ISRAEL VS. PALESTINE...AGAIN

[rothschild]

What do your Jewish clients think about this, Tiki?

Just the Jewish clients?  Because they happen to be Jewish, are you suggesting they automatically embrace Zionism in any of its forms?

Honestly, I don't know.  I'm still in Yuma.  However . . . I do know two things prior to the Hamas attack, on October 7, from light conversations about regional politics:

1.)  The inevitable use of the Samson Option will occur if Israel is faced with defeat or stripped of its territory or statehood.

2.)  One of my clients is a grand-nephew of a Zionist immigrant, to Israel, via the Havaara Agreement (I believe it was 1934 or 1935 when he left Germany . . . I'm relying on memory).  This has divided his family as to his ancestor being either a well intentioned Zionist (who would later help fellow Jews escape from Europe), a selfish, self-serving opportunist or a flat out Nazi collaborator.

I'm sure you are familiar with both of the above, as you are both interested and immerse yourself in geo-political readings.

I know you believe the Zionists are colonialists.  I do not.

I know you believe the Canaanites were an indigenous people.  I do not.

And although they supposedly embrace the Sunni interpretation of Islam, Hamas embraces the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and the concept that Islam is the answer to both social and political problems.  And the Jews are a problem that need be completely exterminated. 

Final Solution 2.0.

My understanding is that most of the German Jews transferred to Palestine did not do so willingly. Their property and assets were seized, a portion of which was given to the Zionists in the form of German goods that were sold in Palestine to pay the 5,000 pound entrance fee. This was a formal agreement between the Nazi government and the Jewish Agency in Palestine, headed by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and was of great benefit to the Nazi economy, which was being boycotted by Jews around the world. It took effect well before the start of WWII, a point at which German Jews did not require "rescuing"; Zionism, on the other hand, very much needed colonists to build what would become the Jewish State of Israel. If that isn't collaboration then nothing is.

As previously stated, European Jews are not the descendants of the biblical Jews. Their genetic commonality with them is indistinguishable from non-Jewish Europeans, making them colonists seizing land they had no ancestral claim to. There were Semitic Jews in Palestine at that time, who would have been indistinguishable in appearance from the felahin and other inhabitants.

If the Canaanites and Israelites were not indigenous to that region, what does the term "indiginous" mean?

As for "Final Solution 2.0", hardcore Zionists feel the same way about the Pals, and that is no secret. The extremists on both sides constitute powerful minorities, by whom the majority of people are held hostage. Israel gave funding to Hamas because it did not want to reach a permanent agreement with the PLO. This disaster could and should have been settled decades ago on the basis of the UN Charter. Israel has consistently been shielded from international law by virtue of the US veto in the Security Council, completely undercutting it's stated purpose for existence, which is the maintenance of international peace and security.

The main sticking points are the fair allocation of water, the question of whether to adopt a one or two-state agreement, and reparations for crimes against humanity. The extremists on both sides, in my estimation, need to be removed from the equation by whatever means are necessary for the restoration of international peace and security on the basis of the UN Charter -- the articles of which are very clear.

If that is an impossibility, so is the prospect of international peace and security -- which in my opinion means the UN is a failed experiment, leading to a very obvious question: why?