Comments by "Sandy Tatham" (@sandytatham3592) on "Amnesty International responds to US rejection of 'apartheid' report" video.

This is an interesting perspective that I found written somewhere else: "There is no peace treaty with the Palestinian Arabs, therefore a state of war continues and the civilian standard does not apply." It makes sense to me. Things that Amnesty says are 'apartheid' are more like strict security measures against people who don't recognise your right to exist. There is no 'apartheid' within Israel. Israeli Arabs participate in society at the highest levels.
4
@Hanan Albataineh: Those Palestinians who didn't accept the reality of the state of Israel in 1948 are 'displaced peoples' and they should have been resettled in the Arab states by now instead of being used as pawns in the game of Arab against Jew. Thankfully, a growing number of Islamic nations have seen the light and they are now normalising relations with Israel. All countries have the right to grant citizenship as they see fit, especially where overall security of their country is concerned. PS: can Jews live in Gaza? Can 'Palestinians' sell property to Jews?
2
@Hanan Albataineh: Sorry Hanan, but no country would allow the return of people who went to war against them, or who didn't stay to defend their land and who sided with the aggressors. Israel is already full to capacity with Arab Muslim citizens. Israel has the right to ensure the security of all of their people. Do you think they would risk becoming another #Lebanon? Is anyone preventing Arab Israelis from leaving to join their families elsewhere?
2
@Hanan Albataineh: I'm very sorry for those families who were exiled. I would say this occurred mostly on the basis of religion, not race, because Islam obligates Muslims to fight against the Jews. And remember that 850,000 thousand Jews were also expelled from their multi-generational homes in Arab countries where they were no longer safe. Wars are horrible. But you have to get on with your life and stop playing the #victim 73 years later. Millions of people have been 'displaced' over the last 100 years due to the creation of new nation states. The creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan saw 13 million South Asian Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians fleeing, leaving behind property, in fear of their lives or of being raped. China persecuted the Tibetans in the 50s and an estimated 150,000 peaceful Tibetan Buddhists fled from their homeland and an estimated 87,000 were killed. The creation of Turkey saw in 1922 a vast population exchange of around 1.6 million Greeks and 400,000 Muslim Turks. And what happened to the 40 million Kurds who also have a claim for their own nation? Can you tell me why today we only focus on the #Palestinian problem? Why does this get special UN funding and so much publicity?
1
@Hanan Albataineh: It doesn't matter if the Jews were the minority or majority in the Holy Land at 1947. The Muslim side LOST the war in 1918, and they LOST the next wars too. As a result, they did NOT get to decide who ended up with what lands. There was no 'vote'. However, Arabs did finish up with a huge 99% of the old Ottoman Empire Middle East lands. If your family was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they refused to accept rule by a Jewish state, then that's your loss. But you have to get over it. Resistance is futile. The Arab states no longer support it. India was invaded as early as the 11th Century by the Ghaznavid Dynasty, who captured Lahore in 1021. It was occupied by the Mughal Emperors from 1526-1761, who converted around one-fifth of the Hindus to Islam. The last Mughal emperor was enthroned in 1837. India was then ruled by the British from 1858 to 1947. Ali Jinnah's Muslim League was primarily responsible for the split along the lines of religion before Independence. The British were almost bankrupt from the two world wars and just wanted to get out. It might have suited them to leave behind a divided India, but this could never have happened if the Indian people hadn't wanted it. Muslims are obligated to struggle to live under Sharia so wanted to create their own nation state.
1
@soniahemmati2372 : You do realise that over 60 MILLION people have been displaced through wars and the founding of new nation states in the last 100 years? The vast majority have now been resettled in THIRD countries such as Australia, my country, and are living thriving lives. Do we talk about any of them today? No. It's only the co-called 'Palestinians' who get all the publicity and funding. They are being held as geopolitical weapons against the Jews. After the defeat and collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the Arabs were granted self-determination over more than 99% of the Middle East land. The Jewish state of Israel is on less than 1% of that land. If it's fair and just for Arabs to have self-determination in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, then it's fair and just for the Jews to have Israel. All Israeli citizens, including the 21% Arab-Israelis, have EQUAL rights under the law.
1
@soniahemmati2372 : I'm not saying that displaced people have to go to a country where the same language is spoken. Obviously it's LESS of a cultural clash if refugees and/or displaced peoples are given citizenship in a country where the religious and cultural values are similar but it's not essential. How do you think the US, Canada, and Australia came to be the most multicultural countries in the world? I'm glad you recognise that the Jews are indigenous to the Holy Land. And over 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs whose families CHOSE to accept life under Jewish rule. What you call the 'West Bank' is under the security arrangements put in place by the Oslo Accords. Palestinians have never wanted their own state, and their leadership is corrupt. Those Palestinians who are hostile want a Jew-free area from the river to the seas, and most don't want Israeli citizenship. The area of Judea and Samaria (your West Bank) is 'disputed territory' and the word 'occupied' doesn't apply today, however it was annexed and 'occupied' by Jordan between 1950-1967. What's your stake in this? Why do you propose perpetuating the horrible situation for those so-called Palestinians who want to live in peace somewhere else in the world? Why don't you acknowledge that there is a terror wave in Israel right now and that extremely severe security measures are necessary, both by Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Gaza is a law unto itself as it's governed by a terror organisation, supported by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
1
@soniahemmati2372 : The Israeli government maintains that according to international law the West Bank status is that of disputed territories. Can you tell me whose territory is being occupied? The last occupier of Judea and Samaria was Jordan, before that it was the British Mandate of Palestine, and before that the Ottoman Empire which is now defunct. Judea and Samaria is the heartland of historic Israel. As Arab aggression dissipates, which we see happening with the Abraham Accords and the closer ties being formed with Arab countries, my guess is that Israel will one day move to annex this disputed area. They must then offer citizenship with equal rights to the Arabs who currently live there. Or an arrangement might be made with Jordan to give them citizenship, and Israel will then provide them with long-term residence permits, which happens in many countries around the world. That would safeguard Israel from losing its majority Jewish citizenship. I see no problem with a country wanting to uphold certain values so long as equal rights are given to all citizens.
1
@soniahemmati2372 : I get where you are coming from regarding Arabs also being considered indigenous, but it's not my rule. It's the League of Nations who recognised the Jews as the indigenous people of historic Palestine, deserving of the right to return to their ancestral homeland (San Remo Resolution of 1920). The Arabs were granted the right to self-determination over the REMAINING collapsed Ottoman Empire, comprising more than 99% of that land. Those Arabs who currently lived in historic Israel were to be guaranteed equal citizenship to the Jews, and that's the situation today where Arabs sit in the Knesset, in the highest places in judiciary, health, education, technology and business, as well as the security services. If the Arabs had not conducted a war of aggression against the Jews in 1948, during which thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria hoping to return within days after the Jews had been obliterated, we might have seen more of an equal demographic balance today. As for the Golan Heights, they contain over 100 ancient synagogues and are therefore considered part of historic Israel, though some deal was made by Britain with France at the end of WWI to tack that area onto the French Mandated area of today's Syria. I'm not interested in the Bible but in the archaeological evidence for the traditions of the Jewish people dating back thousands of years, certainly predating that of the Arabs. The Golan Heights was only annexed by Israel AFTER the wars of aggression against them by Arabs. This has validity in international law. I stand for the rights of all indigenous peoples where pragmatic to have sovereignty in their own ancestral lands, so long as equal rights are granted to others who currently live there. I am disappointed that the Kurds were not granted the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland by the League of Nations conference in 1920. Do you support indigenous rights in principle?
1
Allah is the not the same as Yahweh-Jehovah.
1
The #Jews are the indigenous people and the Holy Land is their ancestral home.
1
@Hanan Albataineh: Let's remember that offensive and aggressive wars have consequences, and the losers don't get to dictate the terms of their surrender. The British documented in the 1917 Balfour Agreement the promise to the Jews of their ancestral homeland in return for their support of the war effort. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British sadly reneged on that promise to the Jews but the United Nations finally affirmed the state of Israel in 1947. Those Arabs living in Palestine in 1948, and who accepted rule by the Jews, form 21% of Israeli citizenship today, and they are leaders in all walks of life including politics and the judiciary. Out of the remaining 99% land of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, the Arabs today have self-determination in Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Let me also remind you that the Islamic Caliphates were at one time the largest invaders and colonisers in the known world!!! #Perspective
1
@sue3519 : The area known as Palestine in 1918 had been occupied by the Islamic Caliphates for the previous 1400 years. Before that it was occupied by the Roman Empire. The citizens of that province of Palestine has always included #Jews. When the Ottoman Caliphate surrendered to the British & Allies in 1918, it was the responsibility of the British & Allies to formulate a policy of creating independent nation states. The British had already promised the Holy Land to the Jews, an ethnic group which had lived there continuously for 4000 years. The Arabs were given 99% of the surrendered Middle East land. Israel consists of less than 1% but it has strategic and ideological significance for the Western world. It seems totally appropriate to me that the #Jews be given guardianship of their ancestral homeland so long as they also accommodated those Arabs who recognised the Jewish state in 1948. Which they did.
1
@Hanan Albataineh: Wars have negative consequences for the loser of the aggressor side. The Ottoman Empire found that out. The League of Nations ratified the Balfour Agreement. The Holy Land has strategic and ideological value to the British and the West and the #Jews are the ideal guardians of that land. Israel is here to stay.
1