Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Then I guess the Bedoins also own much of Egypt, Syria, et al., lands that they passed through.

I can see your hatred of Israel. But Israel is not going anywhere. Get used to it.

Do you know of any village, they've lost there?

The Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Yaalon, has suggested that the footage was “doctored”, while army officers claimed it was edited tendentiously, although B’tselem released all 12 hours of unedited footage and this appeared to undermine this claim.
An unnamed military investigator quoted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said the shootings may have been the work of a Palestinian gunman.

Your statement is spot on, Frank Apisa. From the moment modern Israel was created there has been nothing but hell there with Pals being deprived more and more of their rightful homeland. Below is an interesting article written by "Jews for Justice."
_______

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational “terrorists” who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes — on both sides — inevitably follow from this original injustice.

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

I have not been talking about ownership of that area, Advocate...I have been talking about rights to be there...and who has been there the longest.

For the Israelis to suggest that it is the Jewish homeland to the exclusion of the Arabs is an absurdity.

Both have been there for centuries...and have lived in relative peace together for all that time...until the creation of the state of Israel. Now they seem unable to stand each other.

The variable is the state of Israel.

You figure it out.



I am used to it...and I agree that most likely, Israel is not going anywhere. But there will never be peace in that area.

Perhaps that is what the Jews want. Turmoil...hatred...war.

That is what they will get if they insist on having Israel there...and no "peace process" will ever change that.

You have no special knowledge that there will always be extreme hostility between the parties. I am sure there were many people saying that there will never be peace between the Irish and the English. However, there is now real peace.

Okay. We will see.

Although, I suspect we will not see!

Advocate hasent heard of the Hatfield and Macoys. They are still shooting at each other after around 150 or so years. Humans never forget an injury.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=704422

You are quite correct, Advocate, in that not one of us can say with a certainty that "extreme hostility" will always accompany the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians.

And yet conventional wisdom teach us if Israel continues monopolizing the West Bank, coveting Jerusalem (which is supposed to be an open city for the three monotheistic religions), grabbing more and more land, making it almost impossible for the Pals to ever get their own state, one can be decisively sure turbulence will continue to plague Israel. The UN General Assembly refers to Israel/Palestinian collision as the core of the Middle East conflict. The average Arab dislikes Israel and the Zionist nation has created many enemies for the US......Arabs see the US as speaking with a forked tongue, applying a double standard regarding the Israelis and the Palestinian Arab community....there was much rejoicing among the Israeli settlers and the Palestinians when the US was attacked on 9/11.....(the US taxpayer give Israel between 3~5 BILLION annually). The Palestinians have already taken their case to the European Community and the majority of decent people in the world tend to side with the Palestinians' plight and view Israel as the aggressor.

It is this arrogance by Israel (her refusal to stop stealing land from the West Bank) that stirs so much anger in others. But there is indeed an oncoming change just over the horizon, and its called "Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment."

"The wheels of justice turns slowly, but once put in motion they keep on turning."

When Muslims steal someone else's homeland, it does not become the Muslims' homeland.



The only indigenous population here are the Israelis. The Arabs came from somewhere else.



The only indigenous inhabitants here are the Israelis.

The only colonialists here are the Palestinians.



That's the trouble with taking stolen property. You end up dispossessed when the legitimate owners come back to reclaim it.

Your anti-Semitic lies are as despicable as ever.

You know very well that Israel has repeatedly offered to make peace based on 1967 borders, only to have the Palestinians respond to the peace offers with horrendous violence against innocent civilians.

And no, the turbulence is about done. The Palestinians are mostly walled off from Israel now. And if West Bank Palestinians cause any trouble, they are going to find themselves standing in Gaza.



There is nothing decent about anti-Semites, and it is obscene to pretend otherwise.



As noted above, your anti-Semitic lies are despicable.



That anti-Semitic movement isn't going to change anything. All it will do is vomit a bunch of impotent hatred. That's all anti-Semites ever do.

It is so interesting (and telling) that our pet anti-Semites have no problem with the Pal persecution of its Christians, women, minorities, et al. And it was of no moment (to them) for Hamas to lob 10,000 shells, rockets, and missiles at Israeli civilians (including women and children). And they would be delighted were Israelis driven into the sea. But they should know that Israel will destroy the Middle East (and maybe more) before they let this happen).

Well, it really was amazing that they didn't kill the Pope as announced but "only" price-tagged churches ...

... and destroyed cemeteries

Wow, that really proves your point. When did the families fought last.

After the 1973 war, the Israeli government was unhappy that their only nuclear option had been to blow up all of their enemies' cities as their last act before being destroyed themselves.

The US had a design back then for an 8-inch atomic shell with a one kiloton yield.

In 1979, US satellites detected a one kiloton nuclear explosion in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Every nation in the world except for Israel has been proven to not be involved with this explosion. South Africa used to also be suspected, but when they dismantled their nuclear weapons program, they released records that made it clear they were not involved.

Since then, Israel has begun keeping a battery of 8-inch artillery in a state of very high readiness, even though artillery that large is no longer used in conventional warfare.

Taking all those facts together, it seems likely that if Israel were ever faced with invading armies that they could not handle conventionally, those invading armies would be destroyed with a barrage of atomic artillery shells.

Israel's strategic nukes would likely just be used as a threat to ward off anyone who was considering using nukes against Israel.

That is good to know. What worriesme more is the possibility that the Muslims sneak and detonate a small nuclear bomb in the area of Tel Aviv.

That is sick, really sick.

Presbyterians Vote to Divest Holdings to Pressure Israel
By LAURIE GOODSTEINJUNE 20, 2014

DETROIT — After passionate debate over how best to help break the deadlock between Israel and the Palestinians, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted on Friday at its general convention to divest from three companies that it says supply Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), one of a handful of historic mainline Protestant denominations and the church of many American presidents, is the largest yet to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention, and the vote follows a decade of debate — and a close call at the assembly two years ago, when divestment failed by only two votes.

The measure that was passed not only called for divestment but also reaffirmed Israel’s right to exist, endorsed a two-state solution, encouraged interfaith dialogue and travel to the Holy Land, and instructed the church to undertake “positive investment” in endeavors that advance peace and improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. It also said the motion was “not to be construed” as “alignment with or endorsement of the global B.D.S.” movement by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The language was written by the church’s 65-member Middle East committee.

The vote, by a count of 310 to 303, was watched closely in Washington and Jerusalem, and by Palestinians. Credit Joshua Lott for The New York Times
Heath Rada, the church’s moderator, who was leading the proceedings, said immediately after the electronic vote count was posted, “In no way is this a reflection of our lack of love for our Jewish sisters and brothers.”

The B.D.S. campaign has gained support in Europe, but has not fared as well in the United States.

The companies the church has targeted for divestment are Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions. The church has about $21 million invested in them, a spokeswoman said. The church says it has tried for many years to convey its concerns that the companies are profiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories by selling it bulldozers, surveillance technology and other equipment.

Large American Jewish organizations lobbied the Presbyterians furiously to defeat a divestment vote, their most determined campaign yet in the 10 years the Presbyterians have considered such a step. More than 1,700 rabbis from all 50 states signed an open letter to the Presbyterian voters, saying that “placing all the blame on one party, when both bear responsibility, increases conflict and division instead of promoting peace.”

In a last-ditch tactic on Thursday, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, leader of the Reform movement (the largest branch in American Judaism), addressed the assembly and offered to broker a meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the church’s two top leaders so they could convey their church’s concerns about the occupation — on the condition that the divestment measure was defeated.

That offer appears to have backfired, with some saying afterward that it felt both manipulative and ineffectual, given what they perceive as Mr. Netanyahu’s approval of more settlements in disputed areas and lack of enthusiasm for peace negotiations.

“I’m not sure it was the strategy I would have chosen,” the Rev. Gradye Parsons, the church’s stated clerk and one of the two leaders invited to meet Mr. Netanyahu, said in an interview. “I’m sure it was a sincere and generous invitation. I’m not sure it was helpful in our debate.”

He said that Presbyterians valued their relationships with Jews in their communities and in Washington, where their lobbyists are often on the same side of many issues. He acknowledged that the church has been accused of anti-Semitism, which he said was not true and “delegitimizes our concerns” about human rights.

“We’re still committed to Israel and its right to exist, but we’re concerned about the occupation and think Israel can do better,” Mr. Parsons said.

Relations between Jews and Presbyterians soured after the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, a Presbyterian advocacy group, issued a study guide this year called “Zionism Unsettled,” which challenged the history and theological underpinnings of the Zionist movement. Jewish leaders denounced it as hateful, racist and willfully ignorant of the role of the Holocaust and violence toward Israel by the Palestinians and Arab countries in explaining the region’s history.

The assembly passed a measure here in Detroit saying that the study guide does not represent official church policy, but it is available for sale on the church’s website. Jewish organizations have called for the church to stop selling it. Many Presbyterians at the general assembly said that they had not read it, and that it had no bearing on their votes.

Right before the vote, some Presbyterian commissioners sought out Rabbi Alissa Wise, director of Jewish Voice for Peace, who spent a week inside the convention center and spoke at a prayer service in a Presbyterian church. She told them that divestment can serve a constructive purpose. “To me, this helps Palestinians build their power,” she said, “so that Israel is convinced, not by force, but by global consensus that something has to change.”

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), with nearly 1.8 million members, has been losing members and influence in recent decades, in part from wrenching debates over whether to ordain gay clergy members and permit same-sex marriages, a step the assembly approved here on Thursday.

It is not the first American church to use divestment to protest Israeli policies: The Mennonite Central Committee and the Quakers have sold stock in some companies that do business with Israel. Last week the pension board of the United Methodist Church announced that it had sold its stock in a company over concerns about its contracts with Israeli prisons.

Rifaat Odeh Kassis, a Palestinian Christian who traveled from Bethlehem to urge the Presbyterians to vote for divestment, said in an interview that the vote would send a loud message to Palestinians that says, “You are not alone.”

Major Jewish organizations were quick to issue statements expressing distress and outrage. Rabbi Steve Gutow, president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, called the divestment action “outrageous” and said it would have a “devastating impact” on relations between the national church and mainstream Jewish groups.

Mr. Rada, the church’s moderator, said at a news conference after the vote, “I don’t believe you could talk to a single commissioner and have any of them say they were doing this as an anti-Jewish issue.

“I think there is a lot of emotion about the unjust treatment on the part of the Israeli government toward the Palestinians, but there is equal upset,” he said, about “terrorist activity that has been undertaken by the Palestinians.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/presbyterians-debating-israeli-occupation-vote-to-divest-holdings.html?hp&_r=0&assetType=nyt_now

It seems a bit strange that the church has never even proposed an economic boycott on the Palestinians because of their continuous terroristic attacks on Israelis (e. g., firing about 10,000 rockets and missiles into Israeli civilian areas).