Protests against more Israeli Settlements

veya_victaous wrote:@warren
because it is their land, they were there first before Moses and his lot invaded. they have also stayed there the whole time.

veya_victaous wrote:@phil
Palestinians are Philistines, i.e. the people the Jews Say they attacked to take the land to make the First Israel, 1st Dynasties Egypt recovered trading with them So that puts them in the area a good 1500 years before Moses was born (Reign of Ramses the 2nd, 2nd Dynasties).
When Romans destroyed the Original Israelites, The land was again controlled by Palestine (the name changes a couple of times when who they are being ruled by changed), they have always been a vassal nation to a larger empire, but the peoples have been there and are largely the same, and recorded as mercenaries in many battles in the region(that why I know I have an interest in Ancient History but mainly the battles  ).

veya_victaous wrote:@warren
because it is their land, they were there first before Moses and his lot invaded. they have also stayed there the whole time.

PhilDidge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@phil
Palestinians are Philistines, i.e. the people the Jews Say they attacked to take the land to make the First Israel, 1st Dynasties Egypt recovered trading with them So that puts them in the area a good 1500 years before Moses was born (Reign of Ramses the 2nd, 2nd Dynasties).
When Romans destroyed the Original Israelites, The land was again controlled by Palestine (the name changes a couple of times when who they are being ruled by changed), they have always been a vassal nation to a larger empire, but the peoples have been there and are largely the same, and recorded as mercenaries in many battles in the region(that why I know I have an interest in Ancient History but mainly the battles  ).

Sorry that is very incorrect, for a start the Romans controlled the land, followed by the Byzantine Empire, then Sassanid empire, back to Byzantine, then Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates period, then the Crusades, the list is endless of people coming and controlling the lands, it was never controlled by the Palestinians themselves. Again you are claiming rights through the notion of people long since dead, basing a view being able to trace this ancestry back, where groups on each side can do the same. What you fail to understand here is that both do descend back to the same original semitic group, hence the absurd logic of claims to who is there first, when they both descend to this single group. The point is as seen claims of ownership to the past is never going to resolve the issue and has been used for centuries and has helped nobody. The demographics of nations change, but this does not mean new settlements are right, they are of course wrong, but again they use the same absurd claim to being descend from these lands as an excuse to build settlements. I have vast knowledge of history also Veya

The fact is both sides need to reconcile and live together, arguments over ownership here in my view are the wrong way forward, as by doing this nobody wants peace and in fact keeps the conflict very much alive

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Sorry that is very incorrect, for a start the Romans controlled the land, followed by the Byzantine Empire, then Sassanid empire, back to Byzantine, then Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates period, then the Crusades, the list is endless of people coming and controlling the lands, it was never controlled by the Palestinians themselves. Again you are claiming rights through the notion of people long since dead, basing a view being able to trace this ancestry back, where groups on each side can do the same. What you fail to understand here is that both do descend back to the same original semitic group, hence the absurd logic of claims to who is there first, when they both descend to this single group. The point is as seen claims of ownership to the past is never going to resolve the issue and has been used for centuries and has helped nobody. The demographics of nations change, but this does not mean new settlements are right, they are of course wrong, but again they use the same absurd claim to being descend from these lands as an excuse to build settlements. I have vast knowledge of history also Veya

The fact is both sides need to reconcile and live together, arguments over ownership here in my view are the wrong way forward, as by doing this nobody wants peace and in fact keeps the conflict very much alive

it has nothing to do with lands didge and everything to with religious hatred

how many times do you have to be shown that before the Jewish state became a reality, the "Palestinians" were annexed by Jordan and Egypt and they never once fought a war or fired a rocket into these countries because they wanted their own country  

secondly when the Jews were settled in Israel they were settled in areas that were not occupied by anyone therefore there wasn't any land to steal since no one lived there  

you can keep your hippy dream alive about kissing and making up all day but it wont ever happen whilst Islam is in the ME

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

it has nothing to do with lands didge and everything to with religious hatred

how many times do you have to be shown that before the Jewish state became a reality, the "Palestinians" were annexed by Jordan and Egypt and they never once fought a war or fired a rocket into these countries because they wanted their own country  

secondly when the Jews were settled in Israel they were settled in areas that were not occupied by anyone therefore there wasn't any land to steal since no one lived there  

you can keep your hippy dream alive about kissing and making up all day but it wont ever happen whilst Islam is in the ME

Never stated or denied Israel being a state and support it being a state this point thus is moot.
Palestine is not now under occupation or the fact when it was invaded was decades ago, thus again a moot point of no relevance
Third point so you are saying now anyone in the world can leave there home and set up shop and make it part of Britain with that logic being if an area of land is not currently occupied even though the land is in the bounds of another area?

I think the only one in dream land is you

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Never stated or denied Israel being a state and support it being a state this point thus is moot.
Palestine is not now under occupation or the fact when it was invaded was decades ago, thus again a moot point of no relevance
Third point so you are saying now anyone in the world can leave there home and set up shop and make it part of Britain with that logic being if an area of land is not currently occupied even though the land is in the bounds of another area?

I think the only one in dream land is you

now you're talking utter crap and not even addressing what ive said
Irrelevant point

the area was under British control therefore it was Britain's to give to whoever they wanted, the area they gave to the jews didn't have anyone living in it therefore the Jews couldn't steal it form anyone since there was no one to steal it from.
Really? Is that your logic now, never laughed at anything so absurd in all my life, so we were in control of Iraq, lets settle many other people there because we control it in places where nobody is living, how absurd. Again my view point is not against Israel as a nation, or its formation, I am though against settlements within the Weest Bank and Gaza

its the same thing as America deciding to give an area in the Mojave desert where no one lives, to a group of people and telling them to set up shop

smelly_bandit wrote:how is it that you can be dense as to consistently miss the point ALL the time
More waffle

Iraq was and is still a sovereign state regardless of it being occupied by a foreign force so no we couldn't just decide to carve it up and give it away
Was it always a sovereign state, was it not also once ruled and governed by the British, so again my point still stands silly boy

Palestine was a massive AREA taken from the remnants of the ottoman empire, it didn't belong to any one country or nation but consisted of several countries which later became defined as independent countries including Israel which ALREADY existed before the ottoman empire
It belonged to the people living there and was a state within the Ottoman Empire, again how absurd an no relavant point being made  

there were no "Palestinians" living in Israel which was given back to the Jews
 ://?roflmao?/: Where did you get that belief, the Zionist bible, yes there were and are still Palestinians living in Israel

the "Palestinians" were living in areas that were under Egyptian and Jordanian annexation, they were not displaced and forced to move out of Israel and into Gaza and the west bank because they were already there  

smelly_bandit wrote:why do you constantly ignore the fact that the "Palestinians" were living in Gaza and the west bank which were annexed by Jordan and Egypt

is it because it would render your entire argument invalid??

smelly_bandit wrote:the point stands

the Palestinians were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and during that period there wasn't any conflict with Jordan and Egypt and there was no clamoring for a land of their  
Irrelevant, that is now history and has nothing to do with the present

the reason this point is so devastating to your argument is because it proves that the land theft issue is just a smoke screen to conceal the real reason for the conflict - Muslims hate Jews and want them dead  
I think you will find that there are some Jews and Muslims that hate each other fueling this, your argument was absurd and daft on the land issue as seen Israel keeps encroaching on land that was not formed from the formation of Israel

if the land was really the problem then during the period they were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, the pals would have been doing to Egypt and Jordan what they are doing to Israel
Again absurd, you are making claims to a time long past, this is 21014, of which the people living now matter,

that the reason you ignore their annexation

 

smelly_bandit wrote:no didge you ignore things you don't understand and lack the factual foundation to present a credible counter argument from

you are now trying to say that the settlements, which are only a fairly recent development, are responsible for the start of the conflict

that is bullshit because the conflict started in 1948, long before these settlements started going up

smelly_bandit wrote:actually if you want to go down to it you you can start in around 1920 when Muslims were once again attacking Jews, and that was BEFORE the return of the Jews from europe
Yes that is why I told you it started by 1948 of which was your first claim, doh, again you could arue it started when Zionism was born in the late 19th century

that was before the formation of Israel

that was before there was any issue of land

so you can throw up as many smokescreens as you want, the bottom line is that the conflict is religious in origin    

PhilDidge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@phil
Palestinians are Philistines, i.e. the people the Jews Say they attacked to take the land to make the First Israel, 1st Dynasties Egypt recovered trading with them So that puts them in the area a good 1500 years before Moses was born (Reign of Ramses the 2nd, 2nd Dynasties).
When Romans destroyed the Original Israelites, The land was again controlled by Palestine (the name changes a couple of times when who they are being ruled by changed), they have always been a vassal nation to a larger empire, but the peoples have been there and are largely the same, and recorded as mercenaries in many battles in the region(that why I know I have an interest in Ancient History but mainly the battles ).

Sorry that is very incorrect, for a start the Romans controlled the land, followed by the Byzantine Empire, then Sassanid empire, back to Byzantine, then Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates period, then the Crusades, the list is endless of people coming and controlling the lands, it was never controlled by the Palestinians themselves. Again you are claiming rights through the notion of people long since dead, basing a view being able to trace this ancestry back, where groups on each side can do the same. What you fail to understand here is that both do descend back to the same original semitic group, hence the absurd logic of claims to who is there first, when they both descend to this single group. The point is as seen claims of ownership to the past is never going to resolve the issue and has been used for centuries and has helped nobody. The demographics of nations change, but this does not mean new settlements are right, they are of course wrong, but again they use the same absurd claim to being descend from these lands as an excuse to build settlements. I have vast knowledge of history also Veya

The fact is both sides need to reconcile and live together, arguments over ownership here in my view are the wrong way forward, as by doing this nobody wants peace and in fact keeps the conflict very much alive

smelly_bandit wrote:What a load of utter crap

There are Jewish structures which have been archaeologically dated to over 2000 years ago, which proves there has been a Jewish presence on Israel for that whole time

That shows an extremely strong ancestral link to the land

Ps people who genuinely aren't anti Semitic don't put as much effort as you do into convincing everyone that they aren't.

The fact that you would see Israel gone shows how anti Semitic you truly are, since Israel "going" involves a second genocide of the Jews

veya_victaous wrote:@warren
because it is their land, they were there first before Moses and his lot invaded. they have also stayed there the whole time.

Warren Moon wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@warren
because it is their land, they were there first before Moses and his lot invaded. they have also stayed there the whole time.

Yeah but you could argue the same about the Saxons in England, Bill the conqueror won hands down so the Saxons had to lump it.  Israel can beat anyone in the area, so they need to lump it.

grumpy old git wrote:It wont happen...America NEEDS "battleship Israel"

veya_victaous wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Sorry that is very incorrect, for a start the Romans controlled the land, followed by the Byzantine Empire, then Sassanid empire, back to Byzantine, then Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates period, then the Crusades, the list is endless of people coming and controlling the lands, it was never controlled by the Palestinians themselves. Again you are claiming rights through the notion of people long since dead, basing a view being able to trace this ancestry back, where groups on each side can do the same. What you fail to understand here is that both do descend back to the same original semitic group, hence the absurd logic of claims to who is there first, when they both descend to this single group. The point is as seen claims of ownership to the past is never going to resolve the issue and has been used for centuries and has helped nobody. The demographics of nations change, but this does not mean new settlements are right, they are of course wrong, but again they use the same absurd claim to being descend from these lands as an excuse to build settlements. I have vast knowledge of history also Veya

The fact is both sides need to reconcile and live together, arguments over ownership here in my view are the wrong way forward, as by doing this nobody wants peace and in fact keeps the conflict very much alive

Controlled is the wrong word I’ll give you that, but they inhabited and were not nomads as smelly claims. I know they are constantly swapped but they accepted vassal statehood, unlike the Jews so they got to keep living there. They were the same group that’s the point the Palestinian side of the group has lived there the whole time while the Jewish Side left there for Egypt before they even because 'Jews' and then have caused issues in the area Until The Romans finally got sick of it and 'dispersed' them.

And the only reason why Israel is there is the notion that there have some ancestral right. If they Jews have a Claim Palestine has GREATER claim. SO the Jewish Claim is superseded and void. (I am Agreeing with you and Use Palestine to illustrate that the Jews have no valid claim to the land)

The West should just stop giving support to Israel and let nature take its course. Israel would be gone in months without USA military aid. Because it is not a natural state for them to be there. Israel’s actions for the past 2 decades have obliterated any sympathy they deserved, they have proven themselves to be as bad if not worse.

The Idea of Reconciliation is unrealistic, It's been over 2 millennia and they are still causing Cultural tensions.  


P.S.
I am Strongly Anti All Monothiest religions and Anti all organised religion so I am not anti-semitic, I am just anti Stupid sky giant fairy tales.

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:What a load of utter crap

There are Jewish structures which have been archaeologically dated to over 2000 years ago, which proves there has been a Jewish presence on Israel for that whole time

That shows an extremely strong ancestral link to the land

Ps people who genuinely aren't anti Semitic don't put as much effort as you do into convincing everyone that they aren't.

The fact that you would see Israel gone shows how anti Semitic you truly are, since Israel "going" involves a second genocide of the Jews

And Palestinain Records going back 3700 years, Which Proves the Jews were new comers 2000 years ago!!!!!

Are there no Jews in the UK? there are plenty here.
I doubt they wil be extinct, but like Christian and Muslims the world would be better if they were.     

And it wouldn't be the second it would be the 4th or 5th attempt.    

Sassy wrote: Hundreds protest against Israeli settlements
Palestinians and Israeli activists occupy abandoned houses in Jericho to protest against settlements in West Bank.

Hundreds of Palestinians accompanied by Israeli activists have occupied about a dozen abandoned houses near Jericho in the occupied West Bank.

The protest by nearly 300 people on Friday was aimed at denouncing the repeated refusal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dismantle settlements illegal under international law and agree to a pullout from the Jordan Valley.

Netanyahu on January 24 said that he "did not intend to uproot any Israeli citizen" from Jordan Valley as part of a peace deal, Haaretz newspaper reported.

The protesters arrived by bus and car and paraded a banner proclaiming "No peace with settlements", signed by the Youth Against Settlements group. They brought generators with them, indicating that they plan to at least stay overnight.

Israeli police and soldiers deployed in the area, but made no immediate move to disperse the protest.

In March last year, 200 Palestinian activists set up a protest camp on the site of an Israeli settlement that had been under construction, as US President Barack Obama visited Israel. Israeli police drove them out after several days of protest.

Meanwhile, the UN humanitarian coordinator for the Palestinian territories has criticised Israel's demolition of 36 homes in the Jordan Valley and urged a halt to such actions in the occupied West Bank.

The demolitions in the Jordan Valley community of Ain el-Helwe on Thursday displaced 66 people, including 36 children, James Rawley said in a statement.

"I am deeply concerned about the ongoing displacement and dispossession of Palestinians... along the Jordan Valley where the number of structures demolished more than doubled in the last year," he said.

"This activity not only deprives Palestinians of access to shelter and basic services, it also runs counter to international law."

Israeli soldiers open fire

His office said more than 1,000 people had been displaced last year in the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem by demolitions on the grounds that homes had been built without Israeli permits, "which are virtually impossible to obtain".

In a separate incident, Israeli soldiers shot and wounded 10 Palestinians near the West Bank town of Ramallah during a protest over the killing of a teenager, Palestinian medics and security sources said.

In Gaza, meanwhile, medics said five more Palestinians were wounded by Israeli army gunfire near the border fence with Israel.

The demonstration was called to protest at the Israeli army's killing on Wednesday of Mohammed Mubarak, a 19-year-old from Jalazun working on a project funded by USAID and son of the camp's locally elected leader.

The army said he was shot dead near a settlement outside Ramallah after opening fire on them, but witnesses insisted he was unarmed.

A total of 27 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army in the West Bank in 2013, three times more than the previous year, figures from Israeli rights watchdog B'Tselem showed.

On Thursday, British charity Oxfam severed its ties with Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson over her endorsement of an Israeli firm operating in a settlement in the occupied West Bank - a move that Oxfam said was "incompatible" with its stance.

The spat has come at a delicate time for US-backed peacetalks between Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli officials fear that if the talks fail, a nascent call for an economic boycott of Israel and its settlements might grow.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/hundreds-protest-against-israeli-settlements-20141311844770384.html

Shame on the Israeli government, doing their utmost to make sure the peace talks fail, their intention all along, and thieving land that is not theirs against international law.  

A boycott should be put in place immediately instead of letting them get away with it year after year.

veya_victaous wrote:

Warren Moon wrote:


Yeah but you could argue the same about the Saxons in England, Bill the conqueror won hands down so the Saxons had to lump it.  Israel can beat anyone in the area, so they need to lump it.

For about 3 months....  Israel cannot support its armed forces it can’t even Arm them and it completely reliant on USA military aid for their dominance in the region.  IF the Aid stopped they couldn't hold out for long against the legit regional powers like Iran.

Warren Moon wrote:Is she talking to me?????

Warren Moon wrote:This feels like a Robert De Niro movies SM.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Ah what sheer hypocrisy!

You cant speak against the Zionism as you are labelled an anti semitic!!!!!!

Yet all day you can sprout rubbish about Muslims without any fear!!!!

Warren Moon wrote:SM you might be better off with a lightweight number from Kipling, they store loads and are far more practical than a case.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Blah blah blah! Because I speak out for Palestinians I'm now Anti semantic!

Listen illiterate one let me start by educating you a little.......

The Zionists ( you have access to google so look it up what it means and educate yourself on it) want to create a HOMELAND of their own by destroying the homes of the Palestinians and murdering them along the way.
For any civilised person that is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I rest my case.

PhilDidge wrote:Back to land claims, utterly absurd, both have a right to live there and in peace

smelly_bandit wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

And Palestinain Records going back 3700 years, Which Proves the Jews were new comers 2000 years ago!!!!!

Are there no Jews in the UK? there are plenty here.
I doubt they wil be extinct, but like Christian and Muslims the world would be better if they were.     

And it wouldn't be the second it would be the 4th or 5th attempt.    

Better if the Jews were extinct??

Definitely no nazi like anti semitism in that viewpoint

The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program provides grants and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States as well as acquiring defense services and military training. FMF funds purchases are made through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, which manages government-to-government sales.

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Better if the Jews were extinct??

Definitely no nazi like anti semitism in that viewpoint

No It is not anti semitism it is anti Monotheism. It would be better if Christian and Muslims were Extinct too    
Again the fact there is no jewish state didn't seem to make the extinct for the 1700 odd years they were already with out it.