Neither.
Perhaps YOU didn't watch the video, or do you just refuse to acknowledge the facts that the Jewish population was quite small, and was treated fairly under 'Palestinian rule' (whether under the Ottomans, Brittan, or France)?
They didn't fight until AFTER Zionisation....or invasion. They declared war because the Jews in droves illegally immigrated there and TOOK/STOLE the land by force and asserted political and military control, and instantly started expanding their control to their neighbors and expelling or disenfranchising non Jews.
Yes, it's absolutely the Jew's fault for stealing other people's land. Yes, it's the Brit's and French's fault for not enforcing the legal immigration plans that were set up and for allowing all the insane illegal immigration/invasion, then later their and the USA's fault for supporting the invaders politically, militarily, and financially.
They absolutely should have KEPT them in Germany/Europe and taken state land and given it to the Jews to form their own state...not allowed them to relocate and take an innocent party's property because they want it. Before the Jewish invasion, the Jews in Palestine were treated just fine...not so with the Palestinians after the invasion.

Did you not bother watching the video, or do you just refuse to acknowledge that BOTH Arabs and Jews were Palestinians prior to the civil war at the end of WW2? Arab and Jewish Palestinians fought one another, the UN recommended a 2 state solution, the Jewish Palestinians agreed, the Arab Palestinians and ALL the neighbouring Arab states all jointly declared war on the Jewish Palestinians with the intent of having all of Palestine for themselves.

But yeah, it all the Jews fault, or if not the Jews fault, it's the Brits and European's fault for not supporting the genocide or eviction of ALL jewish Palestinians and relocating them somewhere in a Europe that had just recently killed them by the million...

I can never understand why anyone thought taking Palestine from the Palestinians because Jews were oppressed in Europe made any sense at all. Why was a new country not carved out of Germany? It makes no sense.
I'm disgusted that my government is Zionist. Land thieves should not be supported, especially when they're conquering religious zealots.
I often wonder how people would react if the Zionists had created their country in Texas, expelled the Texans, then expanded into New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana 'to create a buffer zone' that they then move into, and were supported by the international community?

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

That's in part to do with how during WW2 Europe had the bulk population of Jewish faithed people.

Outside of Europe, the population of Jewish faithed persons was scattered throughout little towns and ghettos (in the social sense, eg. like NY's Chinatown for the Chinese).

There was a small-ish population of Jewish Poles (called the Zionists) that had in the WW1 era moved to Palestine and bought land together to form their own communities.

Basically, the high concentration of Jewish faithed persons in Europe in the WW2 era made it easy to target a large percentage of their overall population.

Judea (Referred to as "Palestine" by the Romans - hence why in modern times Judea was called Palestine) had converted from Judaism to Christianity around 300 ish AD (under the influence of Rome), and then to Islam around 700 ish AD (Under the influence of the Islamic expansions). By WW2, Judaism was an archaic religion in the middle east. Similar to Zoroastrianism, where small pockets still can be found, but its otherwise not represented.

It's not till after WW2 (1948) when Britain carved out the nation of Israel from [at the time British colonial] Palestine, and surviving Jewish Europeans immigrated there from Europe, and subsequently Jewish faithed Arabs/Burburs immigrated there from around the middle east, that there was another major concentration of Jewish faithed persons to be found.

(This is when the Arab vs Israel conflict(s) began. A fun irony is that much of Israel's military in 1948 was German equipment (bf109s, etc), and much of the Arab equipment was British (spitfires, etc).)

(The Nazi government did a lot of killing, tho. The Soviet Union alone lost ~10 million soldiers, ~14-17 million civilians, and ~1-2 million Jewish persons.)

One of the reasons why Israel is so insular in regards to non-Jews, is because their overall population is small enough that they would be bred out of existence in a few generations.

-scheherazade

i can agree with this sentiment,but that is not my intention.

i do not know how certain aspects of this particular situation are covered in the media by other news agencies around the world (besides a few i come across from the guardian,and a few others in europe),but here in the states there is pretty much nothing being discussed in regards to the radicalization of citizens.

i think that is a huuuge question:why are citizens of these western countries joining ISIS? why are they packing up everything and heading to syria,or yemen,to fight with ISIS? why are they planning and executing terrorist attacks on their own communities?

we can understand,if not condone,why local people from iraq to syria,to palestine become radicalized,but when it comes to western citizens joining the fray to fight for radical extremists,there really is no discussion.

so in my opinion,i think it prudent to examine the tactics that these radical extremist groups utilize in order to recruit and/or convince people to join their cause.

this video is a good example on how these people have perfected a marketing strategy in order to attract people from around the world.

this is not some shoddy work from some back water group of people.this video reveals a sophistication and cultural savvy that is quite disturbing.

and i think that aspect really needs to be examined a lot more than i am seeing in my countries so-called journalism.

Your video, the palestine exception to free speech-movement under attack, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's pretty disgusting....but sadly not at all unexpected. Various factions have seemingly taken control of the bastions of higher learning and systematically destroyed what I always saw as their fundamental function, fostering an ability to logically think for one's self. Anyone not on the 'right' side must be on the 'wrong' side and not worth listening to...or worthy of allowing others to listen to, I guess. That ain't learnin'...that's just mutual mental masturbation.
It's pretty funny/sad/telling that supporters of Palestine are called anti-Semitic, since Palestinians are also Semites, aren't they? The word doesn't mean 'Jewish', it's an ethnicity that includes 'Arabs'.

I would say that example is a false dichotomy. You're never going to find a case in Palestine or elsewhere in the world that someone blows themselves up purely for the religious reasons. There are clearly political and social motivations at play in every terrorist attack.

This relates directly to my main point though. Some some pundits want to use a suicide bombing in the West Bank as proof that Islam is "evil" or "dangerous" without addressing the elephant in the room--that the Palestinians are living in the world's "largest open-air prison" (to use Chomsky's words) and are resisting what they see as occupation of their lands in any way they can. It is no where near as simplistic as the "Muslims good/infidels bad cuz Koran says so" argument that some people seem to want to make.

And let's be clear, I'm not saying there aren't passages in the Koran that are being interpreted by Hamas and others as justification for the use of terrorism as an acceptable form of resistance. I'm saying this isn't unique to Islam. During the height of fighting in Northern Ireland both sides were using the Bible to justify the car bombs, assassinations, and other violence that occurred during The Troubles (another complex conflict where religious, political, and social issues intertwined). Yet I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would claim that Christianity is "evil" or "dangerous" based on what went down in Northern Ireland. It is a great example, though, of how any organized religion can be mobilized to support evil acts.

This comes up a bit short on some issues.

For instance, the ongoing drought in the Euphrates-Tigris area pushed people in Syria into the cities, adding pressure to already overstretched infrastructure.

Also, what about the West's glorious idea to run illegal wars of aggression in Iraq and Libya, which destabilized the entire region? Nevermind Afghanistan or the bombing campaigns in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. What about the gulag that is Palestine? What about the economic consequences of our obsession with free trade, taking away from developing countries the ability to protect and nurture their own industries? What about our subsidies of farm exports, thereby undercutting local farmers and destroying these peoples' ability to feed themselves?

All of these countries have heaps of issues of their own, but let's not forget that "we" not only didn't help, but actively made things worse in many cases. As cities drain resources from the hinterland, so do our centers of capitalism drain resources from developing nations. They are our hinterland.

Yugoslavia seems to have been forgotten by most people, but the split and following neoliberal treatment left the entire area in a state of instability. Kosovo today is basically run by organised crime.

So, as horrible as Assad's actions are, very few countries are in a position to offer meaningful criticism, having pissed away what little moral authority we had to begin with.

And as far as legal responsibilities towards refugees go, I'd say after torture, wars of aggression, global espionage, a stateless people in Europe (Roma/Sinti), destruction of a society (Greece), an openly xenophobic regime (Hungary), etc, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that "rights" are meaningless unless actively enforced by someone with the required amount of power.

Look at Calais, look at Lesbos, look at Lampedusa, and tell me all about our European morals and values...

Written by the grandson of a man whose family fled from Silesia in '45 with nothing but two bags and walked all the way to Lower Saxony on foot.

So basically you want me to hold hands and sing hymns with a willfully ignorant racist?

Not likely to happen for either party here.

Like many, I'm pissed and angry about this topic
I'm here venting those frustrations.

If Bob wants to continue saying ignorant shit in a public forum..

..you can bet he'll get served when I show up to rebut that nonsense.

Secondly, I have absolutely no problem personally attacking Bob or Lantern or any other unapologetic racist because..

Bob isn't here to add to the discussion.

He's only commenting to gloat and confirm his own bias.

"See, I always told you niggers are violent criminals"

"See what happens when you let LIB-TARDS run a city!"

So yeah for those reasons, I think Palestine and Israel have an equally likely chance of agreeing & making friends.

To a certain extent, but when you look at the most radicalised Arab/Muslim countries, they share a common factor.

Destabilisation due to western, and to a lesser extent USSR, influence prior to radicalisation. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc. Most of the Middle East has been a proxy battleground between the US and USSR, a target for "stabilisation" to ensure the oil can flow, or an incidental and unwilling participant in the establishment of Israel post the British ownership of Palestine stemming from WW1...

I'm not religious but the old adage "reap what you sow" comes to mind. You burn someones house to the ground with his wife and kids inside, how dafuq does he not become radicalised?? Religion offers the only succour in what is a horrible situation, it offers vengeance and the idea that you'll see your loved ones again in paradise. With nothing else to lose accept a painful life of loss, are we surprised that they strap on bombs and are willing to die?

Muslims killed 5k+ odd people in 911 and we haven't heard the end of it for over a decade. It was the trigger that caused at least 2 pointless and expensive wars, killed/displaced/destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including American and other countries armed forces personnel, led the US down the path of openly torturing people and breaking even more humane laws that it claims separates it from the terrorists. But they aren't allowed to be angry in return?

Their standard of living is a direct result of Western intervention. Western intervention is kryptonite to the high standards of living that would allow education and comfort, but it's the perfect fertiliser for radical religious types and discontent. I am not religious in the slightest, and deplore what mobs like ISIS are doing, but I can understand why these people have landed where they are.

They already looted Gaza of all they could, and destroyed nearly 100% what was left, that's why they have nothing worth having except land, which Israel is continuing to steal.
You are completely insane if you believe that anyone in 'Palestine' has even hundreds of millions, much less billions. If they had billions to spend, they would have nuked Israel years ago, or at the least have better weapons than home made, unguided, completely ineffective rockets and stones, and would find a way to buy concrete, water, food, and medicine. Things you CAN'T get in 'Palestine'. If they even had millions, they would take them and leave (individuals, that is).
No one wants to live in Palestine as it stands.

Actually, if they had billions to spend, the international community would not ignore them as they do, because they want those billions. I'm not sure where you got that idea...Fox? Seems likely, it's just the right kind of dismissive, blame the victim insanity they love.

If Israeli attacks weren't fully funded proxy attacks from larger nations like the USA, you might have a point.
If Iran and Syria had not 'supported' Hezbollah, there would be no Palestinian area today, only Israel.
The reality is that if "Palestine" could defend itself like any other nation, Israel would be 1/2 it's size and not constantly expanding, and there would be hundreds of thousands more Palestinians who had not been killed by Israel and the isolation/starvation they caused.

It seems you're saying that any nation not busy expanding into it's neighbors is 'weak' and should be invaded? Maybe I read wrong?

At this point, Israel are basically holding a midget at arm's length, kicking him in the balls with steel toe caps whilst Palestine slap ineffectually at their hand.

Israel has the capability to deal with the attacks on "their" land (let's not forget the UN recognise much of their occupation as illegal) without indiscriminate shelling of areas populated by MOSTLY innocent civilians. They are basically investing in future terrorism by choosing not to do so, giving themselves an excuse to elaborate on their prison camp which we refer to as Palestine.

You don't have to be FOR hamas to be AGAINST the killing of innocents, and i'm afraid Israel does the lion's (and the lioness', and the cubs') share of that. They can and should be better than retaliation.