Hamas took over the Gaza Strip after a brief civil war back in 2006 / 2007 . Before that Fatah was a major Palestinian political party that began in 1965 as the Palestinian National Liberation Movement. Fatah wanted to negotiate back to the 67 boundaries.

Hamas – Does not recognize Israel, but accepts a Palestinian state on 1967 borders
Fatah – Recognizes Israel, wants to build a state on 1967 borders






Israel should stop advancing and leave it to the Palestine to find and and capture Hamas.
To pressure this no aid to Palestine. Their desperation will weed out Hamas.

Today’s MAGA scandal…Manly Traitor Green’s staff were caught running a fake charity for the victims of the Palestine train derailment, but were simply pocketing the money.

Sound familiar? It’s why Trump can’t be involved in any charity now, he ran the same kinds of fraudulent charities for wounded soldiers and pocketed the money. 😂

Not if you excuse the invasion and takeover because they were DUE reparations, or even because they were fleeing the Nazis. I think reparations were due….by Germany, not Palestine.
Palestine paid them…and continues to pay them today.
It’s not feasible today, but it was directly after WW2, and that’s what we should have supported, even enforced.

Do you deny a massive influx of Jewish illegal immigrants invited by those who had been generously granted asylum? Do you deny they had the intent to take the land by force for a Jewish state? Do you deny most came after the war ended so weren’t fleeing war or Nazis? If not, where’s the disagreement? If so, citations please.

If they came illegally, absolutely, I object. If they came secretly intending to take the land of their benefactors by force, absolutely, I object. It was mostly in the later 40’s btw, largely AFTER the war ended. They weren’t fleeing Nazi persecution then.
Yes, when you come against the wishes of the local government intending to depose it, install your own, and expel the natives, that’s called invasion. That’s their history.

If I invite a refugee to live in my yard, and they invite their family, neighbors, and groups of armed militants who steal my house, land, and property and put me on skid roe, and the police turn a blind eye, even supporting the squatters because they’ve had it hard lately, do you think I have a right to get my friends to try to remove them, even if I wasn’t prepared to fight to the death unarmed and alone against their mob? If I do, do you still call me the aggressor? Come on. Don’t ignore the primary original crime that precipitated 70 years of atrocities.

Israel declared war by becoming a state by stealing one. I find it bullshit to blame the Palestinians neighbors for supporting their neighbor against a massive invasion and land grab by foreigners. Again, like Mexicans taking Texas back and you complaining if we tried to keep it, especially if we asked our Allie’s for help. Utter nonsense.

The Jewish people had already invaded and expelled the natives, removing all rights from any remaining. The two state solution = just go ahead and keep Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah because there’s already illegal immigrants there, in a few years you can have Kansas and Nevada, then keep expanding….those people are currently in Texas at this time. Again, you ignore the invasion, land theft, and expulsion to pretend Israel was already there…nonsense again.

Yes, it took more force to keep it from the armies of the allies of Palestine than it did to steal it from the recently liberated colony of Palestine that had no military. Duh.

What I see differently is I don’t ignore or forget the violent forced invasion by the Jewish zionists, nor the expulsion, theft from, and dehumanization of the natives, I don’t blame the natives for attempting to regain their ancestral home or properties that the Jewish state outright stole, nor do I ignore the horrific conditions those same people and their descendants have lived under for 70 years, constantly invaded further, no travel allowed, no imports, no water, no medicine, no weapons but treated like the aggressors and the criminal invaders for attempting to fight for THEIR OWN LAND, kept in shrinking ghettos, treated as sub humans to be exterminated, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews but on a national level.

@newtboy
"I meant in a practical and ethical sense it would have made more sense for them to take part of Germany as actual reparations."
Isn't this a red herring, irrelevant point though unless they were given part of Palestine as 'reparations'? If we're gonna fix history with wishes lets go further and erase WW2.

"When they, as a people, invade a recently sovereign land and take it by force..."
It's your characterization here that you seem to just be asserting as true, but it's the heart of where we see it differently.

Are you objecting to the Jewish refugees illegally taking refuge alongside Jewish people already in Palestine in the 30s and early 40s? Your usage of the word 'invade' seems to suggest that.

Do you think I'm misrepresenting things as well when I pointed out it was the Arab states that declared war, immediately upon Israel embracing a two state solution? And let's be clear, it was a two state solution with borders essentially mirroring the existing land occupied by both Jewish and Arab peoples currently in Palestine at the time.

You declare it was taken by force, but the history as I know it has by far the largest use of force was 100% defensive after the declaration of war by all neighboring Arab states.

What are you seeing so differently at that point of history?

For my understanding, the general meaning of the word "Zionism" is vastly changed throughout the eras. And there isn't a homogeneous kind of Zionism anyway. What kind of "Zionist agenda" the people/government living in the land of "Israel/Palestine" in the 30-50s to today had in mind and pushing for is totally different. Let's be concerned with today's general definition of Zionism, as mostly defined by the Likud and the other far-right/Nationalist parties in today's Israel shall we?

Also, I can't imagine there are a whole lot of countries that would deny Israel's right-to-exist (like, physically, wholeheartedly want to wipe them of the face of the earth kind, NOT the expedient, political rhetorics for their own domestic consumption kind). And those that could really be crazy enough, like Iran, I constantly (naively?) felt the Ayatollahs would rather opt for silent, staus-quo relations than go to war with Israel (they must see the Ukraine invaison and see Russia/Putin isolation as a lesson, they can't afford to put themselves in the same position as Putin's in a Israel/Iran war. The Ayatollahs don't have even Iranian people standing behind them).

The good is that for Israel vs. the Arab countries, trust building is possible, but incredibly slow -- it only takes one wrong step to negate a mile of trust building -- but still, the past few years have seen some Arab countries opening up bilateral embassies with Israel along wiht increased trades & direct flights, etc.

The no good, very bad news of the statehood issues, daily IvP conflict, land grabs and from low-level militray incursions to the occasional missiles trading military operations, are happening far too often. Thus making hard-core Zionism, support of Hamas, the isolation of the Palestinian people & economy, etc. all the more severe. None of these are paths towards peace and/or creating the conditions for mutually agreeable settlement. All the flashpoints needs to be addressed in an even-handed way. But we just don't see balance in the media and/or the world political arena.

@newtboy,

And it’s in the origins that I think our disagreement lies. It’s convenient for both the Arab and western worlds to agree that Israel owes it’s existence as a state to Western powers gifting palestine to them as ‘reparations’. That it’s convenient for both parties though is about as far as the truth of it really goes.

As a realist, I don’t see anything going much differently if the west had opposed Jewish settlement in Palestine at the time. The Jewish people were fleeing the anticipated holocaust. In the aftermath of the actual holocaust, it was their own actions of settling in Palestine, and defending themselves once there that made them a state. Nobody gave it to them, they fought and bled for it themselves.

The closest interference of Britain came in trying to wash their hands of Palestine and declaring a 2 state solution, with borders drawn around the territory in Palestine currently occupied by Jewish and Arab populations. I still hold the key to the ongoing problems are not Israel’s declaration of independence accepting that 2 state solution, but instead the entire arab world’s declaration of war on them and intention to drive them “into the sea”. A declaration like that 3 years after the holocaust, towards a population made up largely of holocaust survivors deserves condemnation. I an’t side with the notion that in that conflict, and the immigration leasing up to it, that the European Jewish refugees are the bad guys and aggressors…

@newtboy,

There's a danger here of having an actual nuanced discussion on Israel/Palestine happening here if we aren't careful...

I agree with your point of difference on illegal immigrants in the US largely not having a plan for 'independence' in their back pocket. The soft equivalence that the right wingers would point to though would be immigrant settling into small area such that they can setup a virtual community without ever needing to learn local languages and pushing hard to keep their 'own' values and way of life. I don't agree with the "Learn English" rednecks or the ones shouting how folks need to act American, but there is at least a soft parallel. virtually the only thing South Park has ever been censored on was depicting the prophet, and that 100% read as fear of violent retaliation, which isn't nothing.

I also think you hit the bigger point on how broken systems of immigration are. Particularly when domestic politics and the situation for legal immigration to refugees is grossly inadequate. I think America today though is just a much more mild example of it than the 30/40s in Palestine. For all the complaints one can level at Zionism, it's very hard to condemn them for encouraging mass emigration out of Europe. It's also clear that waiting on legal immigration routes out wasn't going to get people out fast enough. Thus I really look carefully at any anti-zionist position that includes condemning jewish 'illegal' immigration at the time. It treads dangerously close to saying they should have accepted the alternative, which was by and large remaining in Europe...

I’m against it, it’s a crime.
I believe in work visas, refugee status, and legal immigration. I believe in a system of charging employers who hire illegal immigrants to skirt taxes, wage laws, labor laws, etc. harshly enough to make it not worth the risk (like take the company/assets of repeat offenders, and using the money collected to fund the immigration and naturalization department and figure out how to supply labor without forcing people to be criminals to get a job.

Sadly those systems are broken.

Because those systems are completely broken and don’t serve the needs of either the immigrants nor the employees that need their labor, we have a massive illegal immigration problem because we have a massive labor shortage issue.

There is a parallel, but it’s not the same thing. We have (or had until recently) a strong well defended democracy, and an enormous population and landmass compared to 1917-48 occupied Palestine, and they had only a fledgling government when the Jewish war refugees they invited started inviting and facilitating a flood of illegal immigrants with a plan to take over the small country. Most of our illegal immigrants are here to make money to take home, I’m unaware of any efforts to return Texas (pre-breakup) to Mexican control like 40’s -50’s Israel.

IMO, Israel is like if 2/3 of Texas became “Tex-Mex” by force, a new country where only those of Mexican descent have rights, a vote, can own property, etc. and white Texans are forced to live in NW Texas under guard struggling to find food and water with Tex-Mex constantly squeezing them into smaller and smaller areas.
Strangely enough, you will note that those same flag waiving anti immigrant (not just anti illegal immigrant mind you) far right wingers are staunch supporters of Jewish Israel….almost like they don’t know history….wait…

@newtboy,

I have to ask your stance on illegal aliens within the USA today in that case, since you seem to use it as a derogative against 1930/40s Jewish refugees fleeing Europe for Palestine...

Feels to me the confederate flag wavers stance on illegal immigrants in the US parallels the picture you're painting of 1930s/40s Palestinian immigration closer than you maybe like to admit.

I considered writing it that way, but there are a few cultures where knowledge and discernment are important and I didn’t want to insult them by inclusion.

Not the same at all. Confederate flag bearers are wanting to return to a racist culture where one group has total control over all other groups. Anti Zionists do deny Israel’s right to exist, but (at least in my case) not one bit based on the race or religion of those who live there (now), but based 100% on how those illegal aliens took a country by force from its occupants, with our unbridled support, committed a genocide that continues today, and claims to be the victim every time a few rocks get thrown and they “have to” retaliate by destroying a few inhabited city blocks in the mass prison ghetto they have made of Palestine.

The multiple parallels to the Nazis treatment of Jews is insane.

Let me fix that for ya:
"The level of education and discernment of the average HUMAN in general is really depressing."

Israel and Palestine is particularly messy though, as so much power(money, violence and otherwise) is leveraged from both sides to ensure people choose a side, and choose it with no compromises allowed, purely villainizing the other and vindicating the 'right' team.

Anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism, as you pointed out. Yet, overwhelmingly anti-zionism is also used as a code word for denying Israel's right to exist, equivalent to confederate flag marchers claiming they haven't any racist intentions...

rather thought some of the ribs were delicious.

no offense, but there was some 'kill, kill, kill' theme in those treatises.

in defense, learn about the Holocaust at an age most youngsters have just mastered tying their shoes. nix the naiveté or naïveté or naivete?* herr? ['tho didn't finish 'Night', as traveling through that deep of darkness, one could easily fall into the abyss.]

seriously. psycop was cool. me, chill. thee? like a blitzkrieg attack on anyone differing in the least. ya' know? like a culling of anyone un-erring.

no. not down w/pedicide. not see the upside. don't know the movie or actual events. found it questionable to put a person in a minefield and tie it to their freedom - - - is that being bold?

you're a bright guy. wound a tad tight, I'd wager, but on this subject, ya' make me yearn for something easier...like conversion with my Palestine pal or his Serbian side-kick. that was a blast.

or bantering with bob k.

are you on the west coast? hear it's like an oven out there.


BTW: missed Buhhda on a Bun, Allaha on Baba...and other expansions on the theology theme...Zoroaster in alabaster

fun isn't it!

*who was the 'nazi'?

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

The bible was written almost exclusively by Jews, both the Old and New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and so were most of His apostles. The events of the majority of the books in the bible happened in Israel. Christianity is a Jewish religion. So, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the bible has a lot to say about the Jews. Where they came from, how they got there, and what happens to them in the future.

Christian support for the Jews is a relatively new phenomenon. During the reign of the Catholic church, Jews were persecuted by Catholics and forced to convert to Christianity. The Jewishness of Jesus was lost to history; this is why you see much of the art during the middle ages depicting the Lord as a European man.

What changed is that the Jews returned to the land of Israel in 1948, something that many scholars of time past assumed was impossible. The general teaching was that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people because they rejected Christ and that the church was now the new Israel. This is called replacement theology.

Yet, the Jews did return to their own land, a unique event in all of history. Never before had a people group been displaced from their own country, scattered all over the world for thousands of years, and then regathered to their original land with their cultural and genetic purity intact. This is a true miracle which anyone can plainly see is evidence of the hand of God working in the Earth on behalf of His chosen people.

The video makes it seem like the idea of Israel being integral to end times prophecy is some kind of leap, yet anyone who has studied the bible seriously knows that nearly everything predicted about the end times revolves around Israel, and particularly Jerusalem. There are numerous prophecies in the Old Testament stating plainly that God will scatter His people and gather them back to Israel in the last days.

The scripture predicts that the Jews will build a third temple. At this moment the Dome of the Rock, the golden domed building you see in photographs of Jerusalem, stands in the place where the third temple must be built. You could sum up the entire tension in the middle east in two words: "Temple Mount".

Not only are the Jews ready to rebuild their temple in a moments notice, they have created all of the implements of the temple and have been training priests to serve in the temple. The scripture declares that for end times prophecy to be fulfilled there must be a third temple. I can confidently predict that this will happen sometime in the future and the Dome of the Rock most likely be destroyed.

I also wanted to mention one other thing. The name "Palestine" was given to the area by the Romans. The Palestinians are not a people group, they are Arabs who settled in the area after the Jews were dispersed around the world. The video really does you a disservice by neglecting to mention the fact that it was the Arab nations that attacked Israel unprovoked on multiple occasions and the Jews against all odds defeated them. It was their right to take that territory and they are under no obligation to return it.

In the end, there will be much more conflict in the middle east, all revolving around the Jews and Jerusalem in some way. You may doubt the scripture but you will see this unfold with your very eyes. One day a charismatic man will come on the scene who will negotiate a peace in the middle east between the Jews and the nations of the world. He will seem at first to be someone who can solve all of our problems but eventually he will establish a one world order and rule the world with an iron fist. He will go into the Jewish temple and declare himself to be God. This is who the bible calls the Antichrist.

So, if you want to know where we are at in the end times, watch Israel and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Gods prophetic time clock. When you see the Dome of the Rock being replaced by the temple, know the Lord is near, even at the doors.

Lol.

Apparently the far right still needs to learn it has no credibility. Trotting out sycophantic Trump morons to preach more garbage isn't helping and isn't working anymore.

Even our military has no credibility anymore, and our allies no longer trust us. This is thanks to the dishonesty of right wing administrations, not left.

That's why Trump is having daily fits over his poll numbers continuing to fall, and he's never neared 50% approval, and why there are still so many pending cases against the administration based on the evidence you refuse to believe exists.
It doesn't go unnoticed that you can't factually contradict what they said, so you simply dismiss it without reason.

Also, note that your pilot was denied asylum and returned to Palestine.