Why Palestinians behave like the wild Indians of America by attacking the poor Jewish colonists?

Answer 1

Well, that's probably because the Israelis came to Palestine, and stole their land. Technically, they're just trying to get it back...Just like the Native American indians were doing when we Europeans showed up.

Answer 2

1. The American Indians were as "wild" as the colonists who exterminated (what a tiny fraction remains) them & their culture.

2. The Jewish colonists are poor ?

3. The Israelis also attack the Palestinians. There are 2 sides to this conflict & neither of the two are morally responsible/upright.

4. What special knowledge gives u the right to pass judgement on this issue, while you're munching a burger on your cosy armchair ?

Answer 3

Agreed. But lets refer to them as Israelis. Jews everywhere are ashamed of their conduct and the comparison hurts both Palestinians and Jews. As for Zionists, when they allow for a democratic multi-cultural nation where arabs and jews can collaborate for progress, then they will be welcome to the international neighborhood.
We need to disassociate antisemitism from Palestinian rights. One thing has no relation with the other. Let's remember jews were lived peacefully in the Islamic world at the same time Westerners were involved in progroms, the inquisition, the reconquista, the expulsion of the jews from England and a whole history of persecution.
Arabs and Jews are brothers. We are all third worlders. The first world is our enemy. Those who betray the third world for the first are collaborators, uncle toms. Their fate is always tragic. Look at the american africans. For having lost their battle against firstworlders they now live in infamy. Thirdworlders will only be truly fruitful and prosperous when we are independent from oppressive and murderous firstworlders.

Answer 4

Except that nearly all of the land was given to the Indians in this analogy, with the white man (in this case the Jews) getting only a small strip of mostly desert.

I'm talking about the original partition of Transjordan after WWII. The Jews were given the small strip which they had mostly already purchased from the arab landowners.

Answer 5

There are 56 Muslim countries, 26 Arab countries, One Jewish country which is 50 miles wide.

The problem is: there are not enough Arab countries, and too many Jewish countries.

Get it?

Answer 6

excuse me? How wrong you are

For 2,000 years there was no such conflict.

The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.
Zionism

But then in the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as "Zionists," this group consisted of an extremist minority of the world Jewish population. They wanted to create a Jewish homeland, and at first considered locations in Africa and South America, before finally settling on Palestine for their colony.

At first this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine — many with the express wish of taking over the land for an exclusively Jewish state — the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, there was fighting between the two groups, with escalating waves of violence.



Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the democratic principle espoused decades earlier by Woodrow Wilson of "self-determination of peoples," in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power arbitrarily divides up other people’s land.

Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land.
1948 WWll

1. 118 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 926 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

2.1,021 Israelis and at least 4,070 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.

3. 7,633 Israelis and 31,296 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000

4. The U.S. gives $15,139,178 per day to the Israeli government and military and $232,290 per day to Palestinian NGO’s.

5. Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

6. 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 9,599 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.

7. 0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000.

8. The Israeli unemployment rate is 9%, while the Palestinian unemployment is estimated at 40%.

9. 60+ new Jewish-only settlements have been built on confiscated Palestinian land between March 2001 and July 11, 2003. There have been 0 cases of Palestinians confiscating Israeli land and building settlements.
=====================================

Israel torturing Palestinian child prisoners 4/13/2007 9:30:00

Almost 400 Palestinian children are being held in Israeli jails, the youngest of whom is just 14
Appalling photographs of abuse and torture by American guards at U.S. military bases and detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan shocked the international community, but the Palestinians have been suffering harsher treatment inside Israeli prisons since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
===========================================

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are "protected persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.

There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.

So this is not a symmetrical situation. As matters of fact and of law, the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Conversely, the Palestinian People are defending Themselves and their Land and their Homes against Israeli war crimes and Israeli war criminals, both military and civilian.
===================================

Palestinians are dying, unjustly, that is all that need to be said to act on this issue and change the situation. They live in poverty, unable to govern themselves and build themselves up as a nation due to the extremely strong restrictions that bind them. The anger of such groups as Hamas is understandable, but their use of terrorism hides the integrity of their cause. It is also understandable that Israel takes certain measures to protect their people from terrorism, but they are now destroying a race – they are committing genocide. It is only when these humanitarian injustices of Palestinians are solved and this unrecognized Holocaust is put to an end that the true path to peace in the Middle East can begin.

case closed

Answer 7

who you calling poor boy.

Answer 8

Correction. whilst whites got here to u . s . a . of america and started terrorizing the Indians with modern-day weaponry, killing them with bio-weapons (small pox), stealing their lands, and burning THEIR homes... so arguably the whites have been the "pioneers of terrorism." i'm no longer so particular you could prepare terrorism in self protection. actually, all "terrorism" means is to apply terror as a means of coercion. i think you need to argue that they have got been attempting to "coerce" us into going domicile, yet it rather is a 2-way street. in case you desire to get technical, nonetheless, then terrorism has existed by fact the 1st easy of guy. using terror for coercion has been utilized by tremendously lots each and every substantial civilization in history. you need to even, arguably, make an argument that the interior of reach individuals ought to no longer have been terrorists, by fact they did no longer have a observe for terrorism, which develop into tailored into the English vocabulary purely as at present by fact the French Revolution. the in demand experience of the observe develop into no longer created until eventually the upward push of communism in the early twentieth century. This linguistic argument is very susceptible, in spite of the undeniable fact that, by undeniable fact that the term develop into no longer around, however the assumption develop into. you're able to make this argument, nonetheless. you won't have the ability to argue, in spite of the undeniable fact that, what you are trying to argue, a minimum of no longer with any validity or historic accuracy. Your argument is detrimental and not based truly. looks like a politically biased and racist view of history. The "our God promised us the land" argument has no longer been utilized by all people in American history with an oz. of mind in very almost a century, or perhaps maximum non secular communities do no longer purchase into that argument. the only enthusiast in this tale is you. I won't remark on the Palestinian-Israel debate, in spite of the undeniable fact that, by fact is exterior the scope of my information base. i visit declare for you to greater helpful instruct your self on American history previously you're making sweeping and misguided statements approximately communities of human beings you of course comprehend little approximately.

Answer 9

By Lawrence Auster.
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:
· As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.
If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.· If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back. So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:
· The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:· The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:· The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
· The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
· The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
· The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:
· The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
· The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
· The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
· The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
· The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
· The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
· The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
· The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
· The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up.
Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The territories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence.

There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.

In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, eons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair- skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.

The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?

Back to the Arabs: I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?

To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.

Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted.

The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).

The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation.