Just to crosslink history and geography, here some maps of the are over time:

 

That`s how the area looked 3000 BC

 

 

 

2500 BC

 

 

1500 BC it became  Egyptian territory

 

 

Who was there 1180 BC? The Philistines. Sounds like Palestinians to me. Coincidence?

 

 

 

150 later: Israel, but the Philistines still there

 

30 years later they expanded to the river and the sea

 

 

 

But only for less than 40 years. 

 

 

to be continued..

They separated into Israel and Judea just 100 years after their foundation

 

 

became smaller by the centuries

 

 

and disappeared 300 years after they first showed up

 

 

being Assyrian for 113 years then Egyptean

 

 

Persian after another 70 years

 

 

After 409 years of being Persian then turned Seleucid

 

But suddenly Judea popped up 129 BC

 

 

67 years later the Romans took over and Judea disappeared.

Until the caliphate took over  680 years later

 

 

 

Crusaders took over Jerusalem after 458 years

But Christianity lasted 191 years. Back to being Muslim

 

later under the Ottoman Empire

 

 

 

which was divided after WW 1 between UK and France

 

until Israel emerged 1949

 

and expanded since then

 

 

Quote

Who was there 1180 BC? The Philistines. Sounds like Palestinians to me. Coincidence?

Yes.

There is no connection whatsoever.

Now if I do the math, Israel existed around 3000  years ago for 309 years but only for 40 years on an area which can be defined as "from the river to the sea" and another 30 years on an area of the size they have now, while the rest of the time being just a small dot on the map, later even divided into  2 smaller dots.

 

About 900 years later they somehow resurfaced as Judea for 67 years and vanished again.

 

So for 376 years there was some Jewish state over a time period of 3000 years, which was much smaller than the present Israel not to mention the Greater Israel.

 

Until the creation of Israel in 1949 the area was Muslim for 1115 years, where Jews, Christians and Muslims would live peacefully most of the time although under different rulers.

 

I really don`t understand on what their claim for the whole area is based and why they insist on their ethno state.

 

Don`t they understand that times, cultures, mentalities and mindsets have changed in the last few years, something around 2700 years give or take?

 

Ethno states are so much BC or should I say BS.

1 minute ago, Somjot said:

Now if I do the math, Israel existed around 3000  years ago for 309 years but only for 40 years on an area which can be defined as "from the river to the sea" and another 30 years on an area of the size they have now, while the rest of the time being just a small dot on the map, later even divided into  2 smaller dots.

 

About 900 years later they somehow resurfaced as Judea for 67 years and vanished again.

 

So for 376 years there was some Jewish state over a time period of 3000 years, which was much smaller than the present Israel not to mention the Greater Israel.

 

Until the creation of Israel in 1949 the area was Muslim for 1115 years, where Jews, Christians and Muslims would live peacefully most of the time although under different rulers.

 

I really don`t understand on what their claim for the whole area is based and why they insist on their ethno state.

 

Don`t they understand that times, cultures, mentalities and mindsets have changed in the last few years, something around 2700 years give or take?

 

Ethno states are so much BC or should I say BS.

So you want Israel to not exist.

Just like Iran. Just like Hamas terrorists.

This is so typical of Israel haters.

You can be against a regime for political reasons, but for some very perverted reason enemies of Israel don't even accept it's right to exist.

 

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes.

There is no connection whatsoever.

 

So no connection between the Philistines who lived there more than a century before the first Israel was founded next to them 3055 years ago and later taking their land  and the Palestinians who lived there many centuries before the second Israel was founded 76 years ago again taking their land since then?

 

On which "H" is your "knowledge" based?

 

History?

 

Or Hasbara.

2 minutes ago, Somjot said:

 

So no connection between the Philistines who lived there more than a century before the first Israel was founded next to them 3055 years ago and later taking their land  and the Palestinians who lived there many centuries before the second Israel was founded 76 years ago again taking their land since then?

 

On which "H" is your "knowledge" based?

 

History?

 

Or Hasbara.

Look it up yourself!

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So you want Israel to not exist.

Just like Iran. Just like Hamas terrorists.

This is so typical of Israel haters.

 

You forgot to call me an anti - Semite. Which is so typical as a reaction for any criticism.

 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You can be against a regime for political reasons, but for some very perverted reason enemies of Israel don't even accept it's right to exist.

 

 

That is the ONLY reason I am against them!!

 

Their goddamned racial apartheid system and their killing of innocent women and children for decades while whining and presenting themselves as the victims.

 

And all their other lies with which I grew up.

 

The area is a conflict zone for 100 years now, because the Jews there wanted their "for Jews only" state and had no better idea to create that in an area which was Muslim for more than a Millenia justifying it with some myth of an ancient Israel 3000 years ago which never existed in the way they glorify it and ceased to exist 2500 years ago.

 

A conflict which had and still has horrible impacts on the rest of the world by pulling other countries into it and causing hostilities and enmities which would otherwise never exist and which brought nothing but death and desperation to the people of the surrounding countries same as to the soldiers of western countries which Israel persuaded into it`s war not to speak of it`s decade long bribing of our leaders and brainwash of our societies resulting in educated western people raised with humanity and Christian values disgustingly applauding the mass murder of women and children.

23 minutes ago, Somjot said:

 

You forgot to call me an anti - Semite. Which is so typical as a reaction for any criticism.

 

 

That is the ONLY reason I am against them!!

 

Their goddamned racial apartheid system and their killing of innocent women and children for decades while whining and presenting themselves as the victims.

 

And all their other lies with which I grew up.

 

The area is a conflict zone for 100 years now, because the Jews there wanted their "for Jews only" state and had no better idea to create that in an area which was Muslim for more than a Millenia justifying it with some myth of an ancient Israel 3000 years ago which never existed in the way they glorify it and ceased to exist 2500 years ago.

 

A conflict which had and still has horrible impacts on the rest of the world by pulling other countries into it and causing hostilities and enmities which would otherwise never exist and which brought nothing but death and desperation to the people of the surrounding countries same as to the soldiers of western countries which Israel persuaded into it`s war not to speak of it`s decade long bribing of our leaders and brainwash of our societies resulting in educated western people raised with humanity and Christian values disgustingly applauding the mass murder of women and children.

So sorry for your pain but Israel does exist and they're not going anywhere to please the wims of obsessive haters.

No problem at all with criticizing policies.

But you go much much further.

For example I don't like today's Hungary.
I want them to change.

I don't want there to be no Hungary.

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So you want Israel to not exist.

Just like Iran. Just like Hamas terrorists.

This is so typical of Israel haters.

You can be against a regime for political reasons, but for some very perverted reason enemies of Israel don't even accept it's right to exist.

 

 

The explanation of why Isreal was put there is highly suspicious and makes no sense whatsoever.

The "historical context" is only part of it.

But then AI, which presumably is getting the info from the horse's mouth, spits out here that Isreal was create as a safe haven from antisemitism. 

 

This is complete insanity and makes no sense. A "safe haven" might be Canada, maybe. They put Israel in the part of the world that would be MOST hostile to Jews. 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So sorry for your pain but Israel does exist and they're not going anywhere to please the wims of obsessive haters.

No problem at all with criticizing policies.

But you go much much further.

For example I don't like today's Hungary.
I want them to change.

I don't want there to be no Hungary.

Historically nonsense comparison.

 

I do agree though, Israel exists, so the world has to deal with it.

37 minutes ago, Somjot said:

So no connection between the Philistines who lived there more than a century before the first Israel was founded next to them 3055 years ago and later taking their land  and the Palestinians who lived there many centuries before the second Israel was founded 76 years ago again taking their land since then?

 

Absolutely none apart from the similar name. 🤔

 

The Philiistines were originally Greek immigrants who intermixed with the Canaanites.

 

The Palestinians are a political group. They are just the descendants of Arab Muslim 'refugees' who were trapped in Gaza and the West Bank between the 1948 and 1967 wars. They were originally recent immigrants from Egypt, Syria and other surrounding countries.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Historically nonsense comparison.

 

I do agree though, Israel exists, so the world has to deal with it.

No it isn't at all.

Normal criticism of a country is one thing.

Justified for probably most nations and definitely to Israel as well. 

Obsessing about why they should have never existed at all and don't deserve to exist now is very extreme.

 

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So sorry for your pain but Israel does exist and they're not going anywhere to please the wims of obsessive haters.

No problem at all with criticizing policies.

But you go much much further.

For example I don't like today's Hungary.
I want them to change.

I don't want there to be no Hungary.

 

Why are you intentionally misinterpreting me?

 

I have no problem with Jews or a Jewish homeland and I fully understand why it was created not in Canada or Africa but in the place, with which Jews have a religious and spiritual connection.

 

But Israel denies others the same rights it demands for itself.

 

Because others have developed a spiritual connection to that land too, aka Christians and Muslims, the first are regularly spat on and the latter treated as second class humans by law and sometimes killed.

 

And much more important others have lived there for centuries and many generations and Israel thinks it has the right to kick them out while some redhaired man from Omaha with funny braids has the right to return and to kill Palestinians.

.

 

 

This Israeli had no right to do that.

 

Where is your criticism for that?

 

It is you who denies Palestinians the right to exist by supporting a country which has done everything to avoid a Palestinian state, has stolen their land and if like recently Western countries recognize Palestine Israeli politicians smirk and say 

 

"Recognize what? There is nothing to recognize there anymore."

 

So once again:

 

Israel as a modern democracy with equal rights for everybody and after giving back the stolen land: YES

 

Israel as an apartheid state with different laws for it`s citizens a military law for the stolen areas: NO

 

Do you think Palestine has a right to exist?

8 minutes ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

Absolutely none apart from the similar name. 🤔

 

The Philiistines were originally Greek immigrants who intermixed with the Canaanites.

 

The Palestinians are a political group. They are just the descendants of Arab Muslim 'refugees' who were trapped in Gaza and the West Bank between the 1948 and 1967 wars. They were originally recent immigrants from Egypt, Syria and other surrounding countries.

 

That has been debunked long ago.

 

DNA does not lie.

 

More recent studies since 2017 have found that Palestinians – as well as other Levantine people – are primarily descended from ancient Levantines who inhabited what is today Israel and Palestine, at least 3700 years ago. According to Marc Heber et al, all modern Levantine Arabs descend from Canaanite-like ancestors, and later migrations' impact on their population ancestry was slight. (1) and Andrew Lawler (2)

 

1. Mark Heber: "All Levantines descend from Canaanite-like ancestors (Haber et al 2017, Agranat-Tamir 2020). Later admixture slightly changed ancestry". 17 January 2024.

2. Lawler, Andrew (28 September 2020). "DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews". National Geographic.

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No it isn't at all.

Normal criticism of a country is one thing.

Justified for probably most nations and definitely to Israel as well. 

Obsessing about why they should have never existed at all and don't deserve to exist now is very extreme.

 

Your comparison was totally different from what you write now.

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Your comparison was totally different from what you write now.

No it was not.

Guys, seriously?

12 hours ago, Somjot said:

Because others have developed a spiritual connection to that land too

 

"Developed a spiritual connection to the land" is so abstract that it is debatable as to how valid this concept is.

 

Why are so many Jewish people thriving in the US and other countries? Because of "spiritual connection"?

A lot of people on here hate their home countries.

Why did you relocate to Thailand? Spiritual connection? 

 

If your Bible tells you that land is yours, maybe ... but then who wrote the Bible? 

 

 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

"Developed a spiritual connection to the land" is so abstract that it is debatable as to how valid this concept is.

 

Why are so many Jewish people thriving in the US and other countries? Because of "spiritual connection"?

A lot of people on here hate their home countries.

 

I agree with you but the justifications from the Zionists are more or less based on that and I was debating on the same level.

 

Personally I think that`s BS.

 

All 3 religions have their connection to the place and if someone in our modern time still believes what some shepherds made up Millenia ago, up to them but coming back after 3000 years with a lot of foreign DNA mixed in their genome making them look more European than Hebrew and claiming that only for themselves is a bad joke.

 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Why did you relocate to Thailand? Spiritual connection? 

 

I would not call it "spiritual" although it also starts with an "s".

 

Jokes aside because my life in Thailand is so much better in every single aspect and I cannot relate to the mentality back home anymore.

12 hours ago, Somjot said:

I would not call it "spiritual" although it also starts with an "s".

 

Jokes aside because my life in Thailand is so much better in every single aspect and I cannot relate to the mentality back home anymore.

 

Seems like they are following "a blueprint from the Bible" in Israel. 

 

Here is one crackpot arguing this point.

I don't have time to go read the Bible, but if you do, please confirm and get back to us. 

 

 

Levantines .

From quite a large area .

 

 

3 hours ago, Somjot said:

Now if I do the math, Israel existed around 3000  years ago for 309 years but only for 40 years on an area which can be defined as "from the river to the sea" and another 30 years on an area of the size they have now, while the rest of the time being just a small dot on the map, later even divided into  2 smaller dots.

 

About 900 years later they somehow resurfaced as Judea for 67 years and vanished again.

 

So for 376 years there was some Jewish state over a time period of 3000 years, which was much smaller than the present Israel not to mention the Greater Israel.

 

Until the creation of Israel in 1949 the area was Muslim for 1115 years, where Jews, Christians and Muslims would live peacefully most of the time although under different rulers.

 

I really don`t understand on what their claim for the whole area is based and why they insist on their ethno state.

 

Don`t they understand that times, cultures, mentalities and mindsets have changed in the last few years, something around 2700 years give or take?

 

Ethno states are so much BC or should I say BS.

In the distant past these huge lands were mostly empty, there were few people living there, Lot's of nomads wandering around. These were all not real countries with fixed borders. To say certain parts were countries belonging to certain people  or tribes is an overstatement. There were no real maps available anywhere.

1 hour ago, Somjot said:

 

That has been debunked long ago.

 

DNA does not lie.

 

More recent studies since 2017 have found that Palestinians – as well as other Levantine people – are primarily descended from ancient Levantines who inhabited what is today Israel and Palestine, at least 3700 years ago. According to Marc Heber et al, all modern Levantine Arabs descend from Canaanite-like ancestors, and later migrations' impact on their population ancestry was slight. (1) and Andrew Lawler (2)

 

1. Mark Heber: "All Levantines descend from Canaanite-like ancestors (Haber et al 2017, Agranat-Tamir 2020). Later admixture slightly changed ancestry". 17 January 2024.

2. Lawler, Andrew (28 September 2020). "DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews". National Geographic.

 

Are you trolling? Do you even read what you have posted? 🤔

 

All of your post backs up what I posted. BTW the title of your 2nd source completely destroys your argument 🙃

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

Are you trolling? Do you even read what you have posted? 🤔

 

No I don`t. Yes I do.

 

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

All of your post backs up what I posted. BTW the title of your 2nd source completely destroys your argument 🙃

 

No they don`t. You wrote:

 

5 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

The Palestinians are a political group. They are just the descendants of Arab Muslim 'refugees' who were trapped in Gaza and the West Bank between the 1948 and 1967 wars. They were originally recent immigrants from Egypt, Syria and other surrounding countries.

 

You are saying the Palestinians were only refugees from Syria and Egypt who were trapped in Gaza and the Westbank between the 1948 and 1967 wars.

 

I wonder whom the Jews were fighting so hard in the decades before 1948 and where did these 750.000 people come from they expelled 1948?

 

And if you think the Jews are the native people explain this

 

 

14 hours ago, Somjot said:

You are saying the Palestinians were only refugees from Syria and Egypt who were trapped in Gaza and the Westbank between the 1948 and 1967 wars

 

No. I am saying the people who everyone now calls 'Palestinians' are descended from immigrants from Syria, Egypt etc. who immigrated during the late 19th century and early 20th century.

 

14 hours ago, Somjot said:

I wonder whom the Jews were fighting so hard in the decades before 1948 and where did these 750.000 people come from they expelled 1948?

 

They are called Arabs. They also fought Arabs during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and fought Arabs again during 1967 Arab-Israeli war 🙄

 

14 hours ago, Somjot said:

And if you think the Jews are the native people explain this

 

If you think the Jews aren't native people then explain this

 

18 hours ago, Somjot said:

2. Lawler, Andrew (28 September 2020). "DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews". National Geographic.

 

6 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

No. I am saying the people who everyone now calls 'Palestinians' are descended from immigrants from Syria, Egypt etc. who immigrated during the late 19th century and early 20th century.

 

 

They are called Arabs. They also fought Arabs during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and fought Arabs again during 1967 Arab-Israeli war 🙄

 

 

If you think the Jews aren't native people then explain this

 

 

 

Basically you are following the Zio propaganda by indirectly bringing up the question “who was there first?”. The implication being whoever was there first deserves ownership of the land.

 

 An interesting example of how people learn just enough history to support their world view,

The argument is simple to follow: "Palestinians today are mostly Arabs. The Arabs came to the Levant with the Muslim conquest or as refugees in the late 19 early 20 century so they  have only been in Palestine and the Levant for a short period of time."

 

You are clearly conflating of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. None of these are interchangeable.  Arabs have had a long history in the Levant before the advent of Islam.

 

After Islam conquered the region Arabic speaking officials made it law that the language of state and of commerce would become Arabic. Thus, it became advantageous to assimilate into this identity, as many government positions and trade deals were offered only to Muslim Arabs.

 

So, although most of the population of these lands were not ethnically Arab, they came to identify as such over a millennium.

 

In contrast to European colonialism of the new world, where the native population was mostly eradicated to make place for the invaders, the process in Middle East and North Africa is one of the conquered peoples mixing with and coming to identify as their conquerors without being physically removed.

 

Following from this, the Palestinian Arabs of today did not suddenly appear as refugees  to settle in Palestine, but are the same indigenous peoples living there who changed how they identified over time.

When regions change rulers, they don’t normally change populations. Throughout history, peoples have often changed how they identified politically. 

 

The problem with this kind of discussion is that it implies that Israel’s creation is justified/unjustified is because their Jewish/Palestinian ancestors were there first.

 

It implies that the problem with the argument lies in the details, not that the argument as a whole is absolute nonsense and shouldn’t even be entertained.

 

The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first.

 

Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for a few decades or centuries, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not.

 

There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.

20 minutes ago, Somjot said:

 An interesting example of how people learn just enough history to support their world view,

The argument is simple to follow: "Palestinians today are mostly Arabs. The Arabs came to the Levant with the Muslim conquest or as refugees in the late 19 early 20 century so they  have only been in Palestine and the Levant for a short period of time."

 

You are still not getting it. 'Palestinian' is a political identity invented after the 2nd Arab-Israeli war, not a race or ethnicity.

 

The fact that most 'Palestinians' are Arab Muslims does not give them the automatic right to live anywhere in the Levant, just as being Caucasian doesn't give white Christians the right to live anywhere in Europe.

 

BTW most Jews in Israel are Mizrahi who are effectively the same race as Arabs and they too immigrated from surrounding countries during the same period as the Arabs. Together with the fact that Jews and Arabs are both descended from Canaanites gives them both the right to live there.

 

28 minutes ago, Somjot said:

Basically you are following the Zio propaganda by indirectly bringing up the question “who was there first?”. The implication being whoever was there first deserves ownership of the land.

 

Nope. Pointless argument anyway. The land simply belongs to those that can defend it. Israel has nuclear weapons and the Samsen option so they ain't going nowhere.

 

30 minutes ago, Somjot said:

There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.

 

Agree. Maybe you could tell that to Hamas, the elected government of the Gazan Arabs.

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

You are still not getting it. 'Palestinian' is a political identity invented after the 2nd Arab-Israeli war, not a race or ethnicity.

 

Sorry, but you are just performing the usual mind gymnastics here to strip the Palestinians or - if you like this description more - "those who have lived in the area of Palestine for centuries before a bunch of Europeans suddenly remembered their history and some divine promise from 3000 years ago, reinvented the ancient language, they had mostly forgotten and moved in forcibly removing the indigenous people" - from their right to that land.

 

And you do that by describing then as a mere political identity, which they clearly are or maybe became as before foreigners started stealing their land that was not necessary.

 

You name true facts and then use them to prove a wrong conclusion.

 

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

The fact that most 'Palestinians' are Arab Muslims does not give them the automatic right to live anywhere in the Levant, just as being Caucasian doesn't give white Christians the right to live anywhere in Europe.

 

 

True and true but lead to the wrong conclusion that Palestinians do not have the right or at least not more than an Jew to live in that area.

 

Sure, not the fact of being an Arab Muslim gives them the right to that land but the fact that they have been living there for many centuries and generations, despite being Arab Muslims under Ottoman rule but no one ever questioned their ownership to that land.

 

Violently moving into that land and brutally removing those who have been the owners does definitely not give one the right to that land no matter how much one might want to justify that with some ancient promise of one`s sky daddy or that one`s ancestors have been ruling there about 3000 years ago for only 300 years.

 

 

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

BTW most Jews in Israel are Mizrahi who are effectively the same race as Arabs and they too immigrated from surrounding countries during the same period as the Arabs. Together with the fact that Jews and Arabs are both descended from Canaanites gives them both the right to live there.

 

Nope. Until around 100 years ago Jews were around 3 to 5 % of the population while the huge majority has been Arab Muslims and that for centuries.

And they did not suddenly immigrate from surrounding countries (why should they when Britons ruled that place) but they were displaced by Jews.

Then the Ashkenazi Jews came in in masses and are still the majority compared to Sephardi or Mizrahi (but not if one conveniently combines the 2 latter groups).

 

Being a descendant of whatever group does not give you any right to live anywhere. Somehow you seem to forget your point about the Christians and Europe.

 

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

Nope. Pointless argument anyway. The land simply belongs to those that can defend it. Israel has nuclear weapons and the Samsen option so they ain't going nowhere.

 

So basically, you are saying if I come with a group of armed young men to your house and kick you out then your land belongs to me right?

 

I'd love to see your face if something like that would ever happen to you but it won't because there are laws protecting you.

 

That surely was the mentality of conquerors, but you might have missed that there have been world wars since then, especially after the second one international laws have been created which say exactly the opposite.

 

They say that the land belongs to the indigenous people who have been owning it and living there for generations. There is no doubt that Jews have been the indigenous people of some part of the levant but somehow, they left which automatically leads to other people becoming the indigenous people.

 

The laws also state that if land is occupied, as soon as the occupiers leave it will automatically belong to the indigenous people again. This has been exercised many times when western colonial powers pulled back.

 

Not so in Israel. When the Britons left their colony, pardon me, their mandate the UN separated the land and gave a part to the indigenous people and another part to those who had violently moved in during the last 30 years and who were therefore clearly not the indigenous people, no matter what they tell us about 3000 years ago.

 

 

3 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

Agree. Maybe you could tell that to Hamas, the elected government of the Gazan Arabs.

 

Well, let's forget for a second why you would possibly think that I could have any means to tell anything to Hamas or maybe that is originating from this other Zio debate strategy where whenever anybody would criticize Israel the reaction would be “so you are for Hamas. You support terrorists” as if there were only two choices and there was no way that a person could just be worried about the Palestinian population.

 

This strategy somehow puts Hamas and the Palestinian population into one pigeonhole with the old argument that Hamas is the elected government of Gaza and therefore anything happening to Gazans they brought on themselves and as a side effect is supposed to prove that anybody criticizing any harm done to Gazans must be a terrorist supporter.

 

Which is wrong and ridiculous, on so many levels I don't know where to start to but it definitely proves that the person making that argument knows he is wrong and is not interested in any kind of fair debate but just tries to justify the unjustifiable.

 

Just to name a few:

1. since when can individuals be accused and punished for what their government has done (If so US or UK citizens should not leave their country)

 

2. Hamas was elected 20 years ago and there have been no elections since then. The average age in Gaza is 17, well at least it was before the mass killing. Now do the math how many Gazans who live today have possibly voted for Hamas.

 

3. Hamas was elected in Gaza’s first free elections after Israel had given it back to the Palestinians after 40 years of brutal occupation with many Palestinians killed and tortured. Whom exactly did you expect them to vote for? Some pro-Israeli party?

 

Hamas is a reaction to brutal occupation.

 

Simple as that.

 

And occupied people have a right to resist.

 

Occupying people and illegal settlers have no rights.

 

Palestinians in the West Bank have not attacked Israel and still their land is stolen every day.

 

What a great legacy for the chosen people.