Wrong.
Pro-Palestine Protests
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
You pumped out the same thing in May.
Still wrong.
Haven't you been issued with a new propaganda worksheet yet?
Remember when you said Palestine had already been destroyed and no longer exists?
Your playbook is easy to see.
Israel's genocide continues.
A barefaced lie.
Straight from Israel's propaganda.
Luckily there are not many people who still believe such lies.
It isn't just a block on journalism in Gaza or of Al Jazeera:they (Israel) have so many gullible useful idiots in the West
Some of them spout total distorted arguments and untruths.
Why is there a blockade on journalism operating in Gaza?
Does Gaza have a dedicated media operating from Gaza, in the same way as the Israel Hayom?
It's a free newspaper, one of the (if not the largest) in Israel and is owned by friends of Netanyahu.
Israel Hayom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A report in the Guardian says Len Blavatnik, the second-richest man in Britain, is facing a series of protests in the UK after his Israeli television channel was accused of cancelling programmes to please Benjamin Netanyahu. Aviel Lewis, a London-based Israeli who is part of the anti-Netanyahu WeDemocracy group, said Blavatnik was known in the UK “as a patron of progressive culture and arts” and the British public was not aware that he was also involved in “something that is clearly taking Israeli media years back and corrupting it”. Lewis is part of a group of Israeli citizens opposed to the Netanyahu government who are planning to hold protests [today] at the Tate Modern’s Blavatnik wing and the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of government.
He holds a majority share in Channel 13 News. The board last month appointed Yulia Shamalov-Berkovich, a former politician seen as an ally of the Israeli prime minister, as its chief executive. Her arrival was swiftly followed by the cancellation of a popular investigative news programme hosted by the journalist Raviv Drucker, who had exposed a series of scandals about Netanyahu and a recent story about alleged corruption in the transport ministry.
Blavatnik is a UK/US citizen, born in Ukraine during the Soviet era and although he denies being an Oligarch, or a supporter of Putin, his policies or the Russian government, he clearly has a soft spot for the Fascist faction in Israel.
As negotiated and agreed to with the arabs in the Oslo 2 accords, the West Bank is split into 3 areas, areas a, b and c.
Only area C is under Israeli control.
90% of arabs live in areas a and b.
The fact is that Israel via settlements are effectively annexing occupied territory. This is totally against international law. The court also pointed out that the infrastructure these need has also been added.They are permanent. Once so the law has been broken. This covers the west bank and there is plenty of evidence that settlements have continued to expand even more so of late.
The strip is a little different. It was partially annexed but the Israeli living there were forced out by their state. The court has ruled that due to the controls Israel exercises on the area it's effectively still occupied. There is nothing new about that view. They are interfering to an unacceptable level with an area that they have occupied.
A curious factor about the strip is that if the biblical view is accepted it's never been part of the promised land.
Jerusalem - it's been annexed, That relates to the eastern half. Other aspects relate to it not being seen as the capitol of Israel for pretty obvious reasons. It has to many religious factors relating to 3 faiths to allow it to be handled this way. It's bound to cause problems.
The court also considered the period before the 67 war.It's easy to get a one sided view on this. All an Arab problem. However given Israel's actions when things kicked off how else would you expect the Arabs in general to react. Israel forcibly annexed an area including evictions of people from their homes. It's interesting that an expansion of annexation continues. They very clearly intend to continue doing that.
Go back to the Ottoman empire and this whole area and other areas in it progressed rather well. All religions around much as they will have been for rather a long time without problems. Each just held their faith. Then throw in wars - us and others involved. Lines on maps and an eventual carve up between UK and France. None of which have lasted. The result - a number of what are in real terms despotic states. Iran's blew up, The US tried to back the Shah and failed as his armed forces revolted as well. it seems from a piece of fiction I am currently reading they did have an alternative. The author usually researches his books rather thoroughly. It seems they could have accepted the new leadership but a president said no.
"The Oslo Accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern Palestinians in pockets of the occupied West Bank and Gaza under the control of Israel’s occupying army. The PA was supposed to be an “Interim Self-Government'' and only last “for a transitional period not exceeding five years.” The final status agreement was supposed to be based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied during the June 1967 war, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
What nonsense!
Areas A, B, C
The Oslo Accords divided the Palestinian West Bank into three administrative zones: Area A (18%), where the Palestinian Authority (PA) administers civil and security matters; Area B (22%), where the PA administers only civil matters; and Area C (60%) where Israel maintains full control.[1] Area...
So 30% live in areas A and B, while 60% live in area C where Israel maintains full control.
So really, Israel and the surrounding arab areas should be given back to Turkey in order to comply with International law.
"
Why did the Oslo Accords fail to achieve peace?
- Israeli leaders never accepted the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel or a single state in all of Palestine/Israel with equality for both peoples. Instead, Israel exploited the Oslo negotiations process to cement its control over the occupied territories, while shifting responsibility for the occupied Palestinian population from the Israeli army to the PA. As noted by Amnesty International in a 2003 report: “while Israel retained direct control over most of the land, it no longer had to provide the services which an occupying power is required to provide for the occupied population.” Consequently, while the Oslo Accords were being negotiated between 1993 and 1999:
- Israel accelerated the expansion of illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land “to an unprecedented level,” according to Amnesty, on territory that was supposed to form the heart of a Palestinian state. As Amnesty noted: “The settlements’ position has ensured that there is no territorial contiguity between Palestinian communities in different areas of the Occupied Territories.”
- Israel began to impose increasingly severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, both within the occupied territories and between the territories and the outside world.
- Israel accelerated its destruction of Palestinian homes and communitiies, mostly under the pretense they were build without approval from Israel, which was and remains nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain.
Anybody wearing a mankini and looking happy about it can't be taken seriously; so i put him in the Iggy bin. 
"Violent, right-wing Israeli extremists further undermined any possibility of the Oslo Accords leading to a lasting peace. In particular, the February 1994 massacre of 29 Palestinians as they prayed in occupied Hebron by a U.S.-born settler, which began a wave of violence that undermined support for negotiations on both sides, and the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995 by a Jewish extremist opposed to any negotiations with the Palestinians or withdrawal from occupied Palestinian land.
The percentages you refer to may well be correct, but they apply to land mass rather than numbers of arabs living there.