| > And you think that's legitimate? Keeping millions of people under permanent rule of a state with no rights whatsoever? They do have rights. Why are you lying? They have PA, and they have all their rights there as determined by the PA. > I'm not going to get into your historical claims, except to note that the reason why the situation for Middle Eastern Jews changed so drastically after 1948 was because a bunch of people claiming to represent all Jews conquered a strip of land in the Middle East and expelled the native population. I see. So if some Jews in Israel do something, then the Arabs everywhere else are allowed to ethnically cleanse the Jews in other places. Thank you for clarifying this. Well, now we know where you stand on collective punishment :) > Israel left Gaza in 2005 so that it could concentrate on the settlement of the West Bank. It was a strategic move to conserve their forces. How does it change the choice that Palestinians made in Gaza? > The only "land for peace" deal that Israel has made is with Egypt. Israel did that because it did not want to risk another war like 1973 with a serious military opponent. So? It was a smart move, and proved itself. Like man, you just showed with this reply alone that you don’t care about human rights, you just don’t like Jews. |
Kind of.
> and they have all their rights there as determined by the PA.
The PA doesn't administer Gaza (because of the civil war Israel actively facilitated, and because even though the parties came to an agreement on all-Palestine elections to resolve it, Israel has blocked them), and much of the West Bank (not just the Israeli settlements, but places where Palestinians live) is administered by Israel, not the PA.
And even the parts administered by the PA are subject to regular (and accelerated in the last couple years, with almost no international attention thanks to the focus on the part of the Israel-Palestine war taking place in Gaza) arbitrary violence by Israel, rendering "rights" determined by the PA moot in practice.