[Rich]

The fact is this, - in 1947 the world decreed the establishment of a Jewish State. This is all you need to know.

That's a Jewish supremacist lie. Jews controlled the US Congress and they had the support of Stalin. Pretty much the rest of world in 1947 was enslaved by the Soviet Union or dependant on US good will. Just take China and the Indian Sub continent for starters they were both engulfed in civil war, the idea that the mass of people in the world gave a toss about Palestine is an idiotic joke.

We saw already even in 1917, the incredible power of international Jewry, when the British foreign minster in the middle of a world war involving hundreds of million of Muslims, felt compelled to write to a Jewish banker promising him Palestine after the war in payment to the Jews for bringing the United States into the war..

[skinster]

blah blah blah when you can't attack my reasoning , YOU ATTACK ME PERSONALLY! Classic! blah blah blah

OK dude with 28 posts on this website, all of which are attempting to polish the barbaric turd known as "Israel".

I've encountered more convincing hasbara trolls than you. Thanks for trying.

[pugsville]

I know what the majority of the world thinks of Israel holding the West bank. They call it occupation. So, what? The world does not have a legal mechanism to solve this problem, so the World can call it anything the world wants to call it. Is it an occupation? Perhaps…perhaps not. Who is to adjudicate this issue?

I would have thought the bodies created for this purpose. The UN, the Interntal Court of Justice.

They have it's an occupation.

You are inventing history here. The Jews have always lived in Judea or Palestine if you prefer. Always…uninterrupted, from the time they settled the land 4500 years ago. There have always been Jewish villages in the past 2000 years. Look up the published data.

No you are inventing history here. There was a Jewish presence , a very small one. The Vast majority of Jews were very very recent immigrants. The presence of a very small group of Jews in Palestine does not change that in any way,

The presence of a very small minority of some ethnic group in a area does that some how give all members of that ethnic group world wide , most of whose ancestors left whta 2,000 years ago have rights over that area? If so why cannot the Arab refugee descendants return? 80 years compred to 2,000

Most immigration to Palestine happened in the past 200 years, - both Arabs and Jews came there. Again, look up the census available on the net!

Yes and those figures prove there was no large scale Arab immigration into Palestine.

You have no idea where the Jews preferred to live. Do you have a study that asked that question? Some Jews preferred Canada, some America and some preferred Israel! You are simply generating here. Generalization are not an intelligent argument to have!

That the vast majority of Jews preferred iup until the 1030s to immigrate to the Americas rather than Palestine, is just an historical fact. Many more did so when there was a choice before almost all countries closed their doors.More Jews were leaving Palestine than arriving when almost total immigration bans in teh Amercas came into force.

Not opinion historical fact.

The fact is this, - in 1947 there were 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews in Palestine. The fact is this, - in 1947 the world decreed the establishment of a Jewish State. This is all you need to know.

The overwhelmingly majority of Jews were very very recent immigrants the overwhelmingly majority of Arabs were along established population. It's colonizers versus the native population.

I said, that Israel cannot be accused of negotiating in bad faith because Israel put on the table multiple peace offers and the Arabs walked away from all of them, while suggesting nothing in return, short of the demand that Israel simply cease to exist and the Jews pack up and leave. I know that the Arabs did not say this the way I said it, but their demand would lead to exactly the outcome as I said it.

While Israel Stalls on real negotiations and continues it's settlement expansion and conquest of the wets bank, it is not negotiating in good faith.

Further, - I said that the 2-state solution was never really an objective goal of anybody. It was a leap-service to the naïve and gullible. Both Arabs and Israelis understood that. They played that game for the naïve and gullible.

This directly conducts your proir statement about Israeli offers. You are arguing two contradictory arguments at the same time. Make your mind up.

[Metoo]

That's ( …” in 1947 the world decreed the establishment of a Jewish State…”a Jewish supremacist lie.

I don’t get it. Are you saying that United Nations DID NOT decree the creation of Israel in 1947?
On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end.

Please look it up! Although I sense that your comment had to do with something else, - perhaps you are hinting at the Jewish conspiracy that led to the creation Israel, - are you?

Jews controlled the US Congress and they had the support of Stalin. Pretty much the rest of world in 1947 was enslaved by the Soviet Union or dependant on US good will. Just take China and the Indian Sub continent for starters they were both engulfed in civil war, the idea that the mass of people in the world gave a toss about Palestine is an idiotic joke.
We saw already even in 1917, the incredible power of international Jewry, when the British foreign minster in the middle of a world war involving hundreds of million of Muslims, felt compelled to write to a Jewish banker promising him Palestine after the war in payment to the Jews for bringing the United States into the war..

Yes, I knew it! It is the conspiracy that you are so fond off! So the Stalin and the US Congress were both in the pockets of the Jews, right? Did you ever read Solzhenitsyn? Perhaps you should…You know, Stalin had no love for the Jews. On his hand-written and personally signed orders tens of thousands were shot and tens of millions were imprisoned then ultimately died. Proportionately too many were the Jews! Stalin was a closet anti-Semite. His famous Doctor trial in 1952 had only Jews as accused. There are many more examples of his ‘love’ for the Jews. Sure..sure, - Stalin was in the Jew’s pocket! There is much information about Stalin’s hatred for the Jews, - Google is your friend.

USSR under Stalin gave political support for Israel, political only, nothing else, while setting up anti-Zionists committees and establishing Jewish autonomous region next to the Chinese border in the Far East. Great deal, if ask me, - sure the Jews do come from that area, right?

Yes, the US Congress was controlled by the Jews! Sure..sure…Funny thing is that your conspiratorial mind only see the Jews as conspirators. Do you think that the Pakistanis conspired in order to establish Pakistan? Or the Arabs conspired to establish Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Check the dates, - those countries were set-up at around the same time as Israel. I bet you are fine with those ’conspiracies’ but you are clearly suggesting that US Congress, while in the pocket of the Jews, set-up the vote in UN.

I think that the Jews work hard and they achieve more than most, because they work hard, not because of conspiracies. The Jews manage to build a functioning country with a functioning economy in the middle of the sea of Arabs, regardless of what the Arab’s actions were. That is an accomplishment, not a conspiracy. Support of Jewish bankers and world-wide Jewish community is not a conspiracy, it is a helping hand to the young country with a huge promise. And that promise did pay off.

Anyway, if you have a problem with establishment of Israel, do not cry here, do complain to United Nations, they set that country up.

[Metoo]

I would have thought the bodies created for this purpose. The UN, the Interntal Court of Justice.

They have it's an occupation.


No you are inventing history here. There was a Jewish presence , a very small one. The Vast majority of Jews were very very recent immigrants. The presence of a very small group of Jews in Palestine does not change that in any way,

The presence of a very small minority of some ethnic group in a area does that some how give all members of that ethnic group world wide , most of whose ancestors left whta 2,000 years ago have rights over that area? If so why cannot the Arab refugee descendants return? 80 years compred to 2,000


Yes and those figures prove there was no large scale Arab immigration into Palestine.


That the vast majority of Jews preferred iup until the 1030s to immigrate to the Americas rather than Palestine, is just an historical fact. Many more did so when there was a choice before almost all countries closed their doors.More Jews were leaving Palestine than arriving when almost total immigration bans in teh Amercas came into force.

Not opinion historical fact.


The overwhelmingly majority of Jews were very very recent immigrants the overwhelmingly majority of Arabs were along established population. It's colonizers versus the native population.



While Israel Stalls on real negotiations and continues it's settlement expansion and conquest of the wets bank, it is not negotiating in good faith.


This directly conducts your proir statement about Israeli offers. You are arguing two contradictory arguments at the same time. Make your mind up.

I don’t get what you are arguing here. Yes, - from 16 century on, Muslims always outnumbered the Jews, but you cannot say that the Jewish numbers were insignificant. Again, look up the census if you need more information.

However, none of the old Ottoman census are relevant today. What is relevant is that Israel is a fact on the ground, a recognized country with a functioning infrastructure and economic power house. None of Israeli Arab neighbors can say the same, as they are mostly dysfunctional or outright failed countries that exist at the mercy of Western handouts.

Indeed, Israel is expending the settlements. Israel is settling Judea and Samaria, - the land that nobody at this time has a clear ownership too. The Palestinian Arabs do claim it, but they do not own it. They can claim anything they want, but it does not make it theirs and it makes no difference what UN or the courts say. The court in Hague has no jurisdiction on this matter and UN has no real power to effect any change.

While it is recognized by all involved that a compromise is in the best interest of all parties, it is my opinion which I can support, that Palestinian Arabs agenda does not include existence of Israel as a country. It is not what I say, it is what the Arabs who say it! Under those circumstances Israel can do whatever is in the best interest of Israeli citizens, - that is to settle the land in question disregarding the Arab’s rhetoric.

Now, - it is very possible that the Arabs might wise up and come to the negotiating table, - well, at that time everything may change. It is clear that the Arabs will never get what they want. It is also clear that the final compromise will not give Israel everything either. However, time is working for Israelis, as they continue to show the world that their management of the land in question is in the best interest of the world at large. The longer Arabs wait the less they will ultimately get. But then, again, nobody ever said that the Arabs have a gift for creative thinking.

It is very easy for you and the many others in Europe and in US to call what Israel is doing an occupation. I challenge you to think of the alternative! What do you think may, or shall I say, will happen if Israel suddenly pulls back to the border as outlined back in 1947? Do try to think this through though…

[pugsville]

I don’t get what you are arguing here. Yes, - from 16 century on, Muslims always outnumbered the Jews, but you cannot say that the Jewish numbers were insignificant. Again, look up the census if you need more information.

However, none of the old Ottoman census are relevant today. What is relevant is that Israel is a fact on the ground, a recognized country with a functioning infrastructure and economic power house. None of Israeli Arab neighbors can say the same, as they are mostly dysfunctional or outright failed countries that exist at the mercy of Western handouts.

Indeed, Israel is expending the settlements. Israel is settling Judea and Samaria, - the land that nobody at this time has a clear ownership too. The Palestinian Arabs do claim it, but they do not own it. They can claim anything they want, but it does not make it theirs and it makes no difference what UN or the courts say. The court in Hague has no jurisdiction on this matter and UN has no real power to effect any change.

While it is recognized by all involved that a compromise is in the best interest of all parties, it is my opinion which I can support, that Palestinian Arabs agenda does not include existence of Israel as a country. It is not what I say, it is what the Arabs who say it! Under those circumstances Israel can do whatever is in the best interest of Israeli citizens, - that is to settle the land in question disregarding the Arab’s rhetoric.

Now, - it is very possible that the Arabs might wise up and come to the negotiating table, - well, at that time everything may change. It is clear that the Arabs will never get what they want. It is also clear that the final compromise will not give Israel everything either. However, time is working for Israelis, as they continue to show the world that their management of the land in question is in the best interest of the world at large. The longer Arabs wait the less they will ultimately get. But then, again, nobody ever said that the Arabs have a gift for creative thinking.

It is very easy for you and the many others in Europe and in US to call what Israel is doing an occupation. I challenge you to think of the alternative! What do you think may, or shall I say, will happen if Israel suddenly pulls back to the border as outlined back in 1947? Do try to think this through though…

Teh VAST majority of the Jewish population at the time or partition were very very recent immigrants. The vast majority of the Palestinians were long resident population. That is the facts.

Would you agree to let a flood of immigrant into your country who are intend of forming their own country? Would you agree to a partition giving them half the country?

International law, the appropriate international bodies have ruled that Israeli settlement in the west bank is illegal. That the Israeli presence is an occupation. Israel has argued before courts that it has the rights of an occupier.

What rights do the Palestinians have in the west bank? The Israeli government colludes to deprive them of their land illegally under Israeli law, let alone international law.

Settlement has nothing to do with security. Calling for end of settlements or their removal in no way undermines Israeli security.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Settlement has nothing to do with security. Calling for end of settlements or their removal in no way undermines Israeli security.

Well actually Settlements do guarantee a security

without the army and the settlements the whole west bank is at their hands
meaning they could do anything launch a simple rocket or even use an MANPAD against commercial airlines
yes everything is that close the 67 borders mean a border 1 km from the Israeli international airport
we cant trust them and we will not allow them to have a country that will be just another step towards their agenda "Palestine from the river to the sea"
the only reasonable solution is that Jordan takes them back and takes responsibility for the west bank but neither the Jordanian king or the Fatah government would want that

[skinster]

^ savage colonialist settlers.

The West Bank is Palestinian territory according to all world bodies. zionists just love them that lebensraum tho.

[colliric]

Well actually Settlements do guarantee a security

without the army and the settlements the whole west bank is at their hands
meaning they could do anything launch a simple rocket or even use an MANPAD against commercial airlines
yes everything is that close the 67 borders mean a border 1 km from the Israeli international airport
we cant trust them and we will not allow them to have a country that will be just another step towards their agenda "Palestine from the river to the sea"
the only reasonable solution is that Jordan takes them back and takes responsibility for the west bank but neither the Jordanian king or the Fatah government would want that

Fuck off, your country agreed to the 1948 agreement and every other agreement since then that you would help them setup their country too.

Fucken reneggers Zionists are. Got what they wanted then trashed every agreement concerning helping the Palestinians setup their country too.

If Israel reneges on its promise to preserve the Status Quo on the Temple Mount forever, you better duck and cover. You know antisemitism will skyrocket again.

You create all your own problems (Even created Christianity AND INVENTED DOMESTIC TERRORISM, lol!).

Fact: Hamas and ISIS are Islam's modern day response to Judaism's Zealotes and Sicario....

[Zionist Nationalist]

Fuck off, your country agreed to the 1948 agreement and every other agreement since then that you would help them setup their country too.

Fucken reneggers Zionists are. Got what they wanted then trashed every agreement concerning helping the Palestinians setup their country too.

If Israel reneges on its promise to preserve the Status Quo on the Temple Mount forever, you better duck and cover. You know antisemitism will skyrocket again.

You create all your own problems (Even created Christianity AND INVENTED DOMESTIC TERRORISM, lol!).

Fact: Hamas and ISIS are Islam's modern day response to Judaism's Zealotes and Sicario....

The Arabs didnt respect the 1948 agreement so Israel has no reason to respect it either
We will not give them a country its simple as that.
I alredy stated why no point in repeating

[Metoo]

The VAST majority of the Jewish population at the time or partition were very very recent immigrants.

So were the Muslim Arabs! Although there were more of them, since the British allowed unrestricted Arab emigration into British Palestine. However, this is NOT relavent to the topic we are discussing! The numbers do not matter.

The vast majority of the Palestinians were long resident population. That is the facts.

No, this is not a fact. The Jews also were “…long resident population…”, albeit in less numbers. However, this is NOT relevant to the topic we are discussing! The numbers do not matter.

Would you agree to let a flood of immigrant into your country who are intend of forming their own country? Would you agree to a partition giving them half the country?

I do not have to agree to anything and neither do you… and neither did the Arabs back in 1947! Our, or theirs, collective opinion or desires had no legal standing and did not matter.

Legal authority in this matter, as far as 20th century international jurisprudence was concerned, was firmly in the hands of newly formed United Nations. I understand that the Arabs disagreed, - fine with me, - however, the only instrument that the Arabs had in their collective hands back then in 1947 when they disagreed with UN's decision, were to launch a grievance, or an appeal, with UN, i.e. formally object to the resolution 181, and wait up years for the objection to be heard and ruled upon, all the while the Jewish State of Israel could proceed… which they did not do…or, second option, is to launch a military campaign against Israel in the hope of defeating Israel, or shall I quote the Arabs, - “..Push the Jews in to the sea...”, which they did do ! This was the war of 1948…

That war, like all wars in the history of our planet had consequences, - the loser gets nothing and the victor gets everything. I hope you understand this. That war ended in a stalemate, but it might as well had ended in a Arab’s outright defeat, because in the end of that war, Israel remained and was not removed as the Arabs wanted, - so the Arabs did not accomplish their political goals and therefore LOST THAT WAR! …so they get nothing!

I do hope that you have the capacity to at least apply to Israel the same standards that you might apply to ANY OTHER NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET!

International law, the appropriate international bodies have ruled that Israeli settlement in the west bank is illegal. That the Israeli presence is an occupation. Israel has argued before courts that it has the rights of an occupier.

You may call it whatever you wish, - call it an occupation, I am fine with that. It might be that or it may not be…the international bodies you mentioned have no jurisdiction in this matter, - none! They can say whatever suits their political position, just like you may say whatever you want.

Don’t you understand that there is no court to go too and file a complaint, and UN today, unlike 1947, is totally impotent in this matter? It is too late to muscle Israel with proclamations and military option against Israel does not exist. This is the reason, why the Arabs are fighting in the court of public opinion and are attempting asinine strategies like the boycott and divestment, - none of it would work or has worked.

The only choice that Arabs have is to take what Israel is prepared to give them, - nothing else.

What rights do the Palestinians have in the west bank? The Israeli government colludes to deprive them of their land illegally under Israeli law, let alone international law.

Forget International Law, - for Arab-Israeli conflict it does not exist, - any international lawyer will tell you that. International law exists for human rights cases only, not for land disputes.

I agree that Israel has a separate legal system for the Arabs in the West Bank, and I agree that it is discriminatory, but, hey…it’s a tough love! The Arabs ‘bit more than they could chew’, as it were…Arab leadership in the West bank and Gaza led and continues to lead their people to this catastrophe. Israel is simply looking after their own interests only, which is objectionable, but understandable in the context of years of Arab terrorism and political intransigence.

Those are the facts. …and I wish it were different!

Settlement has nothing to do with security. Calling for end of settlements or their removal in no way undermines Israeli security.

You are fundamentally wrong.

Settlement policy is a creation of facts on the ground. It is a statement by Israel that that land is ancestral and historic Jewish Land, which frankly is difficult to disprove. It is also a a statement that that Land was never permanently settled by any, recognizable in the legal sense, entity. Palestine, as a country never existed, Jordan held it for 20 years with NO complaints from Arabs, and now Israel holds it. That is all.

If are concerned with Israeli security, then you should now that IDF is a guarantor of Israeli security and existence of settlements or lack thereof does not alter that equation.

[colliric]

It is a statement by Israel that that land is ancestral and historic Jewish Land, which frankly is difficult to disprove..

No it isn't.

A quick read of Flavius Josephus The Jewish Wars reveals that the Jews LOST all rights to the land and that in his opinion it was Divine Justice for the severe Torah violating sins of the Sanhedrin in particular.

Jesus told the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in relation to the Jewish claim to the land, so he obviously had the exact same opinion(And also was murdered by the Sanhedrin).

To use ancient religious texts erraniously to justify robbing people of land THEY CURRENTLY LEGALLY OWN, is disgusting. Frankly it's why anti-Semitism is on the rise again. You are stealing the Palestinians land because you "ancient text says God gave it to us FOREVERMORE"(No he didn't, he retained his rights as the divine landlord, and the tenants main representatives broke the agreement).

You are taking back this land in an illegal manner and shouldn't be surprised at the swift return of anti-semitic attitudes as a result.

You Jews like to interpret the Old Testament as an "eternal Covernant" but the straight text instead clearly indicates it was a lease destined to be replaced by a Brit Cadasha at the coming of the Messiah.

[pugsville]

So were the Muslim Arabs! Although there were more of them, since the British allowed unrestricted Arab emigration into British Palestine. However, this is NOT relavent to the topic we are discussing! The numbers do not matter.
.

That you are asserting a falsehood does. There was very very very little Ara immigration into Palestine. This is well and clealry documented.

No, this is not a fact. The Jews also were “…long resident population…”, albeit in less numbers. However, this is NOT relevant to the topic we are discussing! The numbers do not matter.

This is nonsense. Just because someone that your are vaguely related to is a resident does not mean you have resident rights. Teh Existsance of a small minority does not gives rights to everybody distantly relate to that small minority that have not lived there for thousands of years,

The argument is non-nonsensical,. Your statement is false ,The Jews also were long resident population, is not true, yes there were long reesident Jewish population but in the the sentence the Jews refers to a modern population which the vast majority were not. Language and logical atrocity.

I do not have to agree to anything and neither do you… and neither did the Arabs back in 1947! Our, or theirs, collective opinion or desires had no legal standing and did not matter.

Simple question. avoidence.

Legal authority in this matter, as far as 20th century international jurisprudence was concerned, was firmly in the hands of newly formed United Nations. I understand that the Arabs disagreed, - fine with me, - however, the only instrument that the Arabs had in their collective hands back then in 1947 when they disagreed with UN's decision, were to launch a grievance, or an appeal, with UN, i.e. formally object to the resolution 181, and wait up years for the objection to be heard and ruled upon, all the while the Jewish State of Israel could proceed…

But you don;t recognize the UN as being valid. Yourhaving it both ways. In any case there was massive bribery and intimidation on this vote.

which they did not do…or, second option, is to launch a military campaign against Israel in the hope of defeating Israel, or shall I quote the Arabs, - “..Push the Jews in to the sea...”, which they did do ! This was the war of 1948…

(a) Which Arabs? The Palestinian population was basically uninvolved in this war
(b) it was Israel which invaded Palestine.

That war, like all wars in the history of our planet had consequences, - the loser gets nothing and the victor gets everything. I hope you understand this. That war ended in a stalemate, but it might as well had ended in a Arab’s outright defeat, because in the end of that war, Israel remained and was not removed as the Arabs wanted, - so the Arabs did not accomplish their political goals and therefore LOST THAT WAR! …so they get nothing!

Which Arabs? The Jordanian Regime achieved most their goals, they wanted to annex the west bank. They never intended to invade Israel at no time entered the proposed Israeli partition state , they had strict orders of engagement not to. Th Various Arab states and the Palestinian population interests were not the same. Just putting actions and attitudes down to "the Arabs" is to greatly distort and misunderstand history,

I do hope that you have the capacity to at least apply to Israel the same standards that you might apply to ANY OTHER NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET!

I do,

You may call it whatever you wish, - call it an occupation, I am fine with that. It might be that or it may not be…the international bodies you mentioned have no jurisdiction in this matter, - none! They can say whatever suits their political position, just like you may say whatever you want.

As much as the UN had to partition the Palestinian mandate. You could be consistent.

Don’t you understand that there is no court to go too and file a complaint, and UN today, unlike 1947, is totally impotent in this matter? It is too late to muscle Israel with proclamations and military option against Israel does not exist. This is the reason, why the Arabs are fighting in the court of public opinion and are attempting asinine strategies like the boycott and divestment, - none of it would work or has worked.

We can accurately understand the history.

The only choice that Arabs have is to take what Israel is prepared to give them, - nothing else.

No they have other choices, not any of them good.

Forget International Law, - for Arab-Israeli conflict it does not exist, - any international lawyer will tell you that. International law exists for human rights cases only, not for land disputes.

simply not true.

I agree that Israel has a separate legal system for the Arabs in the West Bank, and I agree that it is discriminatory, but, hey…it’s a tough love!

It's not love, Israel does not have the Palestinians best interests at heart,

The Arabs ‘bit more than they could chew’, as it were…Arab leadership in the West bank and Gaza led and continues to lead their people to this catastrophe.

Which Arab leadership? The Palestinain leadership has not been great but when the Israelis quashed , deported, imprisoned any reasonable leadership in the wets bank and Gaza is the reason we winded up with the PLO being recognized.


Which is a response to years of Israeli terrorism and political intransigence.


Were people lived two thousand years ago is no basis for land rights, settlement today. Are you going to apply this universally as a principle? You think teh USA should be evcated and handed over to the natives?

the Argument is absurd, illogical and complete and utter rubbish.

So you agree with me that the settlements are not relevant to security,

[Metoo]

A quick read of Flavius Josephus The Jewish Wars reveals that the Jews LOST all rights to the land and that in his opinion it was Divine Justice for the severe Torah violating sins of the Sanhedrin in particular.

Jesus told the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in relation to the Jewish claim to the land, so he obviously had the exact same opinion(And also was murdered by the Sanhedrin).

Are you kidding? This is not a Biblical Criticism forum. This is politics forum! Who cares what Josephus said or what Torah prescribed? I read Josephus too and I must tell you that all his work is highly suspect, because he was writing for the Roman audience and therefore was totally biased.

To use ancient religious texts erraniously to justify robbing people of land THEY CURRENTLY LEGALLY OWN, is disgusting.

Nobody has EVER used any ancient texts to justify ANYTHING! No Israeli Government ever used Torah as a justification for holding on to any land. There was, and still is, only one mechanism that allows Israel to hold on to the land, - any and all land that is held by Israel currently.

That mechanism is based on a fact that West Bank, as you call it, or as Israel calls it Judea and Samaria, has never been a possession of any recognizable entity after 1947. It was never Palestine or Jordan or Israel or Turkey or Britain…etc.

It was a land to which many entities, including a current Palestinian Authority Organization lay claim. Israel also claims it. Jordan no longer claims it. Britain no longer claims it and Turkey walked away in 1918. There is no one else! Unless you wanna claim it! Those are the facts, not because I say so, but because it is a reality on the ground.

Claiming the land is not synonymous with owning the land.

Further, - there is an ample legal precedence dictating, that ability to hold and administer the land improves the chances of successful land claim. Israel is ‘de facto’ holding the land in hope of negotiating a desired, for Israel, outcome. In international relations, this action goes in a following fashion, - ‘do what I say or talk to my gun’! Do you want legal examples from the history of the planet illustrating this colorful concept? I hope that you do not.

Israel laid out the conditions for negotiated settlement, - take it or leave it. I must point out that even from a very weak International Law perspective, the interest of a sovereign state goes BEFORE, or take precedents before, the interests of all other parties. To wit, - Palestinian Authority interest play a second fiddle to Israeli interests.

I hope that what I wrote above was enlightening to you. If not, or if you are confused, please take a course in international relations or political science.

Anyway, as I already told you, you have no legal case here. All you have is an emotional outburst. Get a grip!

Nobody robbed Palestinian Arabs here. There was nothing to rob them off! They own no land, in any legal sense, ever!

Here is a question for you to think about, - tell me, - what is the basis for Palestinian Arab's claim for ownership of the land in question? Do they have a recognized country with laws and infrastructure that enshrines the land ownership?

Do you realize that their claim (and yours too), is based on their desire to own that land, not on anything else. It is like me saying that I own your house, because I SAID So!

Israel does recognize historic rights of Palestinian Arabs. Which is why Israel is prepared to negotiate this matter.

Frankly it's why anti-Semitism is on the rise again. You are stealing the Palestinians land because you "ancient text says God gave it to us FOREVERMORE"(No he didn't, he retained his rights as the divine landlord, and the tenants main representatives broke the agreement).

You are taking back this land in an illegal manner and shouldn't be surprised at the swift return of anti-Semitic attitudes as a result.

You are funny…So, let me get this, - you are saying that anti-Semitism is the works of the Jews! Yes, sure…the Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism, right?

It is like saying that a woman can be rightfully raped because she is wearing a miniskirt. Get it?

You Jews like to interpret the Old Testament as an "eternal Covernant" but the straight text instead clearly indicates it was a lease destined to be replaced by a Brit Cadasha at the coming of the Messiah.

I am not a Jew. I do not have qualifications to interpret Old Testament. I can, however, tell you, -
get a grip, - you are not in a Church. Religious texts, no matter what they say, have no place in this discussion.

Please understand that Israeli legitimacy is derived from UN resolution 181 and not from Torah. Israel's claim to the land is historic and is supported by archeological findings as well as recorded history. This claim was a basis for UN’s decision in 1947, but that claim has nothing to do with Israeli sovereignty over the land.

[colliric]

You are funny…So, let me get this, - you are saying that anti-Semitism is the works of the Jews! Yes, sure…the Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism, right?

It is like saying that a woman can be rightfully raped because she is wearing a miniskirt. Get it?

The Jews are responsible for the authorship of the Talmud.

Do you want me to Quote from it for you? Do you know what it says about the Goyim? Do you know what it says about Jesus & Christians?

A woman cannot be raped because she is wearing a miniskirt... But if she respects a book that clearly openly states "Goys are Dogs" and "Jesus is boiling in Shit" amoungst many other choice cuts like "a 3 year old child can be raped" she should expect not to be treated by society like the Queen of England. She should expect people are going to be upset at the racial supremacism in her beloved book.

According to the Talmud it's not an monstrous crime to rape a 3 year old Child. Her Viginity will somehow magically reappear.

I can provide full References of cause.

Here's Benzi Gopstein saying Christians are vampires:

Basically he's mainly repeating what he learnt from the Talmud.

Don't agree with Chenk on much, but he nailed this.

Is Lehava banned in Israel... No, of cause not.

[redcarpet]

One issue I don't see either side deal with, ever, is that Israel is highly dependent on cheap Palestinian labour.

Whatever happens, that needs to be addressed. EG: should Pals. continue to work in Israel? Surely a EU-style mutual rights of movement, work, etc, protections arrangement should occur? And if NOT, then Israeli politicians have to stop fucking about and try to develop the Israeli economy and not neglect their own population.

[Metoo]

...the Jews are responsible for the authorship of the Talmud...

Yes, the Jews wrote Talmud, a foundational text for the Western Law. Much of what we call British Law is based on scholarly discourse as appears in both Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. This is one (of many) of the greatest contribution of Jews to the world.

Do you want me to Quote from it for you? Do you know what it says about the Goyim? Do you know what it says about Jesus & Christians?

I am convinced that you cannot quote anything form Talmud. I am also convinced that you have never even seen Talmud. How is your Hebrew? What you have seen is some idiotic view of Talmud from morons and anti-Semites.

It is an extremely difficult pursuit to study Talmud, it would take many years even if you do it in translation. Talmud is not a prescription for action, but it is a collection of thoughts, - all thoughts are recorded, but only some are carried forward as a Jewish law. Do you know which ones?

Unlike you, I took a full year course at university on Talmud specifically, and it was a hardest thing I ever had to study and I have a doctorate in experimental Physics (MIT). It would take a life time to comprehend Talmud. You cannot simply look up some website that advertises quotes from Talmud and infer meaning without taking a deep look at the context.

Don’t do it… or are taking a chance to appear less then intelligent.

A woman cannot be raped because she is wearing a miniskirt... But if she respects a book that clearly openly states "Goys are Dogs" and "Jesus is boiling in Shit" amoungst many other choice cuts like "a 3 year old child can be raped" she should expect not to be treated by society like the Queen of England. She should expect people are going to be upset at the racial supremacism in her beloved book. According to the Talmud it's not an monstrous crime to rape a 3 year old Child. Her Viginity will somehow magically reappear.

Total nonsense! Talmud does not say any of that. You are getting your information form a Christian website like jesus-is-savior.com.

Your understanding of the ‘child rape’ issue and ‘Goys are dogs’ issue is wrong. You are getting your information from anti-Semitic sites!

Let me educate you a bit here, - please read below and learn!

The Accusation
Yebhamot 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

The accusation here is quite nefarious. It implies that Judaism permits pedophilia, has no respect for women, and generally advocates loose sexual morals. To those familiar with the Talmud, this claim is patently ridiculous. However, the majority of people — particularly those making this claim — know little to nothing about the Talmud, its contents, or its methodology. Let’s focus on the accusation at hand. It is, in fact, easily verified as being incorrect.

The Text:
Talmud Ketuvot 11b (The citation mentioned is evidently in error. Talmud Yevamot 11b has no relevant passage)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: A male child who has relations with a female adult causes her to be like one who was injured with a stick... Rava said: This is what was meant - an adult male who has relations with a female child has not done anything because less than this [three years old] is like sticking a finger into an eyeball.

While those unused to these Talmudic discussions might be taken aback by the use of euphemisms, the discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. It has nothing to do with what acts are allowed, encouraged, forbidden, or discouraged. It is, indeed, ironic that this passage has been manipulated from its original context of a financial discussion into one of a religious discussion. While there are numerous Talmudic passages of a religious nature, this one discusses dowries and not forbidden and permitted relations!

The Talmud relates that a virgin is entitled a higher dowry. While the tell-tale sign of virginity is the release of blood due to the breaking of the hymen on the wedding night, there are occasions when the hymen has already been broken such as when the woman suffered an injury. The Talmud here quotes Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that a sexual act with a male minor is not considered to be a loss of virginity because one of the participants is not fully active. While the female's hymen may have been broken, she has not engaged in what can be classified as a sexual act (although it is certainly child abuse).

The Talmud continues and quotes Rava as saying that a sexual act between a male adult and a female under the age of three is also not considered a loss of virginity (although it is child abuse). Since the girl is too young for her hymen to be broken, she is still considered a virgin.

Nowhere is the Talmud permitting such behavior. Sex outside of a marriage is strictly forbidden (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4, Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:17; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 26:1, 177:5) as is this obvious case of child abuse. The Talmud is only discussing ex post facto what would happen if such a case arose.

That non-marital sexual relations is prohibited is stated explicitly by Maimonides in the following passage from his ground-breaking legal code Mishneh Torah:
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4

Whoever has licentious relations with a woman without marriage bonds is lashed by biblical mandate.
The claim that the Talmud, or normative Judaism, permits sexual relations with a minor is almost entirely incorrect. The slight truth in it is that, in certain societies in history, people were sometimes married as young as ten. While this was most recently done in Czarist Russia in order to avoid being drafted into the Czar's army (which was made especially difficult for Jews), it is not currently done. However, even in that case, marriage is required before having sexual relations. Judaism as a religion prohibits sexual relations, indeed even minor touching such as holding hands, outside of marriage.

It is certainly true that there are individual Jews who do not follow the teaching of the Talmud. That is their personal choice, just like many Catholics choose to use birth control and have premarital relations despite their religion's teaching against it. This does not mean that Catholicism permits premarital relations and it does not mean that Judaism (and the Talmud) does either. The personal choices of people whether to follow completely their religion does not reflect on what their religion teaches. Similarly, the fact that certain Muslims drink alcohol and frequent prostitutes does not mean that their religion permits it. It means that these individuals choose to defy their religion.

…and there you have it! Do not read Christian anti-Semitic sites! If you need more, I strongly suggest that you simply walk into any synagogue in your area and ask a rabbi a question or take a course and university of you can stomach it.

If you persist in your line of reasoning you are no better than any anti-Semite. In any case, - it pays to know and not simply to repeat garbage. So, - the Talmud brings this topic as a hypothetical case, not real case! Talmud does it in order to give a message! You did not understand this because you NEVER studied Talmud, you took an easy way out, - looked up some idiotic websites...and believed it! What you are doing is denigrating people without cause, in this case you are denigrating the Jews, - this is anti-Semitic!

…and "Jesus is boiling in Shit"…

Total garbage. Talmud NEVER says this. Talmud does mention a person by name Yeshu. All scholars agree that Yeshu is not Jesus. I can explain this in a scholarly fashion but I will not for the fear that you will never understand.

Here's Benzi Gopstein saying Christians are vampires…

Do you know who Benzi Gopstein is? I bet you do not! Why don’t you find out! Let me put it to you this way, of you quote from Benzi Gopstein, then I will quote from David Duke of KKK. Mr. Benzi Gopstein is a right wing moron, and nobody takes him seriously.

You need to try to organize your thoughts, - tell me are you upset with Israeli Politics or is it the Jews that get you so angry? …or both? Do tell!

[colliric]

Total garbage. Talmud NEVER says this. Talmud does mention a person by name Yeshu. All scholars agree that Yeshu is not Jesus. I can explain this in a scholarly fashion but I will not for the fear that you will never understand.

Since I can't respond to your entire encyclopedic post in one go, I'll respond over several posts and quote the parts of your post I'll directly respond to.

Firstly you are OBVIOUSLY WRONG here. You say "All" yet that is a LIE and an idiotic one at that.

Here's a helpful list of prominent books by highly educated western Scholars who disagree with you(making your "All" statement invalid):
Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 111–120

Norman Perrin, The New Testament, An Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. pp 407–408

R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, KTAV Publishing House Inc, 2007. pp 35–96

C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1976. pp 303–305

You say "ALL" yet I just gave you four examples of prominent scholars who do not accept the idea that the Talmud doesn't talk about Jesus.

Your unequivocal "All" is an idiotic statement. You know the overwhelming western concensus is that Jesus IS mentioned in the Talmud, and that the Talmud is one of the three major Jewish sources PROVING his historical existence.

P.S. Before you say it. Yes I pulled the list from Wikipedia's article which also clearly states Western concensus is that JESUS IS IN THE TALMUD... So what? It's the easiest place to get good results from an UNBIASED source, unlike the one you obviously used to get your "All scholars" crap.

Edit:
I forgot this classic:
Schäfer, Peter, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007

Mate, it's a good idea to consult non-Jewish non-subjective scholarly sources from time to time. You know, because saying "All" is just idiotic.

[Metoo]

Firstly you are OBVIOUSLY WRONG here. You say "All" yet that is a LIE and an idiotic one at that.

Here's a helpful list of prominent books by highly educated western Scholars who disagree with you(making your "All" statement invalid):
Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 111–120

Norman Perrin, The New Testament, An Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. pp 407–408

R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, KTAV Publishing House Inc, 2007. pp 35–96

C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, 1976. pp 303–305

You say "ALL" yet I just gave you four examples of prominent scholars who do not accept the idea that the Talmud doesn't talk about Jesus.

I am not wrong! I say ‘ALL’, because I do not include Christian scholars in this statement. Christian scholars that you mention, and I am familiar with some, DO have an agenda. This agenda rules them out as BIASED opinions, as they must include Jesus in Jewish texts to show the authenticity of Jesus.

I can do a scholarly overview to show you that Jesus is not mentioned in Talmud, but it will be long and painful for the uninitiated to read. I suggest that you search the web instead. You must look at Jewish sources only. It is the Jews who wrote Talmud.

Otherwise, you may as well ask the Pope for an opinion on Jesus and get the only answer possible. I challenge you to find a reputable source, - say…a Hebrew University in Jerusalem will do, that will agree with any of the scholars that you used in your previous post.

When it comes to science or Biblical scholarship, reputation is everything, absents of bias is paramount. Any Christian scholar is obviously biased, while a Jewish scholar will never care one way or the other, because Judaism is not a proselytizing religion. The Jews do not care. To wit, if Jesus is mentioned in Talmud, the Jewish scholars will have NO PROBLEM with it, as it does not either diminish or embellish the substance of Jewish Law!

You can also look at publications of Brandeis University in Waltham Massachusetts. This school has, by far, the best Hebrew studies department in USA with world remount Jewish Scholars. I am not familiar with source in Australia, but I am sure that there is a Yeshiva with Jewish scholars in attendance. Do try! I know what the result will be. You know, - let me put it this way, - I think it is fair to say that Jewish scholarship is best known by Jewish scholars. You can try here

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html

It seems clear that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud. Most of the supposed "blasphemies" of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all. However, there can be no denying, and no rabbi would deny this, that the authors of the Talmud did not believe in Jesus' messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look.

However, there is no basis at all to state unequivocally that the Talmud calls Jesus a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute who had sex with many men. The Passages definitely do not refer to Jesus.

Your unequivocal "All" is an idiotic statement. You know the overwhelming western consensus is that Jesus IS mentioned in the Talmud, and that the Talmud is one of the three major Jewish sources PROVING his historical existence.

Again, - this is what only a Christian would say! There is no unbiased prove of Jesus existence. There is a matter of believe, - no problem here, but no accepted scientific or scholarly fact in existence.

… Before you say it. Yes I pulled the list from Wikipedia's article which also clearly states Western consensus is that JESUS IS IN THE TALMUD... So what? It's the easiest place to get good results from an UNBIASED source, unlike the one you obviously used to get your "All scholars" crap.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for this type of discourse. Any scholar will tell you that, and you should know it yourself. So, - I stand by what I said, with a minor correction as explained above, - ALL Jewish scholars with an expertise in the subject agree that Jesus is not explicitly mentioned in Talmud.

Mate, it's a good idea to consult non-Jewish non-subjective scholarly sources from time to time.

Mate, I disagree! To follow your logic , - it is a good idea to consult a shaman when you have real pain!

Perhaps we should stop this. I would rather discuss Israel, not Judaism!

[colliric]

I am not wrong! I say ‘ALL’, because I do not include Christian scholars in this statement

I'm fixing this up. I'll respond to you soon.

Edit: You know what. I'm lazy so here's a bunch of Vox Populi Religious Jews saying some really nasty stuff about Goyim which they obviously pulled from the Talmud:

Please tell me every single person is lying in this video and why they are lying please....

Also the video maker himself is Jewish, and ask these questions on behalf of "the internet" viewers.

3:10

"It's in the Babylonian Talmud".....

Lol.... MeToo please explain to me why this Jew and several others in this video are under the "false" impression Jesus is in the Talmud?

Lol.

So if "ALL" Jew Scholars believe Jesus is not the Yeshu Ha Notzri in the Talmud how the heck did this Hassidic Jew(and the others in this video), who has obviously studied it, learn that he is and who did he learn it from?

Remember when you are arguing against this, you are arguing against Jewish opinions collected by a Jewish filmmaker.

Yes you can say they are "Stupid uneducated Fundamentalists" if you want to. I don't mind. Ive still proven adequately your Talmud says some really nasty terrible shit and a large amount of Jews(I mean this is just Vox Populi stuff here, so it must really pervade society over there, the editor was Jewish lol!) believe in it, including the stuff (you don't agree is) about Jesus.