and Israeli settlements -
edit on 21-9-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)