Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
buckskin scout

Christian Zionism

34 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Who follows this Christian teaching and why?

I do not follow it because there is no longer any distinction between Jews and Gentiles, only Christ. And Israel being possessors of the land was preconditional (see Deuteronomy 30:2-6, 10, 16, 20) and the regathering of the Jews had the same preconditions (Ezekiel 11:16-21, Ezekiel 36:22-38, Ezekiel 37:21-28).

I know more than 2 dozen pieces of scriptures offhand that place a strong argument against Christian Zionism and its tenets:

Deuteronomy 10:17

Matthew 21:43

Matthew 22:37-39

John 6:44

John 8:31-47

John 18:36

Acts 1:6-7

Acts 3:22-26

Acts 10:34

Romans 2:17-29

Romans 9:6-9

Romans 10:12

Romans 11:11-32

Galatians 2:6

Galatians 3:6 5:6

Galatians 3:16-29

Galatians 6:12-16

Ephesians 2:11-16

Ephesians 3:6

Philippians 3:2-3

1 Peter 1:17

1 Peter 2:9-10 (cf, Exodus 19:5-6)

Born Again Christians are God's chosen people (both Jew and Gentile).

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am a supporter of jewish zionism for many historical reasons. But I am not a christian zionist and do not see the jewish establishment of israel as any thing to do with religious prophecy etc. It is purely a secular/political evolution of history.

The jews have a lot more logical and historical right to the state of israel, for example, than white people do to control north america and australia. But no one seriously suggests we hand back lands to their historical indigenous occupants just because we occupied them by force.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a supporter of jewish zionism for many historical reasons. But I am not a christian zionist and do not see the jewish establishment of israel as any thing to do with religious prophecy etc. It is purely a secular/political evolution of history.

The jews have a lot more logical and historical right to the state of israel, for example, than white people do to control north america and australia. But no one seriously suggests we hand back lands to their historical indigenous occupants just because we occupied them by force.

So personal accountability and the ten commandments are thrown right out the window with little or NO regard for God (see Deuteronomy 30:2-6, 10, 16, 20).

And please remember modern Judaism doesn't even truly follow the Torah it follows the Talmud which written by man which is the central primary Law of the Jewish religion.

And please also remember Biblical Israel was once called the bride of God, but now the Church is the Bride of Christ. Are suggesting God is a polygamist? That God has two brides. I truly believe the Israel project is done and fulfilled its purpose, it is time to move on and the Jews need to repent of their idolatrous Talmud, and realize Jesus was their messiah so the natural branches can be grafted back into God's new bride, the church.

If you recall, in the OT, God called the nation of Israel his Bride, but in the NT God calls the Christian church his Bride. (See Romans 7:2-6 & Ephesians 5:31-32.)

Besides, according to Jewish prophecy, it is the Messiah HIMSELF that leads the Jews back to the land.

Israel has contributed to the suffering of millions, it is responsible for 5 million refugees and its occupation is truly an apartheid.

Please remember, God never changes. If He didn't tolerate an apostate Israel back in the 8th/6th BCE, what makes you think He is going to tolerate it today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just said I do not follow christian zionism, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I walk with god. I chose a christian path because the bible is a good book of teachings, and my community is christian. I see christianity as an evolution of judaism (christ and all early christians were jews) I live in some ways like a jew from the early old testament might once have done, but in love not legalism. And i also believe in and live by more modern ethical codes and moralities (I dont keep slaves and my wife and I are equally yoked partners in marriage and in life)

But i keep the 10 commandments, including the sabbath day, from love; and my personal life with god strongly resembles that of moses or abraham or many other old testament people. God is real, alive, physical and powerful wise and aware. God exists within me and all around me. He performs physical miracles, teaches and mentors me, protects me and loves me. But god is god of ALL humans; jew christian muslim buddhist and atheist.

One can love, obey, and live with god in any religion or indeed in none. It requires a personal relationship to live with god, not a book Books distill the wisdoms and experiences of others who walked with god, but they are neither perfect, immutable, nor personally suitable for everyone. The church of god consists of every human who has opened their heart and mind to the presence of god and who lives their life ias one with god.

None of this has anything to do with the geopolitical reality of the state of israel. Israel is the good guy, a democratic state in a sea of despotism and arab extremism. It is the fulfilment of promises made by states, appalled by Hitler's treatment of jews and national guilt for doing nothing to protect the jewish peole of Europe.

While modern propaganda tells a different story; history and the truth is on the side of israel (not god) or any religion but reality. Israel is happy to coexist as a nation state with its neighbours, but they are not and never have been. Tragically their continued war on Israel has only made their situation worse and caused the huge refugee problem in the area. Non jewish people (including muslims) who were happy to live as citizens within the state of israel have always been welcome to remain there, and a great many still do. Many muslims are not content to live in ANY non muslim country. That is their problem, until they try to change the laws of a state to reflect their beliefs. Then a state must deal with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One can love, obey, and live with god in any religion or indeed in none. It requires a personal relationship to live with god, not a book Books distill the wisdoms and experiences of others who walked with god, but they are neither perfect, immutable, nor personally suitable for everyone. The church of god consists of every human who has opened their heart and mind to the presence of god and who lives their life ias one with god.

None of this has anything to do with the geopolitical reality of the state of israel. Israel is the good guy, a democratic state in a sea of despotism and arab extremism. It is the fulfilment of promises made by states, appalled by Hitler's treatment of jews and national guilt for doing nothing to protect the jewish peole of Europe.

While modern propaganda tells a different story; history and the truth is on the side of israel (not god) or any religion but reality. Israel is happy to coexist as a nation state with its neighbours, but they are not and never have been. Tragically their continued war on Israel has only made their situation worse and caused the huge refugee problem in the area. Non jewish people (including muslims) who were happy to live as citizens within the state of israel have always been welcome to remain there, and a great many still do. Many muslims are not content to live in ANY non muslim country. That is their problem, until they try to change the laws of a state to reflect their beliefs. Then a state must deal with them.

Muslims and Christians are second class citizens in Israel. They are highly discriminated against.

Israel is nationalistic and expansionistic colonialism.

Even the experts say the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East is Israel's occupation, Israel's settlements, and Israel's refusal to grant the right of the return of the refugees.

It was Zionist's Plan Dalet that began the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians. Plan Dalet was responsible for Deir Yassin Massacre (April 9, 1948) and along with another 30-40 recorded massacres of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian babies were cut from their mother's wombs in these massacres, most that died in these massacres at the hands of the Zionists were women and children.

What kind of an individual does it take to kill harmless unarmed women and children? What kind of an individual can cut a baby from its mother's womb?

These Massacres occured before and during the multi-national Arab intervention that began the May 15, 1948. And I have stated these facts before, but 60% of the Zionist casualties in the 1948/1949 war occured in the territories that the UN had partitioned (set aside) for the Arabs. So who was truly invading who?

Evils that Europe perpetuated on the Jews, well, why hold the Palestinians accountable? Why should the Palestinians bear our burden and guilt for us? We scapegoated the Palestinians.

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Who follows this Christian teaching and why?

I do not follow it because there is no longer any distinction between Jews and Gentiles, only Christ.

Born Again Christians are God's chosen people (both Jew and Gentile).

Agreed. But the Jews and Gentiles are still different. Paul, who said there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, also said that the Jews are blinded until the Fullness of Gentiles comes in, then ALL OF ISRAEL will be saved.

Of course, we must come to an agreement of what the original audiences considered to be salvation. Paul seemed to think it was inclusion into the Abrahamic blessings. This is strongly supported by Matthew 21:33-45, Romans 11, and Galatians 3:13-14.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:13, 14 ESV)

By faith, we are all in Abraham's bosom, not just the Jews. So, the promised land is ours too. The countless offspring is ours too. The blessings for the world are ours too. Those who bless us are blessed and those who curse us are cursed.

On a national level, the Jews still reject the kingdom of God (Jesus). Its no surprise, then, that they are giving away land to keep peace.

The Gospel according to Matthew is a worthy read if read from this perspective.

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please also remember Biblical Israel was once called the bride of God, but now the Church is the Bride of Christ. Are suggesting God is a polygamist? That God has two brides.

If you recall, in the OT, God called the nation of Israel his Bride, but in the NT God calls the Christian church his Bride. (See Romans 7:2-6 & Ephesians 5:31-32.)

Please remember, God never changes. If He didn't tolerate an apostate Israel back in the 8th/6th BCE, what makes you think He is going to tolerate it today?

So God had a divorce..? That'll be an interesting one for Catholics :whistle:

As for 'God never changes', you have actually read the Bible, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims and Christians are second class citizens in Israel. They are highly discriminated against.

Israel is nationalistic and expansionistic colonialism.

Even the experts say the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East is Israel's occupation, Israel's settlements, and Israel's refusal to grant the right of the return of the refugees.

It was Zionist's Plan Dalet that began the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians. Plan Dalet was responsible for Deir Yassin Massacre (April 9, 1948) and along with another 30-40 recorded massacres of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian babies were cut from their mother's wombs in these massacres, most that died in these massacres at the hands of the Zionists were women and children.

What kind of an individual does it take to kill harmless unarmed women and children? What kind of an individual can cut a baby from its mother's womb?

These Massacres occured before and during the multi-national Arab intervention that began the May 15, 1948. And I have stated these facts before, but 60% of the Zionist casualties in the 1948/1949 war occured in the territories that the UN had partitioned (set aside) for the Arabs. So who was truly invading who?

Evils that Europe perpetuated on the Jews, well, why hold the Palestinians accountable? Why should the Palestinians bear our burden and guilt for us? We scapegoated the Palestinians.

I think we have had this dicussion before. We have a differnt understanding of both the historical facts and their causes.

History stands as history, and should not be interpeted through a religious belief system (ever)

We can argue about respective massacres and atrocities all you like, but the jews had and retain a lawful right to their homeland/ nation state So do the palestinians but only under the original terms of partition.

And in the beginning the Israelis they did try to establish a state that included all types of people. The majority of current palestinian refugees remain descendants of those who fled from within Israel, not because of any action by israelis but becausee they feared an arab invasion and warfare within israel. They were encouraged in this fear by the arab states who vowed to eliminate the stst of israel from its beginning.

Yes israel is a jewish state and the living conditions and expectations within it reflect this. This is an anathema to some, including many americans who believe in a secular state, but all the states around Israel are muslim states not secular ones. Israel is at least a democratic jewish state, restricted by the laws and expectations of a democracy. This is not true for almost every muslim state in the middle east. It is why Israel has been allowed to live with nuclear weapons, while I doubt any non democratic religious based muslim state will be allowed to, becaue of the geopolitical risks that would entaill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So God had a divorce..? That'll be an interesting one for Catholics :whistle:

As for 'God never changes', you have actually read the Bible, right?

I have! But have you?

For your Maker is your husband – the Lord Almighty is his name – the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth. Isaiah 54:5

“In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband,’ you will no longer call me ‘my master.’ …I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness and you will acknowledge the Lord. Hosea 2:16,19-20

No longer will they call you Deserted, or name you Desolate. But you will be called Hephzibah [my delight is in her] and your land Beulah [married], for the LORD will take delight in you, and your land will be married. As a young man marries a maiden, so will your Builder marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you. Isaiah 62:4-5

(CF)

And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. Jeremiah 3:8

24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, Deuteronomy 24:1-3

So, in other words, the Christian faith is the new Bride as spoken of throughout the New Testament particularly Revelation.

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have! But have you?

So, in other words, the Christian church is the new Bride as spoken of throughout the New Testament particularly Revelation.

I have but not for a lot of years; I prefer books that are at least consistent.

Also, new question: have you read my post? If so, you'd realise there were two separate points.

1. God having a divorce will be an interesting one to Catholics.

2. You claim God never changes. This is not supported by the Bible.

To respond to this, you quote a load of Biblical verses about God being divorced. Which has nothing to do with my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Agreed. But the Jews and Gentiles are still different. Paul, who said there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, also said that the Jews are blinded until the Fullness of Gentiles comes in, then ALL OF ISRAEL will be saved.

Of course, we must come to an agreement of what the original audiences considered to be salvation. Paul seemed to think it was inclusion into the Abrahamic blessings. This is strongly supported by Matthew 21:33-45, Romans 11, and Galatians 3:13-14.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:13, 14 ESV)

By faith, we are all in Abraham's bosom, not just the Jews. So, the promised land is ours too. The countless offspring is ours too. The blessings for the world are ours too. Those who bless us are blessed and those who curse us are cursed.

On a national level, the Jews still reject the kingdom of God (Jesus). Its no surprise, then, that they are giving away land to keep peace.

The Gospel according to Matthew is a worthy read if read from this perspective.

Absolutely, Christ is the very seed of Abraham, (see Galatians 3:16), thereby we are all sons of God (see Galatians 3:26), and we of the Christian faith now ALL represent the offspring of Abraham and heirs to the promises that is both Christ believing Jews and Gentiles (see Galatians 3:29, Ephesians 3:6).

Through Christ Jews and Gentiles no longer holds any value (see Romans 10:12, Galatians 5:6)

There is no Jew or Gentile anymore because we are all one in Christ. (see Galatians 3:28)

Jews and Gentiles are a new creation, and are participants of the new 'Israel Of God'. (see Galatians 6:15-16)

Gentiles are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, Gentiles are no longer strangers to the covenant, though Gentiles formerly were afar off, Jesus brought the Gentiles near, Christ made Jews and Gentiles into one, and broke down every barriers and removed every distinction between them. Christ made two distinct peoples, Jew and Gentile, into one new man, by reconciling them both into one body (the body of Christ). (see Ephesians 2:12-16)

In other words, Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow partakers of the (Abrahamic) promise simultaneously with Christ believing Jews. (see Galatians 3:29, Ephesians 3:6)

Now we must ask ourselves, what value does the modern apostate state of Israel hold in regards to our faith?

Afterall, Romans 2:17-29 dictates there is only one TRUE Jew, the one that faithfully pursues the Law in faith, obedience, and love. Not every Jew that claims to be a natural Jew is a genuine descendant of Abraham any longer (Romans 9:6-7). Because there is a forfeiture of the Abrahamic promises under the New Covenant and the 'Israel of God'. So truly, all of Israel is saved which is no longer Jewish inclusive.

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have but not for a lot of years; I prefer books that are at least consistent.

Also, new question: have you read my post? If so, you'd realise there were two separate points.

1. God having a divorce will be an interesting one to Catholics.

2. You claim God never changes. This is not supported by the Bible.

To respond to this, you quote a load of Biblical verses about God being divorced. Which has nothing to do with my point.

God will not tolerate an apostate and disobedient Israel for long. In that regard, God never changes. God demands faithfulness and obedience. God likened Israel as His bride, now He likens the Christian faith as the Bride of Christ.

What is a marriage biblically, I ask you? What is adultery biblically, I ask you?

This is called symbolism, and you are trying to call me on it in the most blunt of literal ways.

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited many of my newest posts to remove the word "church" and replace it with a more proper word in my opinion "Christian faith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think we have had this dicussion before. We have a differnt understanding of both the historical facts and their causes.

History stands as history, and should not be interpeted through a religious belief system (ever)

We can argue about respective massacres and atrocities all you like, but the jews had and retain a lawful right to their homeland/ nation state So do the palestinians but only under the original terms of partition.

Deuteronomy chapters 28 & 30, dictated how the Jews retain lawful right to their homelands. The Jewish Zionists were made of entirely of atheistic Jews. Before the UN Partition Plan on November 29, 1947, the Zionist only had legal ownership and possession of 6% of Palestine which they bought out their own pockets with the help of charitable Jewry worldwide. So, before November 29, 1947, a state for the Jews could only legally be set up on 6% of Palestine. This is what infuriated the Palestinians about the plan. Because it literally gave the Zionists 56.47% of Palestine, and gave the Palestinian Arabs 43.53% of Palestine.

Now at the time of this Partition Plan there were 608,000 Jews in Palestine and there were 1,237,000 non-Jews in Palestine. So not only were the Jews immigrants at the time of the plan, but they only had legal claim to 6% of the Palestine and were a minority making up 33% of the total population of Palestine.

Now, who got the shaft from the UN, Mr Walker? The Palestinians? Or the Jews?

And in the beginning the Israelis they did try to establish a state that included all types of people. The majority of current palestinian refugees remain descendants of those who fled from within Israel, not because of any action by israelis but becausee they feared an arab invasion and warfare within israel. They were encouraged in this fear by the arab states who vowed to eliminate the stst of israel from its beginning.

That is pure Zionist myth. What about the 30-40 massacres and the campaign of terror the Zionist conducted in 1947 into 1948 BEFORE the Arabs intervened on May 15, 1948. The most famous of these massacres is Deir Yassin massacre which OCCURED on April 9, 1948. More than a whole month before the Arabs declared war on Israel.

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deuteronomy chapters 28 & 30, dictated how the Jews retain lawful right to their homelands. The Jewish Zionists were made of entirely of atheistic Jews. Before the UN Partition Plan on November 29, 1947, the Zionist only had legal ownership and possession of 6% of Palestine which they bought out their own pockets with the help of charitable Jewry worldwide. So, before November 29, 1947, a state for the Jews could only legally be set up on 6% of Palestine. This is what infuriated the Palestinians about the plan. Because it literally gave the Zionists 56.47% of Palestine, and gave the Palestinian Arabs 43.53% of Palestine.

Now at the time of this Partition Plan there were 608,000 Jews in Palestine and there were 1,237,000 non-Jews in Palestine. So not only were the Jews immigrants at the time of the plan, but they only had legal claim to 6% of the Palestine and were a minority making up 33% of the total population of Palestine.

Now, who got the shaft from the UN, Mr Walker? The Palestinians? Or the Jews?

That is pure Zionist myth. What about the 30-40 massacres and the campaign of terror the Zionist conducted in 1947 into 1948 BEFORE the Arabs intervened on May 15, 1948. The most famous of these massacres is Deir Yassin massacre which OCCURED on April 9, 1948. More than a whole month before the Arabs declared war on Israel.

Like I said you chose to believe a history I know to be untrue.

I suspect you make that choice based on biblical beliefs, which is a dangerous and foolish thing to do. You can not make non- religious history and geopolitics fit your interpretation of biblical messages. You do not know the mind of god nor the state/condition of israel within gods grace. And you are wrong. you do not have to be christian to be one with god. It is the natural birthright and condition of EVERY human being. They just have to take up the offer god makes them.

Ps both the league of nations and the united nations formally legalised and recognised Israels right to existence as a jewish state first in 1917 and with the official partition in 1947 Conflict was initiated by the arabs led by Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini, after the first mandate

After partion it was arab intiated conflict which has caused all the subsequent problems which exist up until this day There would be no palestinian refugees and no ongoing conflict, if both sides had accepted partition. The arabs believed it would be easy to destroy the fledgling jewish state, but they were wrong.

The jewish people and government would have been insane to deliberately provoke and take on the military economic and demographic might of the surrounding arab states. However, after the holocaust, they had decided that never again would they be viulnerable to, or defenceless from, genocide by external powers, and if they were faced with unbeatable odds they would go down fighting. As it turns out, they beat those unbeatable odds every time. Some times by luck sometimes only by a whisker, but mainly by guts, strategic brilliance, and determination. As an australain I identify with that sort of fight against all odds

.

Every successive attack by those arab states over at least two decades made their position, and that of the palestinians, worse.

Tthe only solution now will be a negotiated "two state" setlement which recognises present realities and the power of israel, rather than dwelling on past perceptions and grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Like I said you chose to believe a history I know to be untrue.

I suspect you make that choice based on biblical beliefs, which is a dangerous and foolish thing to do. You can not make non- religious history and geopolitics fit your interpretation of biblical messages. You do not know the mind of god nor the state/condition of israel within gods grace. And you are wrong. you do not have to be christian to be one with god. It is the natural birthright and condition of EVERY human being. They just have to take up the offer god makes them.

Ps both the league of nations and the united nations formally legalised and recognised Israels right to existence as a jewish state first in 1917 and with the official partition in 1947 Conflict was initiated by the arabs led by Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini, after the first mandate.

I agree Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini was a fanatic and absolute in his refusal to make any accomdation to the Zionist cause. However, he was banned and barred from Palestine by the British in 1938.

No, no, no. Britain wasn't made mandate of Palestine by the League Of Nations UNTIL 1922!!!!!!

What the Balfour Declaration 1917 in fact was the British government folding to Zionist interests because unlike the British Jewry which at the time was majority anti-Zionist, American Jewry generally favoured Zionism. It was the hope of Britain that by acquiescing to American Jewry that the American Jewry would powerfully sway America into involvement in WWI for the Allies. By fact, with the Balfour Declaration, Britain betrayed the Arabs and the French with the Balfour Declaration. (See MacMahon-Hussein Agreement 1915 and Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916). In fact, the Arabs were shocked and appalled of their betrayal by the British (via the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration). Actually the British politics in the region were rubbernecks. Later the British would betray the Zionists during WWII with the White Paper 1939 because they needed Arab oil to keep the war machine running during WWII. Britain was jumping in everyone's bed during these years.

In response to the White Paper 1939, the Zionists attempted to apply diplomatic pressure on Britain, United States, and Russia. They even put out propagandist lies that the British sank or turned back refugee ships. Then they initiated a bold act of political rebellion in 1942, the Biltmore Program, in which the Zionists demanded the immediate establishment of a Jewish commonwealth over ALL of Palestine with full control over immigration. The Zionists and Britain were at serious odds with Jewish groups smuggling in immigrants and engaging in terrorists acts against the British. Both Zionists and Britain sought help from America. Both effectually divided the government and the people. The Zionists won over American Jewry to their cause while the American government desired control of Middle Eastern oil, military bases, commercial air routes, and communications, and sought not to alienate Arab nations.

By 1945, the Zionist illegal army under Mandate called Haganah was 60,000 strong compared to the 80,000 British troops serving in Palestine at that time. Not to mention the Haganah was working in collusion with Zionist terrorist groups LEHI and Irgun led by the likes of Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir.

Yeah that's right, the same Menachem Begin that was Israel's 6th Prime Minister who authorized the disasterous 1982 invasion of Lebanon in "Operation Peace For Gallilee" that forever cast a shadow over Begin's stint as Prime Minister for the Sabra and Shatila Massacres that led to one of largest public demonstrations in Israeli history. These demonstrations enacted the Kahan Commission in which Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon was accussed of gross negligence and forced to resign.

And Yitzak Shamir, Israel's 7th Prime Minister that served two terms.

What the hell are you talking about?

After partion it was arab intiated conflict which has caused all the subsequent problems which exist up until this day There would be no palestinian refugees and no ongoing conflict, if both sides had accepted partition. The arabs believed it would be easy to destroy the fledgling jewish state, but they were wrong.

No, after the partition, civil war broke out between local forces of Palestinians and Jews occured (December 1947 to May 1948). The British withdrew, but not before notifying the Zionists yet failing to notify the Arabs of their withdrawal leaving the Arabs quite unprepared. Meanwhile Plan Dalet was activated by the Zionists in which violated the UN partition resolutions. Plan Dalet is the expulsion of Arabs living within UN designated Jewish territory. The seizure of Arab areas that were designated by the UN for the Arab state-to-be and for an international free zone. All Jewish settlements in the UN-designated Arab territory were to be secured, not evacuated, with corridors reaching out to create a solid, continuous and enlarged Jewish territory.

According Jewish Israeli author Flapan, "The aim of the plan was annexation [of Arab territory] - the destruction of Arab villages was to be followed by the establishment of Jewish villages in their place."

The jewish people and government would have been insane to deliberately provoke and take on the military economic and demographic might of the surrounding arab states. However, after the holocaust, they had decided that never again would they be viulnerable to, or defenceless from, genocide by external powers, and if they were faced with unbeatable odds they would go down fighting. As it turns out, they beat those unbeatable odds every time. Some times by luck sometimes only by a whisker, but mainly by guts, strategic brilliance, and determination. As an australain I identify with that sort of fight against all odds

.

Every successive attack by those arab states over at least two decades made their position, and that of the palestinians, worse.

Tthe only solution now will be a negotiated "two state" setlement which recognises present realities and the power of israel, rather than dwelling on past perceptions and grievances.

Au contrare, the Zionists had better equipped and were better trained than their Arab enemies, and always maintained superior numbers overall throughout the war. The Haganah was trained by British Brigadier General Orde Wingate in 1936. For this Orde Wingate was relieved of his duty and the men who continued training begun by him were ultimately imprisoned. At the start of the war, the Arabs committed an estimated 25,000 troops against an estimated 35,000 Israelis. At the height of the war's escalation, the Arabs had committed an estimated 55,000 troops against an estimated 100,000 Israelis (of which an estimated 20,000-25,000 were European WWII veterans). It was NEVER a fair fight.

There you go again with your Zionist myths. And you relied on a pro-Zionist site.

How about doing research, I suggest looking up "Operation Balak" and please do not use a pro-Zionist site.

Christian Zionists are always trying to fit 20th Century Middle-Eastern history into the context of the Bible (Deuteronomy 28:7).

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini was a fanatic and absolute in his refusal to make any accomdation to the Zionist cause. However, he was banned and barred from Palestine by the British in 1938.

No, no, no. Britain wasn't made mandate of Palestine by the League Of Nations UNTIL 1922!!!!!!

What the Balfour Declaration 1917 in fact was the British government folding to Zionist interests because unlike the British Jewry which at the time was majority anti-Zionist, American Jewry generally favoured Zionism. It was the hope of Britain that by acquiescing to American Jewry that the American Jewry would powerfully sway America into involvement in WWI for the Allies. By fact, with the Balfour Declaration, Britain betrayed the Arabs and the French with the Balfour Declaration. (See MacMahon-Hussein Agreement 1915 and Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916). In fact, the Arabs were shocked and appalled of their betrayal by the British (via the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration). Actually the British politics in the region were rubbernecks. Later the British would betray the Zionists during WWII with the White Paper 1939 because they needed Arab oil to keep the war machine running during WWII. Britain was jumping in everyone's bed during these years.

In response to the White Paper 1939, the Zionists attempted to apply diplomatic pressure on Britain, United States, and Russia. They even put out propagandist lies that the British sank or turned back refugee ships. Then they initiated a bold act of political rebellion in 1942, the Biltmore Program, in which the Zionists demanded the immediate establishment of a Jewish commonwealth over ALL of Palestine with full control over immigration. The Zionists and Britain were at serious odds with Jewish groups smuggling in immigrants and engaging in terrorists acts against the British. Both Zionists and Britain sought help from America. Both effectually divided the government and the people. The Zionists won over American Jewry to their cause while the American government desired control of Middle Eastern oil, military bases, commercial air routes, and communications, and sought not to alienate Arab nations.

By 1945, the Zionist illegal army under Mandate called Haganah was 60,000 strong compared to the 80,000 British troops serving in Palestine at that time. Not to mention the Haganah was working in collusion with Zionist terrorist groups LEHI and Irgun led by the likes of Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir.

Yeah that's right, the same Menachem Begin that was Israel's 6th Prime Minister who authorized the disasterous 1982 invasion of Lebanon in "Operation Peace For Gallilee" that forever cast a shadow over Begin's stint as Prime Minister for the Sabra and Shatila Massacres that led to one of largest public demonstrations in Israeli history. These demonstrations enacted the Kahan Commission in which Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon was accussed of gross negligence and forced to resign.

And Yitzak Shamir, Israel's 7th Prime Minister that served two terms.

What the hell are you talking about?

No, after the partition, civil war broke out between local forces of Palestinians and Jews occured (December 1947 to May 1948). The British withdrew, but not before notifying the Zionists yet failing to notify the Arabs of their withdrawal leaving the Arabs quite unprepared. Meanwhile Plan Dalet was activated by the Zionists in which violated the UN partition resolutions. Plan Dalet is the expulsion of Arabs living within UN designated Jewish territory. The seizure of Arab areas that were designated by the UN for the Arab state-to-be and for an international free zone. All Jewish settlements in the UN-designated Arab territory were to be secured, not evacuated, with corridors reaching out to create a solid, continuous and enlarged Jewish territory.

According Jewish Israeli author Flapan, "The aim of the plan was annexation [of Arab territory] - the destruction of Arab villages was to be followed by the establishment of Jewish villages in their place."

Au contrare, the Zionists had better equipped and were better trained than their Arab enemies, and always maintained superior numbers overall throughout the war. The Haganah was trained by British Brigadier General Orde Wingate in 1936. For this Orde Wingate was relieved of his duty and the men who continued training begun by him were ultimately imprisoned. At the start of the war, the Arabs committed an estimated 25,000 troops against an estimated 35,000 Israelis. At the height of the war's escalation, the Arabs had committed an estimated 55,000 troops against an estimated 100,000 Israelis (of which an estimated 20,000-25,000 were European WWII veterans). It was NEVER a fair fight.

There you go again with your Zionist myths. And you relied on a pro-Zionist site.

How about doing research, I suggest looking up "Operation Balak" and please do not use a pro-Zionist site.

Christian Zionists are always trying to fit 20th Century Middle-Eastern history into the context of the Bible (Deuteronomy 28:7).

How do you know it was a pro zionist site? You mean it wasnt biased in favour of the arabs? I couldn't find any indication that it was a jewish site and it was not visibly biased.. And anyway, facts and statistics are facts and statistics. I am very dubious about how you used some of yours. For example while the commited forces of the arabs in the first war were only half those of Israel, the israeli numbers included their entire military forces because they were fighting on their own territory. The military forces of Egypt in total, alone, were about eqaul in numbers, and superior in equipment and firepower to those of Israel's total armed forces. Heres a snippet from a non zionist source, which again puts an entirely different historical perspective on a number of your claims

Even so, the Arabs began the war with certain advantages. Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had

air forces. Egypt and Syria had tanks, while all had some modern artillery. They had been trained for modern warfare by British and French instructors. This was particularly true of the strongest Arab formation, Jordan's Arab Legion of 10, 000 men commanded by Lt Gen Sir John Glubb.

By contrast, the Israelis started the war with few modern weapons beyond mortars, some ancient artillery, and no aircraft. They were being forced to defend a narrow coastal plain and isolated Jewish settlements, which made defence in depth impossible. Even so, they enjoyed certain assets. With some 40, 000 troops organized in nine brigades, they had a coherent military force, many of whose members, unlike the Arabs, had seen service in WW II. They were fighting in defence of the first Jewish homeland since Roman times, and in the knowledge of the recent Holocaust. Moreover, in contrast to the Arabs, they had a clear overall strategy, Plan Dallet, designed to secure the area assigned to the Jewish state under the UN partition resolution and to safeguard outlying Jewish settlements

. Again, religion has no part in my ethics. I have no more favour for the jewish religion as such or the muslim one or even the christian one. This is about what is legally and thus ethically correct.

To cut to the chase. Do you, or do you not, accept that Israel has a right to exist as an indpendent religious tsate even if only on the boundaries of the originall mandate and UN approved territory.? Do you furhter accept that like all nation states it has a right to be strong enough to defend its territorial borders from all aggressors and to feel secure in that ability?.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Have you actually red Plan Dalet, intiated march 10th 1948, and looked at its rationales and military strategy/objectives.

Plan Dalet did not exist prior to this time, although 3 other plans; Plan B (sept 1945), The may 1946 plan, and Plan Yehoshua, did.

It was a plan designed to secure israeli territoriall borders and lands against foreign invasion . It worked.

Ps what a lot of people forget, never knew, or ignore, is that tragedy has more than one side. No other arab state except for jordan hass accpeted palestinians as citizens and

It is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced from their homes or left the Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948 and 1951, and 600,000 by 1972.[45][46][47]

Even IF we accepted israel was in part responsible for the exodus of palestinians, their present conditions and plight, several genrations later, is the fault of the world in general and arab states in particular. Israel on the other hand has taken in and supported jewish refugees from these countries and all over the world, achieving for them the same standard of living as all israelis. Ask WHY palestinians are still living in terrible conditions in refugee camps.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it was a pro zionist site?

Because it is called Zionism-Israel.com! Check out this page: Proud Zionism

You mean it wasnt biased in favour of the arabs? I couldn't find any indication that it was a jewish site and it was not visibly biased.. And anyway, facts and statistics are facts and statistics. I am very dubious about how you used some of yours. For example while the commited forces of the arabs in the first war were only half those of Israel, the israeli numbers included their entire military forces because they were fighting on their own territory. The military forces of Egypt in total, alone, were about eqaul in numbers, and superior in equipment and firepower to those of Israel's total armed forces. Heres a snippet from a non zionist source, which again puts an entirely different historical perspective on a number of your claims

Even so, the Arabs began the war with certain advantages. Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had

air forces. Egypt and Syria had tanks, while all had some modern artillery. They had been trained for modern warfare by British and French instructors. This was particularly true of the strongest Arab formation, Jordan's Arab Legion of 10, 000 men commanded by Lt Gen Sir John Glubb.

By contrast, the Israelis started the war with few modern weapons beyond mortars, some ancient artillery, and no aircraft. They were being forced to defend a narrow coastal plain and isolated Jewish settlements, which made defence in depth impossible. Even so, they enjoyed certain assets. With some 40, 000 troops organized in nine brigades, they had a coherent military force, many of whose members, unlike the Arabs, had seen service in WW II. They were fighting in defence of the first Jewish homeland since Roman times, and in the knowledge of the recent Holocaust. Moreover, in contrast to the Arabs, they had a clear overall strategy, Plan Dallet, designed to secure the area assigned to the Jewish state under the UN partition resolution and to safeguard outlying Jewish settlements

I would not rely on answers.com. Besides, Americans have been brainwashed with Israel and its PC histories. Zionists have written complete libraries about Israel or its wars. Anyways, yes Israel had a tank battalion, a navy, and an air force during the 1948 conflict. It acquired 3 American B-17 bombers through the black market. It acquired alot of arms, munitions, and airplanes from Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia exported 28 million worth in arms and military services, and Israel was the recipient of 85% of this amount. In fact Israel had air superiority by the fall of 1948. Not to mention all the volunteers from multiple nations that fought in Israel's air force.

Again, religion has no part in my ethics. I have no more favour for the jewish religion as such or the muslim one or even the christian one. This is about what is legally and thus ethically correct.

To cut to the chase. Do you, or do you not, accept that Israel has a right to exist as an indpendent religious tsate even if only on the boundaries of the originall mandate and UN approved territory.? Do you furhter accept that like all nation states it has a right to be strong enough to defend its territorial borders from all aggressors and to feel secure in that ability?.

Now wait, lets switch this around, do you believe the Palestinians deserve to exist as an independent self-determining state? And btw, Israel has never ever declared its borders. Yes, that's right Israel has undeclared borders, what does that tell you? With its siege on Gaza and occupation of the West Bank and its aggressive expansionist policies, Israel will always have aggressors and will always feel insecure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you actually red Plan Dalet, intiated march 10th 1948, and looked at its rationales and military strategy/objectives.

Plan Dalet did not exist prior to this time, although 3 other plans; Plan B (sept 1945), The may 1946 plan, and Plan Yehoshua, did.

It was a plan designed to secure israeli territoriall borders and lands against foreign invasion . It worked.

Ps what a lot of people forget, never knew, or ignore, is that tragedy has more than one side. No other arab state except for jordan hass accpeted palestinians as citizens and

It is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced from their homes or left the Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948 and 1951, and 600,000 by 1972.[45][46][47]

You're using wikipedia, here lies a dilemna.

Even IF we accepted israel was in part responsible for the exodus of palestinians, their present conditions and plight, several genrations later, is the fault of the world in general and arab states in particular. Israel on the other hand has taken in and supported jewish refugees from these countries and all over the world, achieving for them the same standard of living as all israelis. Ask WHY palestinians are still living in terrible conditions in refugee camps.

Israel pays Jews to live there. It is obsessed with maintaining majority rule. In fact, that is the main reason it denies the Palestinian refugees repatriation. The Palestinians want repatriation, they dont want to be Jordanian, they dont want to be Lebanese, they dont want to be Syrian. Israel just wants these refugees to disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because it is called Zionism-Israel.com! Check out this page: Proud Zionism

[/left]

I would not rely on answers.com. Besides, Americans have been brainwashed with Israel and its PC histories. Zionists have written complete libraries about Israel or its wars. Anyways, yes Israel had a tank battalion, a navy, and an air force during the 1948 conflict. It acquired 3 American B-17 bombers through the black market. It acquired alot of arms, munitions, and airplanes from Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia exported 28 million worth in arms and military services, and Israel was the recipient of 85% of this amount. In fact Israel had air superiority by the fall of 1948. Not to mention all the volunteers from multiple nations that fought in Israel's air force.

Now wait, lets switch this around, do you believe the Palestinians deserve to exist as an independent self-determining state? And btw, Israel has never ever declared its borders. Yes, that's right Israel has undeclared borders, what does that tell you? With its siege on Gaza and occupation of the West Bank and its aggressive expansionist policies, Israel will always have aggressors and will always feel insecure.

Yes I ve already said that I believe that an independent state for palestinians is essential, and a two state system the only solution. But when you read the propaganda from pro palestinians you see they refuse to acknowledge israel has any right to exist. Some say it outright, some dress it up with dumb arguments like the one you spout here that because israel has no official borders it is not a nation. Otherss argue that NO nation has a basic RIGHT to existence and thus neither does Israel. For the last 60 years arab states and leaders have been denying that Israel has any right to exist as a jewish nation state.

Even when forced to accept this principle through diplomacy, they urge proxy forces, which they support, to continue to try and eliminate Israel. And WHY do you suppose Israel "grabs" more territory? Because it increases its stragtegic chances for survival.

Without states pledged to destroy its very existence, Isral could live comfortably within much smaller boundaries EVERY expansion of Israeli territory has come after unsuccessful arab attacks where they lost ground to israel (you really think they would have learned this by now) If Israel had kept all the territory it won in defending itself it would include all the sinai as well as larger parts of syria and jordan, as well as all the territory now held by palestinians. Israel didnt have to give up an inch of territory and no one had the ability to force it to.

Ps sounds like you dont agree with any sites which disagree with your opinion. And you failed to answer my question. Do YOU believe a strong jewish state has a right to exist, even if only within the original mandate of the league of nations or the territories agreed on by the UN. Or do you have something against the principle and/or physical existence of such a state? If so, what is your rationale for such an objection?.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're using wikipedia, here lies a dilemna.

Israel pays Jews to live there. It is obsessed with maintaining majority rule. In fact, that is the main reason it denies the Palestinian refugees repatriation. The Palestinians want repatriation, they dont want to be Jordanian, they dont want to be Lebanese, they dont want to be Syrian. Israel just wants these refugees to disappear.

So you deny those figures are accurate? I dont know that the refugees want to go back to Israel as citizens of an Israeli/jewish state either Although i might be wrong about that. Most arab israelis would rather live in Israel than anywhere else.

As a general indicator, a recent Harvard study found that 77% of Arab Israelis would rather live in Israel than in any other country. Many Arabs have also stated that they would much rather live in Israel than under Palestinian rule.

You do realise that about 1,500,000 arabs are citizens of Israel and make up about 20 % of the population

As an aside, do you dispute this assertion from a pro israeli website

In 2000, Israel made a series of two-state proposals which (contrary to popular myth) eventually included almost all of the West Bank (plus additional territory from Israel proper), the entire Gaza strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and a $30 billion solution for the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not only refused – he made no counter-offer, abandoned negotiations, and

the Al-Aqsa
. Arafat was heavily criticized for this, both by the Americanmediators and by fellow Arabs and Palestinians.

http://www.arabisrae...-state-solution

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you deny those figures are accurate? I dont know that the refugees want to go back to Israel as citizens of an Israeli/jewish state either Although i might be wrong about that. Most arab israelis would rather live in Israel than anywhere else.

As a general indicator, a recent Harvard study found that 77%of Arab Israelis would rather live in Israel than in any other country. Many Arabs have also stated that they would much rather live in Israel than under Palestinian rule.

You do realise that about 1,500,000 arabs are citizens of Israel and make up about 20 % of the population

As an aside, do you dispute this assertion from a pro israeli website

In 2000, Israel made a series of two-state proposals which (contrary to popular myth) eventually included almost all of the West Bank (plus additional territory from Israel proper), the entire Gaza strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and a $30 billion solution for the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not only refused – he made no counter-offer, abandoned negotiations, and

the Al-Aqsa
. Arafat was heavily criticized for this, both by the American mediators and by fellow Arabs and Palestinians.

http://www.arabisrae...-state-solution

MYTH: The Palestinians have rejected many "Generous" Peace offers.

This is a commonly used myth, in which the Palestinians are portrayed as a violent people, with no desire for peace. Why wouldn't the Palestinians want peace? They are under a brutal occupation, their homes are destroyed, they have no economy, and they are subject to continuous conflict. The Palestinians have suffered much more than the Israelis in this decades long conflict, and they have much more to gain from peace.

Supporters of Israel often point to the Palestinian rejection of the 2000 Camp David peace conference as a validation of this myth. The Israeli offer for peace is often portrayed as generous, and that Palestinians rejected it because they do not want peace. This is entirely false. The peace offer was far from generous. It would not constitute a viable Palestinian state. These are some issues with the so called "generous" offer.

Israel would have full sovereignty of Jerusalem

Israel would maintain fortified settlements, and Israeli only roads in the occupied west bank

Palestinians would have no control of their airspace.

Palestinians would have control of only 73% of the occupied west bank

Israel would maintain control of all borders

The northern and southern parts of the west bank would be separated, and the road connection could be closed by Israel at its own discretion

Palestine would have limited control of water resources

Israel would place early warning systems within Palestinian territory

Israel reserved the right to conduct military operations within the Palestinian state

The Palestinian state would be entirely demilitarized

Palestinian refugees would have no right of return

As is evident, this offer was far from "generous". It would simply constitute a situation that is very similar to what is happening now, except it would be Internationally be recognized as a state. Palestinians would have to entirely relinquish Jerusalem as their capital. They would have no way of defending themselves from Israeli incursions, no control over their borders, airspace, or water. This, in no way constitutes a sovereign, viable, free, Palestinian state.

The myth that Palestinians reject peace is categorically false. Palestinians desire peace, however, they will not give up their rights, and territories, which are confirmed under International law. If anything, Israel has no desire for peace.

http://www.peaceandpalestine.com/nopeacemyth

Does Israel want Peace?

Over 60 years have passed since the establishment of the Israeli nation. Peace has been difficult to come by. The Israeli's consistently blame the Palestinians for rejecting multiple peace offers. However, these "Peace" offers are shockingly one sided, and in no way offer a free, sovereign, and viable Palestinian state. This is discussed in the Myths section.

Greater Israel

In fact, it is true that the opposite is true, and that Israel does not seek peace. This is not necessarily true for Israeli civilians, but rather the Israeli government. Firstly, to many radical Israelis, there is a dream of establishing a greater Israeli nation. The bible refers to the Israeli nation as the land spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates. This therefore, would incorporate larges areas of land from Israelis neighbors. To many radical Jews, this is the ultimate dream of Israel. Whilst this may not be the ultimate aim of the Israeli government, it must seek to appease these constituents, and as such, peace with the Palestinians, and Arab neighbors would be seen as an abandonment of this dream.

The Israeli Military Machine

Besides the dream of "Greater Israel", the Israeli military machine, comprised of one of the most advanced militaries is another reason. Israel currently has the highest per capita military spending in the world. Israel not only has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, this is also accompanied by one of the largest military industries in the world. As a major exporter of military equipment worldwide, peace would only hinder the industry, whose primary customer is the Israeli "Defense" forces. Should there be peace, one would expect that orders from the IDF would be reduced. The industry also benefits from conflict, with Israeli military products are often labeled as "combat proven".

With this industry exporting over $4.4 billion worth of military products in 2006, it is apparent that this is a crucial industry for the the nation. Interestingly, the entire GDP of the West Bank is only about $6.6 billion. With 25% of the industries production being directed at the IDF, it is apparent that peace, which would lead to reduced military orders from the IDF will result in major shortfalls for this industry, which is comprised of well over 150 firms, employing thousands of Israelis. Peace would also result in the loss of Israel's unique in house testing capabilities, the Palestinian population.

Additionally, large sums of US military aid to Israel will likely decline if peace is established between Israel, the Palestinians, and Arab neighbors. With over $3billion in military aid annually, this would be a major loss for the Israeli economy.

For the Israeli government, the choice between peace, and conflict is a rather easy one. Peace would mean that no more Israelis would die in conflict, however, this would be at the cost of a multi-billion dollar industry, employing thousands.

If Israel however, chooses to avoid peace, and continue to support its military industry, then its economy will remain stable. This is the current situation. This is off course at the cost of human life. From an Israeli Government perspective, this loss of life is insignificant. In 2006, the Israel-Lebanon war resulted in the death of about 150 Israelis, primarily soldiers. In the same year, over 460 Israelis were killed in car accidents. In the 2008 Gaza war, 13 Israeli (10 soldiers, 3 civilians) were killed as a result of the conflict.

For Israel, the death of a handful civilians is not as important as a multi-billion dollar industry, and off course, the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians is not even worth considering, after all, this only proves that the industry is providing effective products.

http://www.peaceandpalestine.com/topic/israelpeace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ps sounds like you dont agree with any sites which disagree with your opinion. And you failed to answer my question. Do YOU believe a strong jewish state has a right to exist, even if only within the original mandate of the league of nations or the territories agreed on by the UN. Or do you have something against the principle and/or physical existence of such a state? If so, what is your rationale for such an objection?.

The America freeloading Israel represents an oppressive colonialist, expansionist, and supremacist state with only Jewish interests that plays the aggressor-victimhood card with disingenuous brilliance through media propaganda and an almighty lobby to the unaware and the sleeping masses. There is nearly 2 million Gazans living in an open air prison. There is about 2.5 million Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank. There is 5 million Palestinian refugees worldwide. I simply don't support Israel until it changes all of its discriminatory policies and makes concessions to vastly improve the lives of Palestinians. Palestinians deserve their freedoms and their right to a self-determining state of their own. What do you feel about that?

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.