Are Palestinians an 'invented' people?

Shouldn't the title of this thread be "why we should support Israel"?

Let's whip up suspicion of the Palestinians first...good. Then from suspicion always comes hatred. Hatred of the Palestinians = support of Israel.

So just name the thread what it is really about instead and skip the beating around the bush.

 

Not amongst civilised countries, or civilised people.

Obviously you don't approve of civilisation.

 

But Israel are not retaking anything, Israel is an invented country.

Look on any map prior to 1948, Palestine is there, Israel isn't.

 

There never was an American Nation . . .before there was one!

There never was a Belgian Nation. . .before there was one!

So what?

You want the whole world to go back to the "borders" set in Biblical times?

 

Christian Order of the Black Cross?.........whaddya guys do?....walk around in black robes and think up secret handshakes?......that sounds very scary.

 

Of course Palestine is a nation. The only reason you say Palestine isn't a nation is because you live in a backward country which doesn't recognise them as such.

But there are more people in the world live in a country which does recognise Palestine as a state than there are live in a country which doesn't.

So if you believe in democracy, they are a nation.

 

And the jews didnt take it from the British, they relinquished their claim. Just as Jordan relinquished its claim to the west bank.

 

Seems the meaning of "Yes" seems to escape you.

 

Actually, anything coming from you escapes me!

And that's a GOOD thing!

 

All the Palestinian and Libyan politics aside for a moment, isn't there an active policy in China to create a Chinese majority in Tibet? If China were to hypothetically experience episodes of civil distress in the future, the Tibet with its Chinese majority would then hypothetically prefer to secede to form what political entity or contraption?

 

Like Ghaddafi in Libya? His hearing was pretty bad after he was bombed out his convoy.

And south sudan has agreed a UN sponsored referendum and separation.

Youve been shown to be wrong on these points, you have no way to contradict what ive said.


By the way, are you a silly troll or a decent respectable poster?

 

The British never claimed palestine. They held it in trust for its people.

By the way, youve been defeated on your point regarding palestine because you have no counter to the fact that the USA wasnt a nation before it was. Therefore the fact that palestine doesnt exist now isnt any reason against it.

Thats why youre point is done. Is it not?

 

Palestine wasn't OWNED by the Brits.. They were administering it.. They didn't colonize it.

You should probably read the documents.... Yale:Avalon Project Palestine Documents 1916 to...

 

Yes, there is no such thing as Palestinians, just ask the Jews.

Completely invented.

 

What are you trying to tell us?

The jews themselves know the palestinians exist.

 

International law are unenforceable if the major power don't want to enforce them. The UN is as irrelevant today as the League of Nation was in the 30's.

The history is written by the victorious, no one care about the loser. Tibet is a prime example of that. Has anybody done anything to liberate them? How about the Kurds? The Australian aboriginal or the north and south american native tribes?

The arabs today represent anarchy... I'm on the side of order.

 

Nations act according to their own interrest. Those trumps treatys and "international" laws everytime.

Welcome to the real world.

 

....and if there is no such thing as "Palestinians", there shouldn't be any restrictions on where these non existant people travel in Israel.

 

What a pile of ignorant crap. Do the Israeli squatters have title to the properties they are stealing from the Palestinians? Oh, stupid of me, they don't need them because 'god' said it was ok.
I'm guessing if someone forced you out of your home at gunpoint, stating that 'god' said it was ok, you'd quite correctly suspect that he was mentally ill. Or would you?

Your 'argument' is idiotic.

 

Actually they do.. Israel is a nation of law, so deeds and contract are enforced.

 

'A nation of law'? Don't make me laugh-or do they just hand out land titles to anyone who wants to throw an Arab out of his home?
This, however, is a very good thing: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Pm8PYPb9w"]Israeli army evicts dozens of Hebron settlers - YouTube[/ame]

 

AT this point it doesn't really matter. The fact is there are people living within the borders of a nation they won't claim as their own, and they want their own nation, complete with borders and international legitimacy. That is a fact no matter what you call those people.

The problem is those new borders would be used for strategic military advantage, threatening Israel's security. We don't have to go back to the Ottoman Empire for history. It was just 50 years ago that the Arabs used that very land to invade Israel. Subsequently, any previous legitimate claims to any of the lands used to invade Israel, or where Israel destroyed enemy forces, now belongs to Israel. This has been the precedent since time and memoriam. It has happened all over the world, including here in America.

After the war, Israel told the Arabs and the U.N. to stick it. They weren't having it again. And if you don't like the borders, do something about it, which of course they (Arabs) could not and would not. So they've been trying ever since with money from stupid Americans to destroy Israel. Only their only real option militarily is terrorism.

If the U.N. ever tries to go back to pre-1967 borders, as suggested by Obama, there will be a major war. Israel will not lie down and accept it. And a U.N. Security Council resolution against them would not have the support of the U.S., unless we have someone as insane and sympathetic to Muslims as Barack Hussein. We're lucky it hasn't come to this yet.

 

South Sudan acquired its territory through force, and lookie there - the UN has recognized that country and the territory it obtained through force.

South Sudan Becomes 193rd Member of United Nations
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...193rd-Member-of-United-Nations-125579368.html

Au contraire, and there's no need to get personal about it:

Obviously, you should be asking yourself that question...

 

Here's another analogy. If Mexico and Canada invaded the U.S. with military forces crossing the borders, and we subsequently kicked their asses; wherever those points of entry into our country, including territory beyond our border and into their country, would belong to us. We would not give that land back to be used again to invade us.

We own virtually all the islands between Hawaii and Japan. Why? Because the Japanese used those islands as staging areas from which to attack. And not just Pearl Harbor. They actually firebombed forests in the NW.

 

The problem with the LON in the 30's was that America was not a member, and the LON was no match for Germany, Italy, and Japan. The depression didn't help, and its own members became frustrated and didn't adhere to it's original purpose. They basically abandoned it just like righties in America today want to walk away from the UN. My grandpa said it best..."always keep talking to your opponents, because when people stop talking, they usually start fighting", and that's what happened after the Japanese walked out of the LON

The LOS was way more defunct than the UN is now. The UN now is just ineffective militarilly, but they are functional in many ways that the LON was not.

Liberating Tibet miltarilly is impossible, but did you miss the entire "Free Tibet" movement?....Seven Years in Tibet, Kundun?.....pleanty of people care about that loser.

The Kurds.....they don't have a country to liberate.

The aboriginies, and native Americans.....who will be the first to sign over thier deeds to thosew folks?

Arabs today do not represent anarchy, in fact, Arab League nations have too much law and order. The laws in most middle eastern countries are way more strict than American laws.

The part of your post I do agree with....is how international laws are irrelevant if the major powers don't enforce them