Israel To Pay Students For Pro-Israeli Social Media Propaganda

kaylagrl · Jan 2, 2015

I would like to hear your non-Biblical historical angle.

The one I hear most often is the idea that Israelis are entitled to the land because their distant ancestors once occupied it. If some tribe of Monacan Indians came upon my house demanding my land, I would tell them to go pound sand. My ancestors owned vast parcels of land in France, Ireland, and Britain. I would not consider myself entitled to it and neither should the present owners. Suffice to say, if we determined ownership of land by way of whose distant ancestors owned what, there would be no real means of determining who actually owns what property.

I want to hear you out though and I'm sure Human does as well. Give us the "historical" case.

Well thats no small task.A lot of history there.But i'll continue if you want to...

Human · Jan 2, 2015

kaylagrl said:

'Check out history' ... ''unless you are anti-Semitic you'll find the truth'' .. in otherwords, if I don't agree with you I'm anti-Semitic is what you're trying to say. My goodness, do you know how ridiculous you sound?

You say ''Israel is entitled to their land'', by which you mean they are entitled to all the land they currently occupy?? Well, not according to vast overwhelming majorities of UN international lawyers, humanitarian lawyers, human righst lawyers, The American Society of International Law, The British Empirical rulings regarding British Palestine, the majority of legal scholars, the UN Charter or the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The occupation, Kaylagirl, is internationally illegal.

kaylagrl · Jan 2, 2015

Human said:

First of all I'd like for you to answer me a question,who are the Palestinians? What is their history and where did they come from? I'd like to know your view on that.

“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”

Winston Churchill
British Secretary of State for the Colonies
June 1922

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.{51 nations approved this Mandate}

The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form.

Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine. The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine.”

Great Britain [i.e., the Mandatory or Trustee] did turn over its responsibility to the United Nations as of May 14, 1948. However, the legal force of the League of Nations’ “Mandate for Palestine” [i.e., The Trust] was not terminated with the end of the British Mandate. Rather, the Trust was transferred over to the United Nations.
Arabs, the UN and its organs, and lately the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well, have repeatedly claimed that the Palestinians are a native people – so much so that almost everyone takes it for granted. The problem is that a stateless Palestinian people is a fabrication. The word Palestine is not even Arabic.In a report by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, the British made it clear: Palestine is not a State, it is the name of a geographical area.Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome. During the next 2,000 years Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. During that rule, local Arabs were actually considered part of, and subject to, the authority of Greater SyriaThe Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.Only twice in Jerusalem’s history has the city served as a national capital. First as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents. And again in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.

Even their own leaders admitted as much...Well before the 1967 decision to create a new Arab people called “Palestinians,” when the word “Palestinian” was associated with Jewish endeavors, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, testified in 1937 before the Peel Commission, a British investigative body:“There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria

he “Mandate for Palestine” brought to fruition a fourth Arab state east of the Jordan River, realized in 1946 when the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was granted independence from Great Britain.All the clauses concerning a Jewish National Home would not apply to this territory [Trans-Jordan] of the original Mandate, as is clearly stated:“The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from ... up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan. ... His Majesty’s Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan.”The creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.These documents are the last legally binding documents regarding the status of what is commonly called “the West Bank and Gaza.”

“The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.United Nations Charter recognizes the UN’s obligation to uphold the commitments of its predecessor – the League of Nations

Continued in the next post...

kaylagrl · Jan 2, 2015

Continuing...

The “Mandate for Palestine” clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine.” At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the “Mandate for Palestine” explicitly states that the Mandatory should:“... be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:“… the mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent ‘natural law’ claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.

In the first Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine (1920-1925) presented to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how international guarantees for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:“The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change.’ ”Far from the whim of this or that politician or party, eleven successive British governments, Labor and Conservative, from David Lloyd George (1916-1922) through Clement Attlee (1945-1952) viewed themselves as duty-bound to fulfill the “Mandate for Palestine” placed in the hands of Great Britain by the League of Nations.

President Wilson was the first American president to support modern Zionism and Britain’s efforts for the creation of a National Home for Jews in Palestine (the text of the Balfour Declaration had been submitted to President Wilson and had been approved by him before its publication).President Wilson expressed his deep belief in the eventuality of the creation of a Jewish State:“I am persuaded,” said President Wilson on March 3rd, 1919, “that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth."On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-*Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected."On September 21, 1922, President Warren G. Harding (the twenty-ninth President, 1921-1923) signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:

ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the “question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”
ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”
ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.

The “inhabitants” of the territory for whom the “Mandate for Palestine” was created, who according to the Mandate were “not yet able” to govern themselves and for whom self-determination was a “sacred trust,” were not Palestinians, or even Arabs. The “Mandate for Palestine” was created by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations , for the Jewish People.

Regarding the Geneva Convention: the occupation exists when one sovereign state (referred to, in the document, as a “high contracting power”) takes over land belonging to another sovereign state.
This is not the case when it comes to Israel. “Palestine” never existed and Jordan only controlled Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967. The territories of Judea and Samaria were never officially a part of sovereign Jordan.

Copied from various websites.

kaylagrl · Jan 2, 2015

Now Jerusalem was never a holy site to the Muslims. Muhammad never physically stepped foot in Jerusalem. Mecca and Medina were their holy sites.The Jews have a continuous history in the land of 3000 yrs. archaeology proves as much.They did not steal the land from Palestinians.The land was a desert that no one wanted till the Jews began to look to it as a potential homeland.That the Jews have mourned the loss of their homeland for years is very clear. Mark Twain said of the land in 1867 ..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”
But to hear people talk today you would think the Jews swooped down and seized a jewel from the Palestinians, a people who didnt even exist at the time. So far I see no reason why the Jews are not entitled to their homeland.Unless you can enlighten me further.

psychomom · Jan 2, 2015

modern day Jews didn't have to steal the land from Palestinians.

England and the US did it for them.

Desdichado · Jan 3, 2015

psychomom said:

If only the truth were so clear-cut.

Israel's existence was guaranteed for one reason or another by Palestine's locals and every great World War II era power with the exception of Japan.

Human · Jan 3, 2015

kaylagrl said:

None of this takes into account the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people; the very same right by which the Jewish inhabitants of modern day Israel were legally given a portion of the British Palestinian Mandate. The right of Israelis to create a nation state was approved by the UN on very specific grounds, and the UN themselves, an overwhelming majority, vote that the occupations are illegal, because, and I'll reiterate this again: Israel were only given a particular portion of British Palestine, not all of it.

Human · Jan 3, 2015

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil

An actual, credible source, since you didn't list any of yours. ''Copied from various websites'' means nothing.

Human · Jan 3, 2015

The international law of occupation enters the picture signifying both the need to distinguish between order and chaos and the need to distinguish between orders: between the rule and the exception. In distinguishing between order and chaos, the function of international law is to manage the situation; to eliminate chaos through control of the exceptional situation. In distinguishing between orders, its function is to create an orderly space which is defined by its exceptionality-by its suspension of the rule. We argue that the legality of the phenomenon of occupation, as it relates to the function of managing the situation, is to be measured in relation to three fundamental legal principles: (a) Sovereignty and title in an occupied territory are not vested in the occupying power. The roots of this principle emanate from the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through actual or threatened use of force. Under contemporary international law, and in view of the principle of self-yytermination, sovereignty is vested in the population under occupation.

(b) The occupying power is entrusted with the management of public order and civil life in the territory under control. In view of the principle of self-determination, the people under occupation are the beneficiaries of this trst. The dispossession and subjugation of these people violate this trust. (c) Occupation is temporary. 19 It may be neither permanent nor indefinite. These principles, as we will show, interrelate: the substantive constraints on the managerial discretion of the occupant elucidated in principles "(a)" and "(b)" generate the conclusion in "(c)" that occupation must necessarily be temporary. Violating the temporal constraints expressed in principle "(c)" cannot but violate principles "(a)" and "(b)," thereby corrupting the normative regime of occupation in the sense that an occupation that cannot be regarded as temporary defies both the principle of trust and of self-determination. The violation of any one of these principles, therefore, unlike the violation of a specific norm that reflects them,20 renders an occupation illegal per se. This is the nature of the Israeli occupation.

of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Section II.A: Intrinsic Dimensions of the Israeli Occupation of the OPT, substantiates this argument. We further argue that the legality of occupation, in its function to create an orderly space that is nevertheless distinct from the normal political order of sovereign equality between states, is to be measured by its exceptionality: once the boundaries between the normal order (i.e., sovereign equality between states) and the exception (i.e., occupation) are blurred, an occupation becomes illegal. The nexus between the two functions is clear: an occupation that is illegal from the perspective of managing an otherwise chaotic situation is also illegal in that it obfuscates the distinction between the rule and its exception. Yet, the distinction between these two forms of illegality is important; the former is grounded in the intrinsic principles of the law of occupation, while the latter is extrinsic to this law and delineates its limits. The Israeli occupation of the OPT is illegal both intrinsically and extrinsically. Section II.B: Extrinsic Dimensions of the Israeli Occupation of the OPT, substantiates this argument.

Agricola · Jan 3, 2015

Human said:

OH dear, this shows you do not pay attention to history, Right off the bat the offer was on the table for a two state solution, a homeland for Jews and a homeland for the Arabs, ie the so called Palestinians.

Only problem was, the Arabs and Muslim nations hated Jews so much they rejected the proposal, they would rather deny their own people a new Arab nation if it ment the Jews did not get one. Cutting their nose off to spite their face is a good phrase to use here.

There was a small problem though, the UN went ahead with creating a homeland for the Jews, but as the Arab nations and people had said they did not want a nation, that was also taken into account and the motion was passed with the birth of Israel and no Palestinian state.

Utterly enraged the Arab nations went to war with Israel on the day Israel came into existance, on paper theses Arab nations should have achieved the goal of wiping out all the Jews and taking the few strips of desert they started off with and claiming the whole region for themselves, but of course God was on the side of the Jews and they won.

Stolen land refered to the whole of Israel, not just extra land Israel won through conflict. Israel is the only nation which is continually demanded to give back land it gained through conflict. If the Arab nations had not attacked Israel and lived in peace for past 70 years, then Israel would still be just a nation with patches of land spread around the region.

kaylagrl · Jan 3, 2015

Human said:

Yes I gave no sources to you because I knew whoever I sited you would say they are not credible. Wikipedia seems pretty trusted by people here.But the records are historic and can be found on endless sites because they are historic documents and therefore are credible.Doesnt matter what Berkeley says.The League of Nations agreed and the UN cannot now change it arbitrarily to curry political favor.Had I been speaking to someone who would not discredit everything I said,as you have,I would have given specific sources.

kaylagrl · Jan 3, 2015

Agricola said:

OH dear, this shows you do not pay attention to history, Right off the bat the offer was on the table for a two state solution, a homeland for Jews and a homeland for the Arabs, ie the so called Palestinians.

Only problem was, the Arabs and Muslim nations hated Jews so much they rejected the proposal, they would rather deny their own people a new Arab nation if it ment the Jews did not get one. Cutting their nose off to spite their face is a good phrase to use here.

There was a small problem though, the UN went ahead with creating a homeland for the Jews, but as the Arab nations and people had said they did not want a nation, that was also taken into account and the motion was passed with the birth of Israel and no Palestinian state.

Utterly enraged the Arab nations went to war with Israel on the day Israel came into existance, on paper theses Arab nations should have achieved the goal of wiping out all the Jews and taking the few strips of desert they started off with and claiming the whole region for themselves, but of course God was on the side of the Jews and they won.

Stolen land refered to the whole of Israel, not just extra land Israel won through conflict. Israel is the only nation which is continually demanded to give back land it gained through conflict. If the Arab nations had not attacked Israel and lived in peace for past 70 years, then Israel would still be just a nation with patches of land spread around the region.

Absolutely! They did turn down the offer.Also historic documents to prove that.I love when folk rewrite history even with evidence written to prove the fact.

Agricola · Jan 3, 2015

Human said:

You realise that when Arab nations speak of the Occupied Territory they are reffering to Israel.

DO you also think it is hypercritical to bring up West Bank and the management of it by Israel, when it was previously OCCOUPIED by Jordan?

The Jordanian government slaughtered and imprisoned more Palestinians in the West Bank than Israel have. I am sure the Palestinian population living in West Bank would love Israel to hand the stolen land back to Jordan, who can then continue the genocide of the West Bank.

The Notorious terrorist group Back September was created in the West Bank to fight in the civil war for the Palestinian people and the PLO against the Jordanian government.

SO when people like yourself bleat on about stolen land, remember who it was taken off of and what those nations were doing to the people in that land.

kaylagrl · Jan 3, 2015

Human said:

As quoted from one of the historical documents I provided the land was intended for the Jews.No mention was made of self determination for the Arabs.They were offered land,they refused it.Their loss.Now it belongs to the Jews and the Arabs cant abide it.

kaylagrl · Jan 3, 2015

Human said:

The international law of occupation enters the picture signifying both the need to distinguish between order and chaos and the need to distinguish between orders: between the rule and the exception. In distinguishing between order and chaos, the function of international law is to manage the situation; to eliminate chaos through control of the exceptional situation. In distinguishing between orders, its function is to create an orderly space which is defined by its exceptionality-by its suspension of the rule. We argue that the legality of the phenomenon of occupation, as it relates to the function of managing the situation, is to be measured in relation to three fundamental legal principles: (a) Sovereignty and title in an occupied territory are not vested in the occupying power. The roots of this principle emanate from the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through actual or threatened use of force. Under contemporary international law, and in view of the principle of self-yytermination, sovereignty is vested in the population under occupation.

(b) The occupying power is entrusted with the management of public order and civil life in the territory under control. In view of the principle of self-determination, the people under occupation are the beneficiaries of this trst. The dispossession and subjugation of these people violate this trust. (c) Occupation is temporary. 19 It may be neither permanent nor indefinite. These principles, as we will show, interrelate: the substantive constraints on the managerial discretion of the occupant elucidated in principles "(a)" and "(b)" generate the conclusion in "(c)" that occupation must necessarily be temporary. Violating the temporal constraints expressed in principle "(c)" cannot but violate principles "(a)" and "(b)," thereby corrupting the normative regime of occupation in the sense that an occupation that cannot be regarded as temporary defies both the principle of trust and of self-determination. The violation of any one of these principles, therefore, unlike the violation of a specific norm that reflects them,20 renders an occupation illegal per se. This is the nature of the Israeli occupation.

of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Section II.A: Intrinsic Dimensions of the Israeli Occupation of the OPT, substantiates this argument. We further argue that the legality of occupation, in its function to create an orderly space that is nevertheless distinct from the normal political order of sovereign equality between states, is to be measured by its exceptionality: once the boundaries between the normal order (i.e., sovereign equality between states) and the exception (i.e., occupation) are blurred, an occupation becomes illegal. The nexus between the two functions is clear: an occupation that is illegal from the perspective of managing an otherwise chaotic situation is also illegal in that it obfuscates the distinction between the rule and its exception. Yet, the distinction between these two forms of illegality is important; the former is grounded in the intrinsic principles of the law of occupation, while the latter is extrinsic to this law and delineates its limits. The Israeli occupation of the OPT is illegal both intrinsically and extrinsically. Section II.B: Extrinsic Dimensions of the Israeli Occupation of the OPT, substantiates this argument.

None of this matters.The League of Nations gave the land to the Jews.Therefore they cannot legally be called occupiers on their own land.They were given it then won it in the war.The land was taken from the Turks because they fought against the British in WWI.The land was taken from them as punishment.It was not taken from Palestinian people,there was no such thing at the time.And you did not answer my question as to where you believe the Palestinian people have come from.

Human · Jan 3, 2015

Agricola said:

Israel's occupation of territories wherein Arab Palestinians reside breaches interational law in that; the occupation is indefinite, which affords theoretically unrestricted managerial discretion to the occupying power, which at present is enforced by military means by the superior military power of the Israelis to the detriment of the Palestinian peoples; the occupying power's use of force to subjugate or disposses the Palestinians violates Israel's obligation to manage public order and civil life, within the boundaries of human rights law, to the benefit of the occupied peoples; and that in subjugating and dispossessing Palestinians by force Israel violate the legal principle which affords the right to citizens of an occupied territory to self-determination.

kaylagrl · Jan 3, 2015

Human said:

Your credible source begins with assumption from the get go...

Is the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory conquered in 1967 legal or illegal? We explore this question in this Article.

Israel won the war.The Arabs thought they'd win and instead of taking land they were offered they went for broke and lost.Live on the land you have in peace and Israel will be at peace with you.Israel sits on 1% of the land in the Middle East.1%!! Is that too much to ask? They should give back more land? How much of their 1% should they give back to make Arabs happy? Doesnt matter,because they wont be happy till Israel is pushed into the sea.That is why I talked about antisemitism.No one wanted the barren land until they heard the Jews were to have a homeland.Now all of a sudden we have a Palestinian people,out of nowhere that need a homeland.They lost the land,twice.Go back to the country of your people and live in peace.There is no occupation,it is a political fabrication and antisemitism at its finest.

didymos · Jan 3, 2015

kaylagrl said:

Having criticism of (the nation state of) Israel or the Israëli government doesn't by definition make you anti-semitic.

didymos · Jan 3, 2015

ThomistColin said:

True, one side has 'the advantage of Hollywood' though.

Israel To Pay Students For Pro-Israeli Social Media Propaganda

kaylagrl

Guest

Banned

kaylagrl

Guest

kaylagrl

Guest

kaylagrl

Guest

psychomom

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

kaylagrl

Guest

kaylagrl

Guest

Senior Member

kaylagrl

Guest

kaylagrl

Guest

Banned

kaylagrl

Guest

didymos

Guest

didymos

Guest