On 12/6/23 14:29, a425couple wrote:
Gilles Thésée
·
Follow
Travelled to the UK and some other countries Tue
Why doesn't Israel after they destroy Hamas build big education centers
and infrastructures for the Palestinians especially for the kids so they
can learn physics, chemistry, sciences, humanities, put them on the
right path?
Gaza already had several universities, Western built hospitals, UN built desalination plants.
Tens of thousands of Gazans crossed the border daily to work in Israel earning 10x a Gazan salary.
They were getting free water, electricity, fuel and food from Israel,
and thousands were treated daily in Israeli hospitals.
Did that prevent their genocidal policies and disgusting attack on
Israeli civilians and children?
30.2K views
View 631 upvotes
View 2 shares
1 of 20 answers
Profile photo for Lee Fjellanger
Profile photo for George Befeler
George Befeler
· Tue
Their hate was greater than their desire to self-improve.
Profile photo for Steve Rose
Steve Rose
· Tue
They hate Israel more than they love their children, which is the real tragedy of Gaza.
Profile photo for George Befeler
Profile photo for David Papkin
David Papkin
· 17h
Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they
hate us. - Golda Meir
Profile photo for Steve Rose
Profile photo for Alex Van Guy
Alex Van Guy
· Tue
Their hate is damaging them more than what Israel had done indeed.
Lori Swain
Nothing good ever comes from hate.
Profile photo for Jvs2
Jvs2
· Tue
Pro-Palestinian positions are based on historical land ownership and
religious beliefs. Israel cemented its existence through purchase, the
UN, and conflict. Gaza independence was gained by Israeli withdrawal but blockaded by both Egypt and Israel due to continued Palestinian
insurrection on them. Palestinians refuse Israel right to exist thus untrustworthy to Israel. Neither Jordan or Egypt want them. Everything
else is a he said/she said. Either accept Israel. UN governance, or
perpetual war until one side is wiped out. It is not going to be Israel
without mutual destruction. Palestinians have a choice.
Profile photo for Susan Ferguson
Susan Ferguson
· 18h
That about sums it up!
Profile photo for Jvs2
Profile photo for Tony Faulkner
Tony Faulkner
· Tue
Israel has only ever legally purchased a maximum of 7% of Palestine. The
rest has been stolen from the legal Palestinian owners. Prove me wrong.
Profile photo for Nephi Ludwig
Nephi Ludwig
· Tue
The rest was to be split into two states per international law from the
UN. That the Palestinians refused to recognize that fact isn’t Israel’s fault.
Profile photo for Block Roxk
Block Roxk
· 23h
Is not only them who has ignored international law and treaties. As a
matter of fact Israel is presently defying intl law and treaty with
their action. Unfortunate a terrorist organization has seized control of
the quasi-state (should be full state) Palestine so it's easy to pass
blame for everything from Hamas to the people.
Profile photo for Nephi Ludwig
Nephi Ludwig
· 21h
Please explain how Israel is violating international law? The Oslo
accord was signed and followed by Israel, to the extent that they forced
all their settlers in Gaza out of that territory 20 years ago. There
remains settlements in the West Bank but those were also agreed upon by
the Arabs and Israelis in the Oslo negotiations.
Profile photo for Lee Keng Hua
Lee Keng Hua
· 11h
Why were israeli settlers in gaza in the first place?
There are still many illegal israeli settlements in the west bank. Even
israeli courts rule them illegal. But the israeli government simply
ignores the ruling
Profile photo for Nephi Ludwig
Nephi Ludwig
· 8h
Those settlements in the West Bank that are illegal should be done away
with immediately. We agree with that. There also exists many legal one
that were agreed upon by Israel and the PA in the Olso accord.
As for Gaza, in the 67 war with the Arabs, Israel captured this land
from Egypt. Israel doesn’t really want this land. They tried to return
it to Egypt in 1978, but Egypt refused to take it back. In the Oslo
agreement Gaza was 100% given to the Palestinians. So in keeping with
that, Israel forced the settlers to leave in 2004/5.
Profile photo for Maria Horovitz
Maria Horovitz
· 2h
Illegal under which laws? There has never been agreed a mutual border
between the parts in the conflict
Profile photo for Omar Elwakil
Omar Elwakil
· 3h
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant
Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms
14 Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States
Abstains The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since
1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a
flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the
vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders. Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by
14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its
demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement
activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East
Jerusalem. It underlined that it would not recognize any changes to the
4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those
agreed by the two sides through negotiations. The Council called for
immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians,
including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and
destruction. It further called for the strengthening of ongoing efforts
to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination,
and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism. The Council called on
both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from
provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric in order to de-escalate the situation on the ground and rebuild trust and
confidence. Also by the text, the Council called on all parties to
continue to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on
all final-status issues in the Middle East peace process, and within the
time frame specified by the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) in its statement of 21
September 2010. It called upon all States to distinguish, in their
relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. Explaining her delegation’s abstention,
the representative of the United States said it had been a long-standing position of her country that settlements undermined Israel’s security
and eroded prospects for peace and stability. She emphasized, however,
that her vote today had not been straightforward. Explaining that
Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it
had been a member of the United Nations, she noted that during the
course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General Assembly and
others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned Israel. It was
because of that bias that the United States had not voted in favour of
the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her delegation would not have
let the resolution pass had it not addressed terrorism and incitement to violence. Malaysia’s representative said effective Council action must
be taken without further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground
that were threatening any possibility of a two-State solution. Settlem
https://press.un.org/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
Profile photo for Maria Horovitz
Maria Horovitz
· 2h
What international law? Quote it , the number , who issued it and so on.
THERE are no international laws, there are conventions, that some
countries agree, some don’t.
Profile photo for Tony Faulkner
Tony Faulkner
· 20h
At the time of the ‘Split’, the Christian-dominated League of Nations ignored the protests from the Muslim nations (as has been the case for centuries [The Crusades]) & sided with the Zionists. At this time (1948)
the Jewish population consisted of 3/4 ‘Illegal Immigrants’ from Europe
and swelled th…
(more)
Profile photo for Tony Faulkner
Tony Faulkner
· 20h
At the time of the ‘Split’, the Christian-dominated League of Nations ignored the protests from the Muslim nations (as has been the case for centuries [The Crusades]) & sided with the Zionists. At this time (1948)
the Jewish population consisted of 3/4 ‘Illegal Immigrants’ from Europe
and swelled the Jewish numbers to nearly 600,000, but the Arab
Palestinian population numbered > 1,200,000 so they had a legitimate
gripe that the League of Nations had no right to gift half their country
to the Illegally emigrated Jews. Besides that unfortunate truth Israel
now controls 93% of Palestinian territory and without paying ONE SINGLE
CENT to the dispossessed Palestinian rightful owners other than the
original 7% purchased originally. PROVE ME WRONG!
Profile photo for Da Chin Lim
Da Chin Lim
· 20h
“At this time (1948) the Jewish population consisted of 3/4 ‘Illegal Immigrants’ from Europe and swelled the Jewish numbers to nearly 600,000, ”
The correct term to use is “Refugees”. Lest you forget, they were
fleeing an actual genocide being inflicted on them by the Nazis.
Like I said earlier, most land in historic Palestine was state owned
land. At the point of the formation of Israel, Jews owned 7%, Arabs 8%,
and the rest was state owned land, which would have become the land of
one of two states as proposed under UN resolution 181.
Facts are facts.
Profile photo for Marge Topper
Marge Topper
· 12h
You are 100% right. Arabs refused 50/50 landshare. They wanted 100% and
all Jews out. I say land share because this territory was named
Philistine by Romans who wanted to upset Jews who were attacked by
Philistines who were not Arabs but Europeans from Greece and lived on
this territory by the sea. It was never called Palestine before that. Philistines are long gone from the territory and they are not the
ancestors of Palestinians. Modern day Palestinians are Arabs, mostly
from Egipt and Jordan who migrated there after Philistinians. All what
they want is to destroy Israel and Jews. It's about the religion not
about the land.
Profile photo for Lee Keng Hua
Lee Keng Hua
· 10h
The immigrations starting in earnest in the late 19th century, so not
all were refugees. Anyway, whether immigrants or refugees, why should
first generation arrivals get a country on land claimed by the arabs
(and promised to them by the british), especially since the zionist immigrations seriously distorted the local demographics?
Alexander Gemintern
Because they are already here. Fait accompli.
Profile photo for TSH
TSH
· 16h
Prove yourself right first.
Profile photo for Flora Mondecar
Flora Mondecar
· 22h
Don't have to. Closer to 8% I've read anywhere from 8-13%. Approximately
76% was State land owned by the Ottoman Empire (marshland, dunes,
desert, unusable, etc). That part was passed down from the Ottoman
Empire to the British Mandate on down to Israel as it became a nation
again. That 76% State Land was never owned. Tracts may have been leased
by Arabs in I believe a 2–3 year contract but that land would have
returned to the state afterwards.
Michael Davison is very good at this part of history, he's written about
it a few times before.
In addition, there is still an active Bureau of restitution. A claimant
needs to bring in a legal deed, restitution is made. Keys or a claim of
a handshake are insufficient.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)