[VIDEO] 'Anti-Semitic' remark or Western media's hypocrisy? FM Qureshi's CNN interview sparks debate

[Civil]

If Israel can be a modern developed state today, what is stopping Palestine? Palestine had surrounding rich Arab states to help them but they chose another path. They actively refused the two state solution or the appropriate borders that Israel offered to them. They blew that chance. Today they have to depend on Israel for water and electricity.

The thing stopping Palestine from becoming a modern state is an occupation of west bank and blockade of gaza. They cannot even have a cohesive economy in West bank as all their towns are interspersed with illegal settlements so roads cannot connect their towns

Of course they have to depend on Israel of electricity and water, because Israel occupied their resources.

Palestine had no chance of receiving help from "rich" Arab countries as you mention..Egypt, Jordan Lebanon aren't wealthy countries. Gulf countries side with USA. So defacto side with Israel.

Look at the illegal israeli settlements today. This is after 1993 agreements. Imagine If 1948 borders were agreed upon.. Palestine would have valuable agricultural land and water. Eventually Israel would have taken it sooner or later. They would've had to.

Palestine doesn't deserve all the blame.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

If Israel can be a modern developed state today, what is stopping Palestine? Palestine had surrounding rich Arab states to help them but they chose another path. They actively refused the two state solution or the appropriate borders that Israel offered to them. They blew that chance. Today they have to depend on Israel for water and electricity.

The state being offered to Palestinians is not one worth having. Palestine would have to be demilitarized. Israel would control their borders, and airspace. To enter their own country they would have to go through Israeli security. They would have limited foreign relations, they could not join international organizations without Israel's permission.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You have summed it up perfectly. Listen to Alan Dershowitz's recent interview, who is a pro-Israel Harvard professor. He said Palestine could have been the Paris of the Middle East if they had chosen that route after 1948. Instead, look at where they are now after all the religious turmoil.

This is a colossal failure of the corrupt Palestinian leadership and the surrounding Arab nations. They refused to accept the two-state solution when they had a chance. No one else can be blamed for the state that Palestine is in today.

The religious turmoil was not done by the Palestinians. Palestinians dont claim the land because they believe God gave it to them. Thats the other side who says God gave them the land, and they allegedly had ancestors who lived there 2,000 years ago. And then there are Evangelical Christians who believe that before the World will end all Jews must return to Israel. Yet you blame Palestinians for the religious turmoil.

The Palestinian claim is that they were the overwhelming majority in the land.

1922 census of Palestine conducted by British - Jewish Population 11%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_census_of_Palestine

Ottoman census of 1878 - Jewish population 5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#Late_Ottoman_period

They did not ask people from Europe, who looked European, spoke European languages, had a European culture to immigrate there.

 

[Robert]

If Israel can be a modern developed state today, what is stopping Palestine? Palestine had surrounding rich Arab states to help them but they chose another path. They actively refused the two state solution or the appropriate borders that Israel offered to them. They blew that chance. Today they have to depend on Israel for water and electricity.

Being occupied by a foreign power, and relying on foreign charity rather than investment.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Having said that, I support the existence of Israel. The Jews were driven out by force and have returned using force. Israel is only a small country, smaller than the Semitic kingdoms that existed before the Romans arrived. The Jews were native to that land long before the Arabs arrived 1,300 years ago.


The Arabs have land and resources at least 20 times more than Israel. And what have they done with it? Constantly fighting with each other, and some of the most cruel despots in the world. Israel is just a distraction from real development they could have if they stopped their non-stop fighting.

The same way how you believe that Jews are native to that land, millions of other believe that Palestinians are native to that land. That Palestinians are the mix of all those people who ever lived in that land, including the ancient Jews.

Outside of Arabia, the other Arab countries were "Arabized". Those people are either natives of that land, or are mixed of the various groups who came there. This is why Arabs come in different colors. The ones in the Levant look white. The ones from Egypt can look Black, and the ones from Sudan are Black.

So it does Palestinians no good if those other Arab countries have a lot of land. There homeland is Palestine not Saudi Arabia, or Algeria, or Sudan.

 

[dblock]

Israel is respected and revered by the West because it is the most brilliant nation on earth. In a very short period, Israel has established itself as the hub of science, technology, high achievement, inventions, discoveries etc.

The excuses that they have funding from the west means nothing. There are Muslim countries with far more wealth than Israel but their achievements in comparison to Israel are miniscule.

Israel spends a bigger percentage of its wealth on scientific research than every country in the world. When you have your priorities right, you will reap the rewards.

This is why the rich and the relevant Muslim countries like KSA and UAE and forging diplomatic and strategic ties with Israel.

This wet dream of seeing Israel fall will remain a wet dream. We need to move on and accept the reality.

Quite amateurish line of thinking. One can easily distinguish between mutual exclusive principles.

- A nation can be leading in academia, research and science yet still be oppressing a minority population and contravening UN resolutions.

In the same way

- A nation could be an emerging superpower and the worlds manufacturer but still be sterilising a minority population.

- A person can be world leading film producer but still be horribly misogynistic;

- A cricket team can be the best in the world but still have culture of racism;

Etc..

Point being brilliance in one field doesn't negate serious flaws in conduct - it's the conduct that is being challenged. No one should be above the law.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Israel is respected and revered by the West because it is the most brilliant nation on earth. In a very short period, Israel has established itself as the hub of science, technology, high achievement, inventions, discoveries etc.

Could have used the same reasoning for Germany in 1939. Were they also revered and respected?

 

[Last Monetarist]

Could have used the same reasoning for Germany in 1939. Were they also revered and respected?

Their engineering prowess was certainly respected by the Allies. The Panzer tanks gave them a key technological advantage in the early years of the war and were central to the blitzkreig strategy.

Herr Hitler wasn't revered but he was respected/feared enough for most of the west to follow an appeasement strategy during most of the mid-to-late 1930s. It was only when Hitler didn't back down from expansion across Europe did the war become an inevitablity.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Their engineering prowess was certainly respected by the Allies. The Panzer tanks gave them a key technological advantage in the early years of the war and were central to the blitzkreig strategy.

Herr Hitler wasn't revered but he was respected/feared enough for most of the west to follow an appeasement strategy during most of the mid-to-late 1930s. It was only when Hitler didn't back down from expansion across Europe did the war become an inevitablity.

Respected I agree with, it's the use of the term revered I have an issue with. I don't believe western countries rever Israel for bombing civilians.

 

[ManFan]

Their engineering prowess was certainly respected by the Allies. The Panzer tanks gave them a key technological advantage in the early years of the war and were central to the blitzkreig strategy.

Herr Hitler wasn't revered but he was respected/feared enough for most of the west to follow an appeasement strategy during most of the mid-to-late 1930s. It was only when Hitler didn't back down from expansion across Europe did the war become an inevitablity.

Just respected?

Search “Operation Paperclip”.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Respected I agree with, it's the use of the term revered I have an issue with. I don't believe western countries rever Israel for bombing civilians.

I agree, the only people that arguably hold Israel in reverence for bombing civilians are ultra-conservative Protestants in the United States or a few loons from India.

However, Israel's technological and scientific accomplishments can still be revered.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I agree, the only people that arguably hold Israel in reverence for bombing civilians are ultra-conservative Protestants in the United States or a few loons from India.

However, Israel's technological and scientific accomplishments can still be revered.

I certainly do respect Israel for their technological and scientific accomplishments. Do I rever them for it? No I don't, not the term I'd use at all, especially considering how they are using it against civilians, and often in illegal strikes against other countries. I feel no need at all to rever them for it, and I think the only people in the west who rever them for it are those who side with them for ideological or religious reasons. The rest would probably hold back on the reverence and maybe feel discomfort in it's place.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Thanks to SMQ, now celebs have started trending #StopAntiSemitism and now it gives them a chance to play the victims. For those blaming left-wing, they need to watch Sky which is predominantly left-wing and they have been the most pro-Palestinian channel in the West.

 

[Technics 1210]

Well folks it's simple - it's ok to say Blacks dominate sports, but anti-Semitic to say Jews dominate western money.

The looney left and victimhood at it again!

 

[Zaz]

If Israel can be a modern developed state today, what is stopping Palestine? Palestine had surrounding rich Arab states to help them but they chose another path. They actively refused the two state solution or the appropriate borders that Israel offered to them. They blew that chance. Today they have to depend on Israel for water and electricity.

What is stopping palestine having a state? Maybe zionists who dont want them to have a state is stopping them Theyve always since 67 depended on israel since they got occupied.Thats not changed Occupiers tend to control things Thats how occupation works

They refused it because the terms wasnt acceptable to them just like they refused the trump deal of the century
What do you expect them to do accept something thats unacceptable?

They dont want charity Just their rights

 

[RexRex]

The state being offered to Palestinians is not one worth having. Palestine would have to be demilitarized. Israel would control their borders, and airspace. To enter their own country they would have to go through Israeli security. They would have limited foreign relations, they could not join international organizations without Israel's permission.

Of course, there has to be a demilitarized Palestinian state. Initially, there will have to a demilitarized zone to ensure peace and later a review of the situation can take place. That is the price you pay when start a war and lose it in six days. The losing party doesn't get to call the shots and terms of surrender.

Inspite of being victors, Israel in 2000 offered to give back the Gaza Strip and 95% of West Bank and the arrogant Arafat still refused it ! They have only themselves to blame.

 

[RexRex]

Being occupied by a foreign power, and relying on foreign charity rather than investment.

Where is the occupation - you do know that the land captured by Israel in 1967 was due to a war initiated by the Arabs ?

 

[RexRex]

The religious turmoil was not done by the Palestinians. Palestinians dont claim the land because they believe God gave it to them. Thats the other side who says God gave them the land, and they allegedly had ancestors who lived there 2,000 years ago. And then there are Evangelical Christians who believe that before the World will end all Jews must return to Israel. Yet you blame Palestinians for the religious turmoil.

They did not ask people from Europe, who looked European, spoke European languages, had a European culture to immigrate there.

What are you implying - that Jews didn't have a right to exist as a sovereign state in 1948?

 

[Zaz]

Of course, there has to be a demilitarized Palestinian state. Initially, there will have to a demilitarized zone to ensure peace and later a review of the situation can take place. That is the price you pay when start a war and lose it in six days. The losing party doesn't get to call the shots and terms of surrender.

Inspite of being victors, Israel in 2000 offered to give back the Gaza Strip and 95% of West Bank and the arrogant Arafat still refused it ! They have only themselves to blame.

Israel wasnt talking about a initial demilitarised zone It wants a de militarised palestine whilst it still has its full military How is that possible? So israel can attack palestinians when they can But palestinians cant defend themselves

If israels intentions were clean theyd still be working on a resolution Not annexing more property and land daily Theyve never had the intention to seriously seek a just solution on this issue Thieves usually dont

 

[Zaz]

What are you implying - that Jews didn't have a right to exist as a sovereign state in 1948?

Not at the expense of palestinians or on palestines land they didnt

 

[RexRex]

Israel wasnt talking about a initial demilitarised zone It wants a de militarised palestine whilst it still has its full military How is that possible? So israel can attack palestinians when they can But palestinians cant defend themselves

Demilitarization is necessary because of lack of trust - Israel had already been attacked at its borders by its bordeing arab states in several wars and also experienced 'Intifidas'.

It is not a perfect deal but that is what Ehud Barak offered - full return of territory. Nobody will get a perfect deal when they are the losers of a war (1967), you have to compromise.

Why would Israel de-weaponize Palestine and then attack them the next day? This was a deal being discussed in Camp David with the US as guarantor.

 

[Zaz]

Where is the occupation - you do know that the land captured by Israel in 1967 was due to a war initiated by the Arabs ?

Get your facts right Israel conducted the initial pre strikes on egypt that started the war

Occupation under intnl law is using military forces to have control of foreign land and people It should be temporary there shouldve been a peaceful withdrawal decades back

If you did you research youd know under intnl law palestine gaza and west bank is under an illegal occuption going on 54 years now Israel shouldve left years back

 

[RexRex]

Not at the expense of palestinians or on palestines land they didnt

It was not Palestinian land.

Israelis immigrants bought the land legally from landlords in that region, eventually forming a majority in many regions of Palestine. When the Ottomans lost the first world war to the Allied powers, the US and British decided that Ottoman administered Palestine would be divided into regions based on people's self-determination. The right of jewish self determination and arab self determination thus came into question - a consequence of war. That is fair.

 

[RexRex]

Get your facts right Israel conducted the initial pre strikes on egypt that started the war

No, it was actually started by Egypt blocking Israeli ships from reaching their ports - an act of war. They also ammassed troops at the Israeli border after expelling the UN peacekeepers there. Israel read the signs of an iimpending nvasion and responded with air strikes.

 

[Zaz]

Demilitarization is necessary because of lack of trust - Israel had already been attacked at its borders by its bordeing arab states in several wars and also experienced 'Intifidas'.

It is not a perfect deal but that is what Ehud Barak offered - full return of territory. Nobody will get a perfect deal when they are the losers of a war (1967), you have to compromise.

Why would Israel de-weaponize Palestine and then attack them the next day? This was a deal being discussed in Camp David with the US as guarantor.

If history has shown its the israelis that cant be trusted and my friend it wasnt a full return of territory
You cant expect palestinians to agree to concession on top of concessions

Like i said Its not charity they want Its their right a full fledged state

The deal was not a state worth having israel still controls palestinian airpsace, some land borders resources and over its people and when there are enclaves, roads areas including the al aqsa complex still under israeli control and settlements in palestinian territory

Its wouldve been as bad as the current status quo being at israels mercy at any point

 

[Zaz]

It was not Palestinian land.

Israelis immigrants bought the land legally from landlords in that region, eventually forming a majority in many regions of Palestine. When the Ottomans lost the first world war to the Allied powers, the US and British decided that Ottoman administered Palestine would be divided into regions based on people's self-determination. The right of jewish self determination and arab self determination thus came into question - a consequence of war. That is fair.

They had a majority in some tiny areas but the partition plan gave them more than half of palestine when their population was what 1/5 of the overall population

No wonder the arabs thought that was unfair

 

[Zaz]

No, it was actually started by Egypt blocking Israeli ships from reaching their ports - an act of war. They also ammassed troops at the Israeli border after expelling the UN peacekeepers there. Israel read the signs of an iimpending nvasion and responded with air strikes.

That would be termed as hostile aggression not necessarily an act of war

The fact is the first military strikes were carried out by israel starting the war

 

[cricketjoshila]

Disgusting post Justifying oppression and tyranny You should be ashamed

Whether the jews were native or driven out 2500 yrs ago haa nothing to do with what is going on in palestime today The killings, apartheid, oppression and settlements on palestinian land cannot be justifed Have your state but not at the expense or ethnic cleansing of palestinians

Its crazy and stupid that israel can hide behind and call out criticism directed at the state as anti semetic Its as stupid like saying any criticism of saudi for their disgusting human rights is islamophobic

And by your metric like the poster above has said
The hindus need to stop obsessing about pakistan and kashnir It is just holding them back.

The indians have land and resources at least 20 times more than kashmir And what have they done with it? Constantly fighting with pakistan for kashmir is a distraction on some real development they can be making rather than living as a third world nation in poverty

Hindus and India has moved away from Pakistan and keep the bare minimum diplomatic and cultural relations. We do react if a security threat emerges from Pakistan.

While Pakistanis are obsessed with who India votes to power, who fought whom or who died where, which country India is supporting in the middle east, which religious structure was built or destroyed, etc etc etc.

Modi has made sure that the engagement with Pakistan is non existent.

Please advise the Pakistani PM regarding how development should be done in Pakistan.

 

[Suleiman]

Hindus and India has moved away from Pakistan and keep the bare minimum diplomatic and cultural relations. We do react if a security threat emerges from Pakistan.

While Pakistanis are obsessed with who India votes to power, who fought whom or who died where, which country India is supporting in the middle east, which religious structure was built or destroyed, etc etc etc.

Modi has made sure that the engagement with Pakistan is non existent.

Please advise the Pakistani PM regarding how development should be done in Pakistan.

Love how you always come with these things with a one way traffic type mentality.

You say Pakistanis are obsessed with India, which may be true for some, yet you’ve been on a Pakistani forum for the better part of a decade trying to prove India’s superiority over Pakistan in p much any discussion even vaguely related to the two, yet Pakistanis are more obsessed? Plenty of other Indians on here who do the same.

India hasn’t moved away from Pakistan, neither Pakistan from India. Open your eyes for once and see the world in a zoomed out view.

 

[maverick85]

Hindus and India has moved away from Pakistan and keep the bare minimum diplomatic and cultural relations. We do react if a security threat emerges from Pakistan.

While Pakistanis are obsessed with who India votes to power, who fought whom or who died where, which country India is supporting in the middle east, which religious structure was built or destroyed, etc etc etc.

Modi has made sure that the engagement with Pakistan is non existent.

Please advise the Pakistani PM regarding how development should be done in Pakistan.

...But, but your chaddi brigade (of which your illiterate chaiwalla leaders is a member of) obsesses over mahan Bharat from Bengaul to Afghanistan. You, a West Bengauli amarbandubhai, also obsess over Kashmir. Who obsesses over who?

 

[Napa]

Disgusting post Justifying oppression and tyranny You should be ashamed

Whether the jews were native or driven out 2500 yrs ago haa nothing to do with what is going on in palestime today The killings, apartheid, oppression and settlements on palestinian land cannot be justifed Have your state but not at the expense or ethnic cleansing of palestinians

Its crazy and stupid that israel can hide behind and call out criticism directed at the state as anti semetic Its as stupid like saying any criticism of saudi for their disgusting human rights is islamophobic

And by your metric like the poster above has said
The hindus need to stop obsessing about pakistan and kashnir It is just holding them back.

The indians have land and resources at least 20 times more than kashmir And what have they done with it? Constantly fighting with pakistan for kashmir is a distraction on some real development they can be making rather than living as a third world nation in poverty

I am not justifying the killing of civilians. However, from an Israeli point of view, all invasions lead to massacres of civilians and they are doing what was done to them to get back the land that was theirs.

If Indians were obsessed about Kashmir they would be raising it at every possible international forum. Rather it is Pakistan who does that, not India.

Your tone precludes the possibility of a polite discussion, hence no more replies to you.

 

[ManFan]

I am not justifying the killing of civilians. However, from an Israeli point of view, all invasions lead to massacres of civilians and they are doing what was done to them to get back the land that was theirs.

If Indians were obsessed about Kashmir they would be raising it at every possible international forum. Rather it is Pakistan who does that, not India.

Your tone precludes the possibility of a polite discussion, hence no more replies to you.

You run away from all discussions. Typical.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It was not Palestinian land.

Israelis immigrants bought the land legally from landlords in that region, eventually forming a majority in many regions of Palestine.

This in itself shows how naive Palestinians were, and also how arabs of that time must have lived on relatively good terms with their Jewish countrymen. They would not have dreamed at that time that selling property to Jews would eventually lead from them being expelled from their own homes in favour of Jews from foreign shores.

 

[cricketjoshila]

...But, but your chaddi brigade (of which your illiterate chaiwalla leaders is a member of) obsesses over mahan Bharat from Bengaul to Afghanistan. You, a West Bengauli amarbandubhai, also obsess over Kashmir. Who obsesses over who?

Here you go.....Did i talk about any mullah brigade in pakistan, not bothered about it.

Show me a statement from Govt of India talking about India from Afganistan to Bengal.

Kashmir is a part of India. As an Indian i can go to Srinagar or Gulmarg anytime i want, where as you wont get to go there, yet pakistanis are obsessed over it.

 

[Zaz]

It was not Palestinian land.

Israelis immigrants bought the land legally from landlords in that region, eventually forming a majority in many regions of Palestine.

Thats preposterous Just because i a native muslim buys land or property in the uk and then a lot of muslims follow me buying property in the uk forming a small majority in that area does that make the land muslim land?

Its still the property of the british We cant decide to annex the area because we have a majority in tht region now and form a country for muslims

Id like to see the uk govt hand over the key to that part of the country to me and not complain

How does that sound?

 

[Civil]

It was not Palestinian land.

Israelis immigrants bought the land legally from landlords in that region, eventually forming a majority in many regions of Palestine. When the Ottomans lost the first world war to the Allied powers, the US and British decided that Ottoman administered Palestine would be divided into regions based on people's self-determination. The right of jewish self determination and arab self determination thus came into question - a consequence of war. That is fair.

There is no way Israeli migrants legally had bought all the land that was provided to them in the 1948 borders. If you read up on the Nakba even from many modern Israeli historians you will see how Jewish paramilitaries slaughtered and displaced 1000s of villages, after doing months of pre planning and reconnaissance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

"By the end of the British Mandate period in 1948, Jewish farmers had cultivated 425,450 dunams of land, while Palestinian farmers had 5,484,700 dunams of land under cultivation.[13]"

 

[maverick85]

Here you go.....Did i talk about any mullah brigade in pakistan, not bothered about it.

Show me a statement from Govt of India talking about India from Afganistan to Bengal.

Kashmir is a part of India. As an Indian i can go to Srinagar or Gulmarg anytime i want, where as you wont get to go there, yet pakistanis are obsessed over it.

I guess so like the West Bengaulis obsessed over going to Bangladesh yet they were able to post 1971. I'm sure the Srinagar residents love hosting your outwardly boastful hindutva presence there... Our are you one of those meek closet hindutvavadis?

 

[Robert]

Where is the occupation - you do know that the land captured by Israel in 1967 was due to a war initiated by the Arabs ?

The clue is in the term “occupied territories”.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The clue is in the term “occupied territories”.

Is it occupied or conquered territory?

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=29115]RexRex[/MENTION] the Six Day War of 1967 was started by Israel, when the Egyptian Air Force was destroyed on the ground in a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Zaz]

Is it occupied or conquered territory?

Occupied

 

[cricketjoshila]

Occupied

How? Israel militarily conquered Jerusalem. No?

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=29115]RexRex[/MENTION] the Six Day War of 1967 was started by Israel, when the Egyptian Air Force was destroyed on the ground in a pre-emptive strike.

No naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran?

 

[ManFan]

No naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran?

“General Rikhye sought to downplay the importance that Israel attached to keeping that waterway open, saying that Israel's accusation in 1967 of a blockade was "questionable" given that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that "The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation".

 

[PakLFC]

He did not say anything anti-sematic. Only suggested the Jews have he western media in their pocket that is true.

 

[Giannis]

You have summed it up perfectly. Listen to Alan Dershowitz's recent interview, who is a pro-Israel Harvard professor. He said Palestine could have been the Paris of the Middle East if they had chosen that route after 1948. Instead, look at where they are now after all the religious turmoil.

This is a colossal failure of the corrupt Palestinian leadership and the surrounding Arab nations. They refused to accept the two-state solution when they had a chance. No one else can be blamed for the state that Palestine is in today.

Yeah we're gonna quote Pedo Dershowitz what next, his buddy Epstein? Israel has some great advocates

 

[Robert]

He did not say anything anti-sematic. Only suggested the Jews have he western media in their pocket that is true.

This comment is itself antiSemitic. Shocking that you don’t understand that you have made a racist remark.

 

[Zaz]

How? Israel militarily conquered Jerusalem. No?

Territorial conquest is illegal under intnl law

And under intl law it is palestinian land and israel are illegally occupying it Hope that easy enough to understand

 

[Mamoon]

Quite amateurish line of thinking. One can easily distinguish between mutual exclusive principles.

- A nation can be leading in academia, research and science yet still be oppressing a minority population and contravening UN resolutions.

In the same way

- A nation could be an emerging superpower and the worlds manufacturer but still be sterilising a minority population.

- A person can be world leading film producer but still be horribly misogynistic;

- A cricket team can be the best in the world but still have culture of racism;

Etc..

Point being brilliance in one field doesn't negate serious flaws in conduct - it's the conduct that is being challenged. No one should be above the law.

The amateurish line of thinking is the belief that the powerful states should gang up on Israel and put an end to the sufferings of the Palestinians.

That is not happening now and will not happen in the future. For these powerful states, there is is nothing to be gained by opposing Israel and siding with the Palestinians.

Israel, because of its achievements, has positioned itself on the globe in a very commanding position.

As far as international law is concerned, it only exists in name only. There is no effective mechanism to enforce international law because the international institutions are at the mercy of the powerful states, and all of them are on Israel’s side.

We can forever debate about what is wrong and what is right, what is immoral and unethical, but the reality is that international relations and international politics are not governed by morality.

Even countries that support Palestine can only offer verbal assistance. For example, Pakistan can make a lot of noise, but it will never take concrete action against Israel’s technologically-advanced military and also because daddy China has a trade deal with Israel worth billions of dollars.

One call from Beijing to Islamabad would be sufficient to knock Pakistan back into senses.

The only long-term solution is for the Palestinians to swallow their pride and accept that Israel is far more powerful with far more powerful friends. They have to live with the reality of the state of Israel.

If they do not do that, they will continue to lose their children and innocent civilians in this David vs Goliath fight while the rest of the world, the so-called supporters of the Palestinian cause, will be watching from the sidelines and offering verbal support.

 

[Mamoon]

The state being offered to Palestinians is not one worth having. Palestine would have to be demilitarized. Israel would control their borders, and airspace. To enter their own country they would have to go through Israeli security. They would have limited foreign relations, they could not join international organizations without Israel's permission.

And what alternative does Palestine have? Are they waiting for divine intervention and the fulfillment of some religious prophecy?

 

[Mamoon]

Could have used the same reasoning for Germany in 1939. Were they also revered and respected?

Yes to an extent, but the dynamics are different.

The U.S., Britain and France effectively ensured the destruction of Germany after WWI before Hitler transformed Germany.

That respect quickly turned into fear because of the expansionism that threatened Britain’s status, and hence the subsequent Second World War which led to the rise of USA and USSR as the two major power.

Israel does not pose any threat to the West or to China or the rich Middle-Eastern countries.

Only paper tigers and empty vessels like Pakistan and the likes of Turkey who also suffer from acute identity crisis have a problem with Israel.

Religious prophecies will not destroy Israel and neither will there be any divine intervention.

 

[dblock]

The amateurish line of thinking is the belief that the powerful states should gang up on Israel and put an end to the sufferings of the Palestinians.

That is not happening now and will not happen in the future. For these powerful states, there is is nothing to be gained by opposing Israel and siding with the Palestinians.

Israel, because of its achievements, has positioned itself on the globe in a very commanding position.

As far as international law is concerned, it only exists in name only. There is no effective mechanism to enforce international law because the international institutions are at the mercy of the powerful states, and all of them are on Israel’s side.

We can forever debate about what is wrong and what is right, what is immoral and unethical, but the reality is that international relations and international politics are not governed by morality.

Even countries that support Palestine can only offer verbal assistance. For example, Pakistan can make a lot of noise, but it will never take concrete action against Israel’s technologically-advanced military and also because daddy China has a trade deal with Israel worth billions of dollars.

One call from Beijing to Islamabad would be sufficient to knock Pakistan back into senses.

The only long-term solution is for the Palestinians to swallow their pride and accept that Israel is far more powerful with far more powerful friends. They have to live with the reality of the state of Israel.

If they do not do that, they will continue to lose their children and innocent civilians in this David vs Goliath fight while the rest of the world, the so-called supporters of the Palestinian cause, will be watching from the sidelines and offering verbal support.

We are all aware of the current power balance, doesn't need a copy and paste for you to try to make the situation clearer.

Your argument that everyone should go home and accept the realties, inferring the Palestinians who have been asked to be evicted from their current home, should quietly hand them over, may seem logical to you but on the ground clearly isn't. Are you asking these people to live quietly on the streets? So naturally there will be tension - and will continue to flare up periodically as we've seen in the last month.

Thus leaving the wider world free to comment, protest, lobby if they deem the conduct not acceptable. Perhaps their voices are insignificance to change the grand balance of power, but then same is applied to all people posting here - fairly insignificant and powerless.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Territorial conquest is illegal under intnl law

And under intl law it is palestinian land and israel are illegally occupying it Hope that easy enough to understand

Tibet was conquered by China. Crimea by Russia.Turkish invasion of Cyprus and many more.

Territorial conquest is as legal as it was when Muslims conquered Jerusalem.

Since we are talking international law, Hamas is banned by most major countries. International law also doesn't support other countries interfering in another sovereign state.

 

[Giannis]

Tibet was conquered by China. Crimea by Russia.Turkish invasion of Cyprus and many more.

Territorial conquest is as legal as it was when Muslims conquered Jerusalem.

Since we are talking international law, Hamas is banned by most major countries. International law also doesn't support other countries interfering in another sovereign state.

Annexation is in fact illegal under international law - Article 2(4) of the UN charter.

Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the middle ages, the UN was formed after world war 2.

 

[RexRex]

They had a majority in some tiny areas but the partition plan gave them more than half of palestine when their population was what 1/5 of the overall population

No wonder the arabs thought that was unfair

Partition was done fairly. The land aread that had Jewish majority was allocated to Israel and those with Arab majority was allocated to Palestine. Palestine got most of the useable, fertile land in 1947.

 

[RexRex]

[MENTION=29115]RexRex[/MENTION] the Six Day War of 1967 was started by Israel, when the Egyptian Air Force was destroyed on the ground in a pre-emptive strike.

That would be termed as hostile aggression not necessarily an act of war

The fact is the first military strikes were carried out by israel starting the war

Both of you are wrong and peddling an outright lie. There is no dispute about the origins of the war. Claiming Israel started the six-day war is like saying the Taj Majal was built by the Vikings.

This is straight from the horse's mouth, General Nasser of Egypt, then leader, “We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel . . . the objective will be Israel’s destruction.”

 

[RexRex]

There is no way Israeli migrants legally had bought all the land that was provided to them in the 1948 borders.

Yes, they did. Additional land was captured only after Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab states started the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Even then, after the 1948 war, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan occupied West Bank instead of handing it over to the Palestinians.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes to an extent, but the dynamics are different.

The U.S., Britain and France effectively ensured the destruction of Germany after WWI before Hitler transformed Germany.

That respect quickly turned into fear because of the expansionism that threatened Britain’s status, and hence the subsequent Second World War which led to the rise of USA and USSR as the two major power.

Israel does not pose any threat to the West or to China or the rich Middle-Eastern countries.

Only paper tigers and empty vessels like Pakistan and the likes of Turkey who also suffer from acute identity crisis have a problem with Israel.

Religious prophecies will not destroy Israel and neither will there be any divine intervention.

Similarly western reverence for Israeli is now turning into disquiet as Israeli settlements encroach deeper into Palestinian territory and forces civilians out of their homes. Not reflected officially by the govts, but if you watch British news programmes or read reports of protests, then you would realise this. Reverence for Israel stopped some time ago.

 

[RexRex]

Thats preposterous Just because i a native muslim buys land or property in the uk and then a lot of muslims follow me buying property in the uk forming a small majority in that area does that make the land muslim land?

Its still the property of the british We cant decide to annex the area because we have a majority in tht region now and form a country for muslims

Id like to see the uk govt hand over the key to that part of the country to me and not complain

How does that sound?

Your analogy is wrong. No comparison with land buying in modern UK is proper.

Palestine was governed by the Ottomans till around 1920. Then they lost the first World War and the British came to control the territory. Brits decided to create nation states in Palestine based on who owned the land and the right of self-determination. What is wrong with that? There was no concept of Palestine as a nation back then, just arab people scattered over various arab states in that region.

 

[Zaz]

Tibet was conquered by China. Crimea by Russia.Turkish invasion of Cyprus and many more.

Territorial conquest is as legal as it was when Muslims conquered Jerusalem.

Since we are talking international law, Hamas is banned by most major countries. International law also doesn't support other countries interfering in another sovereign state.

Nope Territorial conquest isnt legal Just because some do it and get away with doesnt make it fine or legal

Read what the intl law says Its not your opinion or mine that matters

Hamas is seen as terror by some not most There are many that dont recognise them as a terror organisation

Just as israel isnt recognised as many nations either and some consider them as a illegal terror state

It depends on what side of the line you are

 

[Zaz]

Your analogy is wrong. No comparison with land buying in modern UK is proper.

Palestine was governed by the Ottomans till around 1920. Then they lost the first World War and the British came to control the territory. Brits decided to create nation states in Palestine based on who owned the land and the right of self-determination. What is wrong with that? There was no concept of Palestine as a nation back then, just arab people scattered over various arab states in that region.

No sorry Thats an outright lie The jewish didnt own the majority of the land in palestine in 1948 Nor did they have a majority population at that time

There was no justification for them to gain the majority of the partioned land

 

[Itachi]

Nope Territorial conquest isnt legal Just because some do it and get away with doesnt make it fine or legal

Read what the intl law says Its not your opinion or mine that matters

Hamas is seen as terror by some not most There are many that dont recognise them as a terror organisation

Just as israel isnt recognised as many nations either and some consider them as a illegal terror state

It depends on what side of the line you are

Any law is subjected to interpretation.

 

[Zaz]

Any law is subjected to interpretation.

The law is the law How is it subject to interpretation?

 

[Itachi]

The law is the law How is it subject to interpretation?

heh? that's one of the basic duties of supreme/federal court of any country. The judicial body of international court will also give interpretation of law from time to time.

 

[Zaz]

heh? that's one of the basic duties of supreme/federal court of any country. The judicial body of international court will also give interpretation of law from time to time.

Ok Please let me know what the UN says on the west bank and gaza ?

The longstanding position of the UN regarding Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory – that they are in breach of international law – is unchanged, Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said during a press briefing on Tuesday in New York

Seems fairly straight forward to me

 

[MenInG]

So we are clear on this

1. "This is not your business"
2. "We can do what we like in our country"
3. "Dont poke your nose in our business"
4. You are Pakistani/Indian so dont talk about my country (Pakistan/India)

Are not the sorts of arguments that we want to see posted on PP

All views are welcome and should be respected

Lets keep this in mind.

Thanks

 

[RexRex]

No sorry Thats an outright lie The jewish didnt own the majority of the land in palestine in 1948 Nor did they have a majority population at that time

Where did I say Jews were majority population in Palestine in 1948 ? Where did I say Jews were majority landowners in Palestine in 1948 ? Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[Itachi]

Ok Please let me know what the UN says on the west bank and gaza ?

The longstanding position of the UN regarding Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory – that they are in breach of international law – is unchanged, Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said during a press briefing on Tuesday in New York

Seems fairly straight forward to me

From ICJ we have come to UN. May I ask why?

The law will be interpreted by ICJ. What UN states may change if ICJ interprets differently since though ICJ belongs to UN, it is still the judicial body.

UN doesn't create law. ICJ does as the judicial body body of UN.

Can you state which one I should take since both are different bodies and hence the arguments will be different?

 

[Zaz]

Where did I say Jews were majority population in Palestine in 1948 ? Where did I say Jews were majority landowners in Palestine in 1948 ? Did you even read what I wrote?

So you agree the partition plan was unfair in relation to the distribuition of land as the jewish population was a significant minority in terms of population and land ownership

Thankyou

 

[Civil]

Yes, they did. Additional land was captured only after Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab states started the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Even then, after the 1948 war, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan occupied West Bank instead of handing it over to the Palestinians.

No... tons of Land was illegally captured (not bought) by Israel prior to the 1948. Once again there is no way they bought all this land and were a settled state that only expanded after being attacked as you are implying.

just backtrack a few months to British leaving Palestine. Israel was pegged to have slightly more than half of palestine in the 1947 UN plan upon partition. They were marked to receive land in that UN plan that they had not bought. In fact they expelled and killed many Palestinians on it.

Sources will confirm there is no way they had already bought the land they were receiving from the UN.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/05/selling-land-to-jews.html

Quote from above article
"Very little of the land owned today by individual Jews and the Israeli government was acquired by purchase"

 

[Zaz]

From ICJ we have come to UN. May I ask why?

The law will be interpreted by ICJ. What UN states may change if ICJ interprets differently since though ICJ belongs to UN, it is still the judicial body.

UN doesn't create law. ICJ does as the judicial body body of UN.

Can you state which one I should take since both are different bodies and hence the arguments will be different?

Ok Does the icj interpret it differently tho? Why are you talking about something that may or not happen in future

What is the fact and legal interpretation on the status of the occupied territory at the moment according to the icj?

Thats what relevant Answer the qs pls

 

[Itachi]

Ok Does the icj interpret it differently tho? Why are you talking about something that may or not happen in future

What is the fact and legal interpretation on the status of the occupied territory at the moment according to the icj?

Thats what relevant Answer the qs pls

The states have appealed and verdicts are given on case to case basis. There's no universal verdict as of now regarding the status.

 

[RexRex]

So you agree the partition plan was unfair in relation to the distribuition of land as the jewish population was a significant minority in terms of population and land ownership

Thankyou

Did the Palestinians reject the UN partition plan of 1947 because they thought that the

a) as you say, plan had unfair distribution of land between the two states

OR

b) state of Israel had no right to exist, so there should be no partition at all.


Be honest when you reply. The history on this absolutely clear and documented.

 

[RexRex]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/05/selling-land-to-jews.html

Quote from above article
"Very little of the land owned today by individual Jews and the Israeli government was acquired by purchase"

The article is right.

Land owned today by Israel = Land they bought legally since 1880 + Land allotted during 1947 partition + Land they captured fighting two wars in 1948 and 1967

Israel offfered to return the captured lands in exchange for peace with Syria and Jordan but both these states refused. Don't blame Israel for that.

 

[Zaz]

The states have appealed and verdicts are given on case to case basis. There's no universal verdict as of now regarding the status.

Im asking no what the states think or whether theres an appeal or not

Whats the legal status of the occupied territories at the moment? Its not a difficult question

 

[Civil]

The article is right.

Land owned today by Israel = Land they bought legally since 1880 + Land allotted during 1947 partition + Land they captured fighting two wars in 1948 and 1967

Israel offfered to return the captured lands in exchange for peace with Syria and Jordan but both these states refused. Don't blame Israel for that.

Your posts #136 and #103 have now been proven wrong, with the very equation you have deduced from the article.

PS. The article also mentions the unfair expulsion of Palestinians in those 1947 lands. This is being accepted even by many modern Jewish historians.

Now that we have concluded the land bought was very miniscule and Israelis were not a majority in 1947 plan , Let's move onto the second part of your equation and how it involves mass murder and ethnic cleansing (Nakba).


https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...g-of-nakba-israel-palestine-1948-gaza/560294/

That context is also important to the third and fourth part of your equation, i.e Arab Israeli wars.

 

[Itachi]

Im asking no what the states think or whether theres an appeal or not

Whats the legal status of the occupied territories at the moment? Its not a difficult question

I am not talking about states. The states appealed but ICJ hasn't given any verdict as universal judgement rather case to case basis where sometimes it's the plaintiff and sometimes it's the defendent where the judgement goes.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Of course, there has to be a demilitarized Palestinian state. Initially, there will have to a demilitarized zone to ensure peace and later a review of the situation can take place. That is the price you pay when start a war and lose it in six days. The losing party doesn't get to call the shots and terms of surrender.

Inspite of being victors, Israel in 2000 offered to give back the Gaza Strip and 95% of West Bank and the arrogant Arafat still refused it ! They have only themselves to blame.

This is not out of any benevolence. Its because if they annex Gaza and the West Bank the population of a "Greater Israel" will be 50% Jewish 50% Palestinian.

 

[RexRex]

Your posts #136 and #103 have now been proven wrong, with the very equation you have deduced from the article.

How?

PS. The article also mentions the unfair expulsion of Palestinians in those 1947 lands. This is being accepted even by many modern Jewish historians.

No.
The article makes quite clear that all the land was purchased by Jews legally from absentee Lebanese and Syrian landlords with money from the Jewish National Fund. Landowners decide who work and live on their land.

Now that we have concluded the land bought was very miniscule and Israelis were not a majority in 1947 plan , Let's move onto the second part of your equation and how it involves mass murder and ethnic cleansing (Nakba).


https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...g-of-nakba-israel-palestine-1948-gaza/560294/

That context is also important to the third and fourth part of your equation, i.e Arab Israeli wars.

What is the Nakba argument? You can sum it up in a couple of short paragraphs because I am not going to read entire articles that you post here, don't have the time for that.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

What are you implying - that Jews didn't have a right to exist as a sovereign state in 1948?

Yep. In 47 Israel should not have been created and it was a travesty to the native population, that a bunch of Europeans with no ties to the land were sent there because allegedly their ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago.

However what is done is done. Its not realistic to expel 7 million Jews, so my favored solution is the One State Solution. One democratic state with equal rights for every one. And if Jews are allowed to immigrate to this state because their ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago, then surely Palestinian refuges who know exactly which city, town, or village their family came from, should also be allowed to go there.

Israel wont annex Gaza, but they might be able willing to annex the West Bank. Palestinians will be approx 40% of the population then, and it wont be seen as a Jewish state by the rest of the world.

And then through intermarriage get the Palestinians refugees who are outside of Israel/Palestine right now to come back through that way. It will take some time, but Palestinians will eventually be the majority once again in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.