For most lands, legitimate ownership is a result of one of 3 factors. First would be relatively indigenous peoples who were there first to settle a region and have up to this point been willing and capable of defending their lands, purchase, and of course conquest. None of these methods of land ownership applies to Israel.
Israel is not the result of any kind of indigenous right as we define it. In fact, the people who managed to acquire the land now known as Israel have no real legitimate indigenous right to the land. Israel was acquired by followers of Judaism not actual members of the Jewish race (they consider themselves a race so who and I to argue). It was converts who acquired Israel. Eastern Europeans whose heritage stems mostly from Khazar and spurred the communist revolution are descendants of converts not the actual Hebrew people. Of course there is nothing wrong with converting to the religion of your choice, however, if that religion is race-based you don’t get to assume the race. Celebrating Kwanzaa doesn’t make you Black.
One also cannot say that Israel was acquired through conquest. When the Balfour Declaration was signed it was the Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel. Not too long after the Balfour Declaration was signed England invaded Palestine and not long after that Jews and followers of Judaism started moving in and displacing the Palestinians. So why would England conquer a land and then just give it away?
After all, they were heavily involved in colonialism and had been for centuries.
During WWI the Germans were kicking the crap out of everyone who declared war on her (him whatever). In fact, even when the war ended with a lot of help from America, no one had breached any German soil. France and Russia were running for their lives and England couldn’t even feed its population because of the German submarines. European Zionist bankers saw an opportunity and jumped. They would finance England’s war effort and even promised to get the United States into the war and in exchange England would secure Israel for the “Jews”.
One might make the case that the Zionists (followers of Judaism not members of the Jewish race) did, in fact, purchase Palestine from the British but it wasn’t exactly the Louisiana Purchase. If there is another example of one country conquering another to give it away to people who lent it money I certainly do not recall it. It does seem to be taking Usury a bit far. Of course, the end result is that now these Zionist bankers led by the House of Rothschild owns the United Kingdom lock stock and barrel.
Israel is an entitlement nation. It is completely incapable of providing for itself. Representatives of Israel have been looting Europe and the United States for decades and every year they get “care packages” in the way of military supplies and cold hard cash. As this unearned military hardware and cash from Israel’s generous benefactors flows into the country, Israelis have used these things to continually expand its borders and control with no real end in sight.
Given the way Israel was acquired, its residents not having any legitimate indigenous claim on the land, and that it is incapable of supporting itself without a constant flood of free money and weapons it is hard to make the case that these people have a right to be there or that Israel has a right to exist at all. It is estimated that 80-90 percent of the people on the planet who claim to be Jews are actually followers of Judaism and should return to their homelands (Khazar) if being indigenous is even a consideration.
So does Israel have a right to exist? The answer, of course, is no it does not, in fact, no country has a right to exist. As long as Israel is allowed to loot the west and continues receiving mass influxes of military equipment and cash it will exist right or wrong. The second the unearned benefits cease Israel will no longer exist and it’s just that simple.
One more point.
Israel and followers of Judaism have promoted the idea that Israel belongs to the Jews on some kind of indigenous level. One has to wonder where this ideology will end. Are the Russian and Japanese settlers the indigenous peoples of the Americas or is it the Western Europeans that came before them? South Africa was literally given away on this premise. This idea that land belongs to you because your ancestors once owned it is irrational and dangerous. The only thing that belongs to any people is that which they were capable and willing to defend against all usurpers. Those who are, not have no right to anything.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.