of hatred, pogroms and expulsions for the 2 millennia since the birth of Christianity, culminating most recently in the horrors of the holocaust.

If not, certainly shows where you're coming from

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2024, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

another ethnic group?

saying anything else on the matter of one ethnic group being displaced in favor of the other.

What, that thought is never to be asked? Only what's good for one side even though it's disastrous for the other side is never to be considered?

Am I the only one to ever ask what would be a deal that's fair to both sides?

Have lived in the area known as Israel as far back as written records go. Genetics confirm this fact. This historically is their land, as it is Palestinians. That is why there was supposed to be two states, an Israel, and a Palestine. Also note that prior to 1948 there was never an independent country called Palestine. It was called Judea, then Syria-Palestina by the Romans. The second name because it was similar to "philistine", a noted historic enemy of the Kingdom of Judea.
Jews were thrown out of every country they went, including the one they came from originally, which is where Israel currently is.

I support a two state solution, Israel, and Palestine side by side. Currently Palestine is ruled by an utterly corrupt group in the Palestinian Authority in the WB, and a terror group, Hamas, in Gaza.

Last edited Sat Dec 7, 2024, 10:31 PM - Edit history (2)

Here's a video I'd like you to view and tell me what you think as all three nations there, Gaza, Israel and Lebanon could maybe live peacefully side by side if a resource was exploited that enriched them all. No need to fight.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1134142274

far as Palestine during WW1 and the British talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. They promised the same land to two different groups in order to get the Arab revolt against the Ottomans that they desperately needed. The Sykes-Picot agreement and the McMahon-Hussein documents are the proof along with Balfour. Also roll into the matter that the French and the British were jockeying against each other in the region despite being "allies" in the war. The "line in the sand" was drawn long before 1947 and it didn't have crap to do with the British feeling sorry for the Jews.

It was naked opportunism that had the British embracing the leaders of the Zionist movement not genuine compassion. the British were well aware of their double dealing and how it would look and tried mightily to keep their actions under wraps for years. The NYT article is more 3rd grade storybook than honest presentation of how the division occurred prior to WW 2. The Mandates. The NYT also gives the vote and the abstentions but gives none of the bullying that went on by the US in the run-up. One country on the group set up to consider plans was simply sacked outright when they refused to go along with a particular approach. The votes were unsure in the months before the final vote on the plan and during that time the US engaged privately in threatening to impose negative economic consequences to countries thought to be in opposition while at the same time promising economic reward for yes votes. Coercion was very heavy but the fairy-tale of the world feeling sorry about what happened in WW2 is nice and simple and tidy propaganda and therefore is beloved by big media.

But because of the constant lies by Western parties like Great Britain, France and the US told to the parties across the Middle East for over 100 years it is completely rational and understandable for the countries and people in the Middle East to not trust for one moment anything the West says to them or the claims about "caring about the people" and wanting to be "an honest arbiter". We are way, way down the road from anybody believing that.