It's Time For Full UN Membership For Palestine

A term that changed its meaning over a relatively short period of time must be properly defined. Otherwise, we get strings of false pearls like "Palestine belonged to Palestinians before the Zionists came to Palestine", even though at the time Arabs didn't define themselves as Palestinians. That's why I ask posters who use such expressions to define "Palestinian". They never answer.

I'll give you an example.

The Visigoths who invaded the Iberian Peninsula in the 5th century were not indigenous to the Peninsula. The indigenous Spanish nation was born as a result of a process of assimilation between Visigoths and Romans.

I used the term "indigenous" because anti-Zionists routinely refer to Palestinians as "the indigenous people of Palestine", a claim they were never able to prove.

In other words, you think that what works for Westerners will work in the Middle East. Nope.

Most Middle Eastern countries are very young and never existed before WWI. Arab countries are in fact groups of tribes, clans, and extended families who accept the authority of a ruling elite. Very far from the Western notion of state.

 

There is no such thing as the "Jewish nation"

You must be referring to Israel and no, Jew does not mean Israel.

 

Palestine is not a nation. It never was. How on Earth can it be a UN member?

 

Palestine is not a nation and has never been a self governed nation. It is a geographic area that has been ruled by many powers over the course of history except by itself. That geographic area is now Israel which was created when the UK, the last of those ruling powers, ceded it to the Jews. So Palestinians are Muslims who live in that geographic area. They are Muslim Israelis. The answer is quite simple.

 

You failed to provide any of the facts I asked for, so let's not pretend this is about facts. You're simply a supporter of terrorism.

 

Well this is a bit embarrassing, but again, this was a post directed at another poster. That doesn't mean you shouldn't reply if you have something to add, but in this case, the issue was that per that poster, the BBC did not regard October 7th as a terrorist act, it wasn't about aid to Gaza.

 

I haven't challenged the above. Frankly, they are red herrings.

What we are seeing today is the unimaginable moral degradation of the Likud party and associated Zionists as they work to accomplish genocide.

Borders were established in 1967. Those borders took into account acts and facts on the ground at that time and previous to that.


Today, Israel is slaughtering civilians who are starving in Rafah (for example) a place Israel told them to go for SAFETY!!

Today, Israel ignores Geneva Conventions and ICJ pleas for Israel to organize aid to civilians - and that is just too much for Israel - who seems to think that starving is a legitimate method for exterminating residents of Gaza.

 

BBC reports. They don't declare.

BBC refers to Hamas as a group “proscribed as a terrorist organization by the UK government and others,” or simply use “Hamas.”

 

Well that makes more sense than what the other poster was saying.

 

It's clear Hamas carried out a humanitarian atrocity for political purpose.

However, that fact does not justify genocide of the civilian population in carrying out Likud's stated direction of allowing no government but Israel between the river and the sea.

Israel has been carrying out horrendous humanitarian atrocities on the Palestinian population over the last 20 years for political purpose.

Why do we not admit Israel is a terrorist organization?

 

"Humanitarian atrocity?" Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of that term.

 

https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/defining-the-four-mass-atrocity-crimes/

And other sources.

 

OK I didn't see "Humanitarian Atrocity" on that site. I assume this is a term that is used exclusively by left wing nutcases and normal people wouldn't come across it.

 

I'm not interested in your terminology debates.

If you have a preferred term, then propose it.

 

I'm uncertain but exactly what good would it do for Palestine to have UN membership?

 

Which means the most well respected media organisation in the west does not label hamas as terrorists.

 

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

What hamas did was understandable under the circumstances, be that war or the ghettoisation of Gaza.

You would even be calling them heroes if you were a Gazan citizen. Put yourself in the shoes of a 12 year old Gazan boy, like the one in your avatar.

 

There already is a term, it's called a terrorist attack. As we've already determined, that's what you are supporting.

 

Because they were respected 50 years ago doesn't mean I have to respect them now. They are simply a state organ.

 

Well if I supported terrorism, yeah than I'm sure. Bin Ladin was loved by millions all over the world. That doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist.

 

LOL!!

The question was what YOU prefer to call the humanitarian atrocities being carried out by Israel on Palestinians over the last 20 years.

 

It would give them full and equal representation in all the organs of the UN.

Every nation sees that as important.

 

pro active self defense

 

So, its legit to slaughter civilians by the thousands on the grounds that one day these starving civilians, living in tents among the rubble, are a THREAT???

There is not a shred of morality in that.

it's the most disgusting idea imaginable.

 

gotta start somewhere