April 29: I'm still waiting for Trump's appointees for head of cia/fbi to make US media pro-Israel, but it seems they've only continued Biden's policy of operating an anti-Israel mass media...
You clearly show that Jews have always been living in Israel and therefore are entitled to a part of the land. But you are also showing that from the 7th Century so have Arab Moslems. So what do you then answer to one of the sticking points in a settlement of sorts, namely the Arabs demanding a right of return? By the numbers and the rate of growth that would follow, the Jews would soon be a minority, which is always the concern. However, this is unlikely to be seen as a legitimate concern by idealists on the left.
Well the "right of return" for desdendants of people who spent only two years in Mandate Palestine is obviously absurd. And any such right would destroy Israel. It is an antisemtic concept. The UN supports this kind of thing ONLY in the case of Israel.
That it would destroy Israel is hardly likely to concern those who see only a battered and bruised Palestinian population chased from their homes by the evil settler invaders.
I can't imagine that a large proportion of Palestinians were part of the two year or so group that you refer to. Regardless, there was a presence of Arabs for centuries. I'm not questioning your logic as that is spot on, but from a point of arguing the case amongst the increasingly brainwashed youth, is there any logical argument that can be put forward for denying the right of return?
As an aside, it is equally as ridiculous that anyone with any vague connection to the Palestinian "homeland", regardless of where they now reside or how successful they may be, is considered a Palestinian refugee. It is also unique that refugee camps retain their status after all these years.
It is also the victors that traditionally write the history. Here we have the serial losers continuously 'managing the reality'.
That's because they are not really the losers. Behind the Arab Palestinians are the Western bosses, and they ain't losing anything. They run the entire system. They are the victors.
Please confirm the dates and chronological sequence for the land allocated by the League of Nations for a Jewish State. I'm reading elsewhere that "The approval of the Palestine Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922 put the Balfour Declaration, of 1917, into legal force." In other words, The League of Nations, founded on 10th Jan 1920, rubber-stamped Britain's intentions. That's not what I understand from your article.
At the San Remo Conference (April 1920), the whole area of the former Ottoman district—including both what is today Israel and Jordan—was assigned to Britain under what was referred to as the Mandate for Palestine. This included:
The land west of the Jordan River (today’s Israel and the Palestinian territories),
And the land east of the Jordan River (today’s Jordan).
The League of Nations ratified the Mandate in 1922.
While the League itself was not involved in San Remo in 1920, the mandate concept and structure came from the League’s Covenant—and everyone at San Remo knew that.
At San Remo, the Allied Powers created the Palestine Mandate in anticipation of formal approval by the League of Nations, which was seen as the emerging authority to which the new international order would be entrusted.
Thank you Francisco, not only for illuminating the question of historic rights to the Land of Israel but also for informing many about the true nature of the conquest and later independence of Mexico, about which most North Americans are uninformed.
Maybe a love offensive would bring around wrong-thinking leftists, but the danger offensive seems effective too: Jews in Israel have shifted right whereas leftist Jews in the West, despite their trademark empathy, don't quite get it.
Small issue with the framework here: not seeing such thing as "The Antisemites"--as if it's a clean squaring off of "The Red Coats" and "The Blue Coats." Seeing instead antisemitic beliefs in degrees within a range of people, including Jews; so seems more like a complicated intellectual guerrilla warfare. Indeed, "antisemitism" hasn't even been defined to everyone's satisfaction. Also don't see a clean divide between psychopathic Western bosses and their implicitly victim masses, but degrees of psychopathology all over.
The social game theory on the left does explain well my encounters. Don't know though that the BS narratives of colonialism/oppressor/indigenous are what engendered today's antisemitism or the other way around. Because it seems these narratives had less potency before Jews were the prime offenders. Just a hunch.
The logical inconsistencies in leftist reasoning and how to leverage them is also interesting. My own take is that the inconsistencies are so hallucinatory that it amounts to a hypnotic state. Under hypnosis subjects have both negative hallucinations (don't see what's there) and positive ones (see what isn't there), and they can't be reasoned out of it. Maybe it's not just a metaphor either when you consider that the brainwaves of young children resemble the hypnotic state, and this is when they acquire socio-religious beliefs.
Do think that engaging at the deepest level with the leftist "grammar" in order to challenge it, especially re. the Israel/Arab conflict, is needed. Here's one video series that seems to do that, though possibly with different arguments than planned for Part 4: https://youtu.be/hskX-2gTmws
April 29: I'm still waiting for Trump's appointees for head of cia/fbi to make US media pro-Israel, but it seems they've only continued Biden's policy of operating an anti-Israel mass media...
You clearly show that Jews have always been living in Israel and therefore are entitled to a part of the land. But you are also showing that from the 7th Century so have Arab Moslems. So what do you then answer to one of the sticking points in a settlement of sorts, namely the Arabs demanding a right of return? By the numbers and the rate of growth that would follow, the Jews would soon be a minority, which is always the concern. However, this is unlikely to be seen as a legitimate concern by idealists on the left.
Well the "right of return" for desdendants of people who spent only two years in Mandate Palestine is obviously absurd. And any such right would destroy Israel. It is an antisemtic concept. The UN supports this kind of thing ONLY in the case of Israel.
That it would destroy Israel is hardly likely to concern those who see only a battered and bruised Palestinian population chased from their homes by the evil settler invaders.
I can't imagine that a large proportion of Palestinians were part of the two year or so group that you refer to. Regardless, there was a presence of Arabs for centuries. I'm not questioning your logic as that is spot on, but from a point of arguing the case amongst the increasingly brainwashed youth, is there any logical argument that can be put forward for denying the right of return?
As an aside, it is equally as ridiculous that anyone with any vague connection to the Palestinian "homeland", regardless of where they now reside or how successful they may be, is considered a Palestinian refugee. It is also unique that refugee camps retain their status after all these years.
It is also the victors that traditionally write the history. Here we have the serial losers continuously 'managing the reality'.
That's because they are not really the losers. Behind the Arab Palestinians are the Western bosses, and they ain't losing anything. They run the entire system. They are the victors.
Please confirm the dates and chronological sequence for the land allocated by the League of Nations for a Jewish State. I'm reading elsewhere that "The approval of the Palestine Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922 put the Balfour Declaration, of 1917, into legal force." In other words, The League of Nations, founded on 10th Jan 1920, rubber-stamped Britain's intentions. That's not what I understand from your article.
At the San Remo Conference (April 1920), the whole area of the former Ottoman district—including both what is today Israel and Jordan—was assigned to Britain under what was referred to as the Mandate for Palestine. This included:
The land west of the Jordan River (today’s Israel and the Palestinian territories),
And the land east of the Jordan River (today’s Jordan).
The League of Nations ratified the Mandate in 1922.
While the League itself was not involved in San Remo in 1920, the mandate concept and structure came from the League’s Covenant—and everyone at San Remo knew that.
At San Remo, the Allied Powers created the Palestine Mandate in anticipation of formal approval by the League of Nations, which was seen as the emerging authority to which the new international order would be entrusted.
So then was the San Remo Conference of 1920 an endorsement of the Balfour Declaration?
Yes of course.
Thank you Francisco, not only for illuminating the question of historic rights to the Land of Israel but also for informing many about the true nature of the conquest and later independence of Mexico, about which most North Americans are uninformed.
You are most welcome!
Maybe a love offensive would bring around wrong-thinking leftists, but the danger offensive seems effective too: Jews in Israel have shifted right whereas leftist Jews in the West, despite their trademark empathy, don't quite get it.
Small issue with the framework here: not seeing such thing as "The Antisemites"--as if it's a clean squaring off of "The Red Coats" and "The Blue Coats." Seeing instead antisemitic beliefs in degrees within a range of people, including Jews; so seems more like a complicated intellectual guerrilla warfare. Indeed, "antisemitism" hasn't even been defined to everyone's satisfaction. Also don't see a clean divide between psychopathic Western bosses and their implicitly victim masses, but degrees of psychopathology all over.
The social game theory on the left does explain well my encounters. Don't know though that the BS narratives of colonialism/oppressor/indigenous are what engendered today's antisemitism or the other way around. Because it seems these narratives had less potency before Jews were the prime offenders. Just a hunch.
The logical inconsistencies in leftist reasoning and how to leverage them is also interesting. My own take is that the inconsistencies are so hallucinatory that it amounts to a hypnotic state. Under hypnosis subjects have both negative hallucinations (don't see what's there) and positive ones (see what isn't there), and they can't be reasoned out of it. Maybe it's not just a metaphor either when you consider that the brainwaves of young children resemble the hypnotic state, and this is when they acquire socio-religious beliefs.
Do think that engaging at the deepest level with the leftist "grammar" in order to challenge it, especially re. the Israel/Arab conflict, is needed. Here's one video series that seems to do that, though possibly with different arguments than planned for Part 4: https://youtu.be/hskX-2gTmws
Great article with iron logic proving the point it is supposed to defend