Had the Jews lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, would Palestine have been established?

It most likely would have been. The word "Mandate" would simply have been removed from Mandate-Palestine.

There would not have been any Armistice Green lines in 1949 for Egypt and Jordan to fall back to in order to protect the remaining land for the Palestinians. That would have meant that Palestine would have been unbroken. That would have meant that the Jews would have remained a minority and would have continued to live as they had lived for 1000's of years amongst the Arabs. That would have meant that the bitterness of the Arabs being the majority ruled by the minority would never have existed.

The foreigners that came from Europe under the banner of Zionism would probably have been bitter that their dream didn't come true. That would have meant that the Haganah would not have been able to establish itself officially, which meant that radicals like Irgun and Lehi wouldn't have strengthened and wouldn't have festered in the land.

Egypt would not have lost their monarchy because the pretext of the military coup in 1952 was that the King was incapable of protecting his neighboring Arabs. That would have meant that the nationalization of the country by a zealous Army General would never have transpired, and Egypt would never have gone into the severe poverty it faces now under military rule.

That would have meant that Egypt would have remained a thriving country with open trade, and would have still had its alliance with Britain instead of the Soviet Union. That would have meant that Britain would have had a conflict of interest between the Balfour Declaration and one of its wealthy commonwealth nations, Egypt, which probably meant that complete and full support of the Zionist movement would never have come from Britain because of its support for Egypt as well.That probably would have meant that Britain would still be the superpower today since the 1956 nationalization of the Suez Canal would never have undermined Britain's world authority with U.S. intervention.

That would have meant that Palestine would have probably followed Egypt's political structure and framework as a thriving country with open trade, most likely under its own established monarchy. Such a young country would probably have required the protection of Egypt, which most likely would have meant that although it would no longer be a British Mandate, it would have strong influences from the commonwealth.

More importantly the question of land would never have been an issue because the majority ruling over minority is a common situation around the entire world.

Jews would have been able to trade freely, as they were in Egypt. They would have been able to establish their own religious laws within sub-communities for minorities, as it existed in Egypt. Egypt's Jewish population had entries at the royal court and were able to contribute to the nation's public transport, cotton industry, sugar refinery, banking, department stores, real-estate developments, agriculture, as well as having jobs as accountants, shopkeepers, teachers, and merchants. Palestine would have had a similar framework for the minority. Jews in Egypt were equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation, and were given rights to maintain their own religious rites and freedoms. Palestine would have had a similar framework for the minority.

If only the Jews simply asked to live amongst the Arabs as they did in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, rather than threaten to take the land instead.

In hindsight, the Jews are still at a loss even today, but not because of the Arabs... because of Zionism.

Why is Antisemitism so prevalent in Arab countries?

This is a common question asked in the Western world, however this seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding on what antisemitism actually means.

There is no antisemitism in Arab countries since Arabs are Semites. If you don't believe me look up the definition of the word Semite, and you might be surprised.

I am a Semite because I am of Arab decent. It would be ignorant of me to call a Jewish person "antisemitic" if he or she disagreed with Arab culture or the belief systems that most Arabs adhere to, or even to condemn a group of Arabs who have been involved in a criminal act.

The reason as to why the word Semite has been hijacked by Zionism in order to be associated solely to the Jewish people, is to constantly remind the world of the despicable treatment towards Jews inflicted in Europe in the early 1900's.
It is another fear campaign to scare people into avoiding being labelled with the same negative connotation attributed to the European movements against the Jewish people during that time. 

Today, it is an invented concept that is not relevant in Arab countries because their reasons to stand against Zionism are very different to the European movement against Jews. The truth is the word gets thrown around too easily and almost gets used in the same context as "racist" or "bigot", however most of the cases involve people being labelled "antisemitic" simply because they condemn the Israeli government for war-crimes, or the illegal settlement activities built on another person's home or farm. 

That argument is almost like saying "condemning Nazism is like being anti-Aryan", and that simply doesn't make sense. 

"Antisemitism" in the context of this question suggests a hatred for Jews at a discriminatory baseless level, yet the reason for condemnations against Zionism is quite evident and clear, and has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish.

As an example, if I lived in a small home with my whole family, and made a friendship with my neighbors, and then some little orphan girl comes into my home protected by big bodyguards, then she takes my whole house and pushes all my family into one small room, that gives me cause to try to take back my home regardless of how strong those body guards are, and regardless of how innocent that little orphan girl seems to the rest of the world.
It would be ignorant for someone to think that my neighbors and I hate all little orphan girls, without understanding the real reason as to why I am opposing her actions.

Why don't the Palestinian refugees get Syrian citizenship?

It is an interesting question to pose as some may question Syria's moral stance with accepting the current status of these refugees on their land for the last 70 years. But the problem itself lies not with the temporary status of refugees and where they currently live, but rather why they were refugees in the first place.

It would be the same as asking why the 1000's of Syrian Refugees today that have fled to Turkey because of the Syrian regime's brutality against civilians were not given Turkish citizenship.

The problem isn't to solve the refugee status by accepting a brutal regime's existence and have the open-handed neighboring nations take on the population into their own society.

The real problem is to root out these regimes that created the refugees in the first place, not to encourage them to remain in power so long as someone else takes care of their issues.

Similarly, the Palestinian refugee problem isn't something that needs to be solved by those who were willing to give them refuge from oppression, but those oppressive regimes that created the refugee problem in the first place.

In this case, it is Israel that needs to deal with putting those who they displaced back where they belong. If Israel thinks that it cannot support such a massive influx of people into their nation, then they should have thought of that before creating a state at their expense in the first place.

The land belongs to two peoples. If Zionism only really cares to cater for only one, then they are unfit to rule the land that is shared by both.

UN Resolutions that suggest Israel undergoes Ethnic Cleansing

UN Security Council Resolution 607 (1988)

The Council was informed of the decision of Israel to continue deportations of Palestinians in the occupied territories, the Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.
The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and abide by its obligations arising from the Geneva Conventions

UN Security Council Resolution 608 (1988)

The Council expressed regret at Israel's decision to deport Palestinians in the occupied territories in defiance of the previous resolution on the topic.

The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and ensure the safe repatriation of Palestinians back to the Palestinian territories.

UN Security Council Resolution 636 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 8 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 641 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 5 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians, which were usually expelled to Lebanon.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 694 (1991)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 4 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

UN Security Council Resolution 726 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 12 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

Israel did not comply with the resolution, and continued to deport Palestinians.

UN Security Council Resolution 799 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 413 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

Do Jews have "more right" to the land in dispute?

Prior to Israel as we see it today, the region of Jerusalem and its surrounding territory (which adopted many names in its history) has had only one moment where the Hebrews actually ruled the land.

For many centuries, they were either a minority scattered throughout the world or otherwise ruled by another entity in the land in question.

Even since the beginning of their lineage with the father of the Hebrews, Jacob, along with his children they didn't settle there. They migrated to live in Egypt and many generations passed with the Hebrews living in Ancient Egypt before their emigration under Moses.

Their most notable period was approximately 1000 BC, when David defeated Goliath and ruled as king of his newly conquered land. His successor and son, king Solomon claimed the throne thereafter, and then after his death civil war struck and split the kingdom into Judea and Samaria.
The divided kingdom became weak and fell prey to the Empire's around them (namely the Assyrian Empire), until Nebuchadnezzar conquered the land and the Hebrews were exiled to Babylon.


That was all they had, three or four generations to add to the 70 years of their colonization today. 

They weren't the first people there either. People lived there before them when it was called the land of Canaan.

The most important fact to take from this is that Jews don't have "more right" on the land simply because they ruled for three or four generations. The concept that people lived before them, and people lived after them means their rule was just a passing moment in history. In fact the Arabs under the Caliphate ruled for almost 1000 years, so the concept of "more right" on the land has very little context.

Jews through Zionism have conquered the land today with the help of Britain, but for how long, especially considering they are constantly under international pressure.

Conquering lands and colonizing people doesn't really work the same way it did centuries ago, and the Zionist movement has found it extremely difficult to maintain so far.

One-State or Two-State, that is the Question.

The initial proposal of the Partition Plan drafted by the UN in the form of Resolution 181 in 1947 was the first notion of a two-state solution, following the mass migration of Jews that caused clashes between those seeking refuge from the antisemitic movement in Europe and the native Arabs that were being displaced by the thousands because of this migration.

The proposal was based on separating the region based on ethnicity, however the Arabs immediately rejected the draft as it was unbalanced, providing the Jews with 56% of the land when they only comprised approximately 15% of the population. The Jews were initially unhappy with the UN Resolution because Britain promised them the entire region, but decided to accept it as their first opportunity to establish a homeland.

The Jewish decision was heavily influenced by the strong Zionist movement within their ranks. Arabs always considered Zionism a threat to the demographics of the region, especially following Jabotinsky's original account of the colonial plan of the region in his 1923 essay "The Iron Wall".

In the essay, Jabotinsky describes the behaviour of a native people towards the prospect of being colonized, which lead to the blunt realization that it would be impossible to expect a "voluntary agreement" with the Arabs. He realized the only way to achieve a state where the Jews were the masters of the land rather than a people absorbed within the population as a minority, was to use force.

Jabotinsky questioned it himself; why would the Arabs want to concede an area they inhabit for a colonial entity that wants to enforce a majority of its own? Why would any native throughout history ever want that? The only real solution to achieve colonization as he saw it, would require a "transfer" of Arabs in order to make the migrants the majority of the region. Even under British occupation and before that under the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were ruled by the respective authority's security forces, but the demographics were never threatened.

When conflict ensued following the proposal, the Arabs were not able to hold their position and maintain their territories only to concede it, which resulted in redrawing armistice lines and demilitarized zones. While some Arabs even now refuse to acknowledge the defeats they faced and stubbornly mention a non-negotiable one-state solution, those who do, feel they can only approach the conflict with one compromise based on the last known legitimate truce regarding borders; the Armistice "green line" Agreement of 1949, or popularly known as the pre-67 borders.

The one-state solution isn't ideal for Israel since the Arabs outnumber the Jews. It would mean a pure democratic process where all people who have a claim on the land, displaced or otherwise, have equal rights to vote and that would result in Arab leadership. Israel would face the same fate as the South African democratic process which ended white minority rule.

Ironically Israel claim it is the "only democracy" in the Middle East, yet a pure democratic process inclusive of all its people would deny Israel's entire existence. Democracy and Zionism therefore are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately for the Zionist movement, the Arabs are divided and do not possess the unifying strength to overpower Israel with its powerful backing of the United States, and therefore cannot force a hand in making such a bold claim for the one-state solution. Arabs have no other option but to approach the negotiation table with the two-state concept.

However, just as the Palestinian Papers have revealed, neither the issues surrounding the Right of Return, nor the ever-changing "land swaps" seem acceptable for Israel to agree to any terms that would make the two-state solution viable, regardless of the extreme concessions made by the Palestinian Authority (PA) even on key issues surrounding Jerusalem.

That's because the two-state solution doesn't really work for Israel either, even if the PA agree to all of Israel's preconditions. Zionism, as Jabotinsky puts it, is the colonization of the region, and any final agreement for a two-state solution would put an abrupt halt on the ongoing growth of the "Jewishness" of the land.

The real answer for Zionism is to maintain the status-quo. As long as they are in a state of conflict and the Palestinians don't have an official state, the Israeli government believe that the occupied territory can be annexed by Jewish-only settlements since there is no "official claim" to the land, regardless of what could potentially be part of a future Palestinian state.

The key question that arise from this dilemma is how Israel can get away with building settlements that encroach on a potential future state of Palestine. Even the United States government - Israel's only ally - has admitted that the core issue preventing peace negotiations from resuming is the ongoing settlement activities. These settlements have been deemed illegal by International Law as per the 4th Geneva Convention which was drafted for the protection of civilians, stating that an occupying entity must maintain the identiy and integrity of the occupied people on the land it occupies.

"Might is right" is the unfortunate reality. While the United Nations was established never to allow such atrocities to repeat itself as witnessed during WWII, it is ironically the very mechanism Israel is using to maintain this current state of conflict. That is because the US have in fact been guilty of being Israel's "lawyer", rather than their "honest broker" due to the Israel lobby in the US.

While rest of the world acknowledges the illegal settlements, the US with Israel have been able to stop UN Resolutions being passed in order to avoid halting the settlement activities. The UN Security Council voted to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory", but the US have been able to prevent it using a very powerful weapon given to them by the UN; the veto.

It is the very contradiction of democracy on the international stage. The ability to cancel any vote made by the nations of the world with a single trump card that can be used at the discretion of any of the five permanent member nations to control the world's decision-making by playing their political games for strategic advantages. Incidentally, the concept of permanent members only exists because the five members were part of an alliance that were the victors of WWII, which is clearly a sign that the very foundation of the UN is already outdated.

Ultimately, the veto is the true power behind world decisions, not the voices on the UN Security Council.

The best way to rectify such a deadlock in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is to have a "majority" vote in the UN rather than a concept of a veto, where the definition of "majority" could be determined based on the weighting of a nation's contribution to the UN Security Council.

That would end Israeli occupation in a heartbeat and the building blocks of a viable solution could finally transpire, whether it is to establish one state or two.

Is the solution for the West against ISIS to be passive?

The solution to the Middle East has never been one that needed bombing.The real problem lies with foreign funding.

Too many times in the history of the Middle East have we seen attempts to fight fire with fire only to see the flames increase. Terrorist groups like ISIS are looking for a fight. Don't give them one. They are isolated on the international stage and even the majority of Sunnis don't recognize them with any form of legitimacy.

There are too many political games being played via the UN where Russia and its bloc prevent the West from getting too involved and vice versa. The area is too critical for anyone to allow the other to have full control. When Assad was protected with a veto to protect his regime against the people's uprising, that's when the Syrian Spring went from civil disobedience, to protests, to violence, to radicalization.

Recent history has also shown that attempts to overcome political stalemate was by engaging in a proxy war i.e funding radicals to counter the radicals.

We saw it with Afghanistan where the Soviets funded one group and the Americans funded the other, creating a civil war which ultimately created the Taliban.

The first gulf war left Saddam Hussain in power and that only festered.

Israel's attempts to create discourse amongst the Palestinians by creating and funding Hamas to defy the PLO backfired on them.

Egypt's military regime receives the second largest foreign aid from the U.S. which makes it virtually impossible to have a democracy, even when the people tried, then failed.

Israel receives the largest foreign aid from the U.S. and we've seen what decades of war have done to the region with that funding.

The best solution is to stop pretending the West knows how to "solve the Middle East problem" and let them deal with it on their own.

The renaissance age that grew during the Fatimid era when the Arab world grew naturally, provided the world with science and philosophy, while Europe was busy burying "witches".

If we leave them to fight their own battles without puppet dictators or funded terrorists running the show, they might engage on a level playing field and eventually stability will come from the power of the people. It might not come overnight, but it needs to start sometime.

ISIS is only a result of a chain reaction that came from the Arab Spring where Assad was unchallenged. His regime was part of the alliance that formed with Nasser and called themselves the Arab League. That league was formed to break from the yolk of the monarchies that ruled the Middle East. Those monarchies were a product of WWI's dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire where the victors Britain and France played with the "spoils of war" by dissecting Arabia into the countries we see today and planting the seeds of subservient monarchs.

Terrorist groups like ISIS have never been the real problem, because when they are defeated another group like them will arise from the ashes unless the root cause is dealt with.

That root cause is "interference".

Water restrictions in the Palestinian Territories

Since the erection of the "separation wall" or more commonly known as the apartheid wall, 35,000 meters of irrigation network were ceased, 11,400 Dunams of agricultural land were confiscated, 100,000 ancient olive trees were destroyed. This impacted life, agriculture, freedom of movement, water usage, and income. It has also aloud for Jewish-only settlement expansions in the more fertile areas of the West Bank.

After the occupation of the West Bank, Israel took control of all water resources and prohibited Palestinians from water development and drilling the required infrastructure. To date not a single permit issued for agriculture or domestic use in Palestinian areas has been granted.

The "separation wall" aims at isolating more natural water wells owned by Palestinians.

More than 31 natural water wells producing 3.8 million cubic meters that serve 1000's of Palestinians for agriculture and domestic use has been confiscated. 

While the annual rainfall accumulation in the region is 47.8% in Palestinian Territories, 29.7% in Israel, 22.5% in Jordan, Israel's domestic water use per capita reaches more than 52%, leaving 30% for Jordan and 18% for the Palestinian Territories.

This is a very good documentary about the "wall of  hate".

Why is Israel Considered a "Rogue" State?

There are a number of issues concerning Israel's commitment to adhere to international law. The jurisdiction of these concerns fall beyond Israel's own foreign policy and what it interprets as justified. Since the surrounding Palestinian Territories are not actually part of Israel's sovereignty, the international community has the authority to determine whether or not Israel is defying international law, regardless of what Israel defines for its own rules of engagement.

There are a number of concerns that the international community have raised, which Israel has ignored or refuses to take part in, which is why many deem Israel a "rogue" state.

Currently, Israel undergoes what is considered illegal settlement expansion in the territories it has occupied since 1967. These areas are found in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Occupation itself is not illegal, however the means in which Israel conducts its occupation of these territories has been deemed illegal based on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There are currently about 500,000 Jewish colonists living in approximately 200 colonies in the West Bank. During the seven years of the Oslo peace process, the number of Israeli colonizers in the Occupied Territories increased by more than 50 percent. (AL Sep. 8. 2003. MDE 15/085/2003)

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘. . The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies.’

The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1998 reiterated its view that "Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not only illegal under contemporary international law but are an obstacle to peace and to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population in the region."

According to Amnesty International. "the Israeli Army has destroyed some 4,000 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as vast area of cultivated land, hundreds of factories and other commercial properties. roads and public buildings.” (MDE 15/091/2003)

Article 53, Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons... is prohibited.

Employees and mobile units of the PRCS and ICRC are regularly detained and harassed. Noteworthy violations include: A PRCS ambulance used as an assault shield by the IDF (Jan. 8, 2004): A tank assault on a PRCS ambulance, shattering the front windshield and injuring the driver (Jan. 28, 2004): During the destruction of the Jenin Refugee Camp in April, 2002. the ICRC was prevented from offering services to the injured and dying for six days.

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'...Mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked. . .'

Article 24 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick... shall be respected and protected in all circumstances…'

More notably, Israel is one of only four states in the world who refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The reason Israel refuse to be part in this treaty is because it has an undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that the US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.

Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapons, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.

Similarities between Zionism and the South African Apartheid

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is arguably the most debated political discussion in the world.

During the South African Apartheid, the conflict was just as internationally covered.

Ironically the National Party of South Africa gained power in the same year the Zionist nationalist movement had created their own state in 1948.

Both imposed laws based on an ethnic identity, which in turn received condemnation from the international community, especially since the establishment of these ruling parties came only three years after another ethnically motivated nationalist movement was dismantled in Europe.

Reactions against these movements were displayed with similar UN resolutions against both groups.

• UN GA Resolution 1761 was passed in 1962 in response to the racist policies of apartheid established by the South African Government. The resolution deemed apartheid and the policies enforcing it to be a violation of South Africa's obligations under the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security.

• UN GA Resolution 3379 in 1975 "determined that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". This was due to the concept of a state based on a specific ethnicity rather than the demographics of the region. 

The international community also undertook similar boycott movements against both regimes. 

• Trade embargoes against South Africa were gaining traction, as well as the famous UN arms embargo which became mandatory with the passing of Resolution 418. Boycotting of sports games by international teams had a profound effect on the white population, perhaps more so than the trade embargoes did.

• The BDS movement against the Zionist regime has been in full force world wide, as well as a mirroring on the sporting stage where the Israeli football team was boycotted by most of the Asian Football Confederation in the 1970s and so Israel had no choice but to join the European Federation (UEFA).

There is also a frightening similarity in the respective propaganda and the "state of emergency" laws that were implemented in both regions.

• Serious political violence in South Africa was a prominent feature from 1985 to 1989, as black townships became the focus of the struggle between anti-apartheid organisations and the government. Numerous township councils were overthrown or collapsed, to be replaced by unofficial popular organisations, often led by militant youth. The government also raised concerns about South Africa's isolation amongst surrounding "hostile Black-ruling" nations that unified under the same cause.

• Zionism has faced numerous intifadas and resistance against its settlement activities and occupation, particularly in Gaza, which happened to be replaced by an unofficial popular militant organisation. Israel also raised concerns about its international isolation especially amongst its neighboring "hostile Arab nations".

These techniques have been seen before by the Nazi regime who tried to play the victim card in order to gain support internationally for their cause.

Since both the South African Apartheid and Nazism have been dismantled, the Zionist regime seems to be following in their path. The era of ruling parties fuelled by ethnic radicalism is quickly becoming an outdated concept.

History has proven that the minority ruling the majority as is the case in the Israeli Apartheid, creates an unstable climate and does not tend to last long before it becomes yet another lesson for future generations to learn from.

All the Arabs need is another Nelson Mandela.

.

Does Iran have Nuclear Weapons?

The main person pushing this idea is Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli political leaders have been warning for more than 20 years that Iran is at a "breakout capability" for developing nuclear weapons.
It has developed into a boy-who-cried-wolf type scenario.



In 2012 Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly and promised that Iran were "within months" of developing a nuclear weapon.
In the most recent speech to US congress he said that negotiations with Iran were "paving the way for an Iranian nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks".

Netanyahu mentioned in his last speech to congress to ignore intelligence agencies, and to "just Google it". The reason why he doesn't want to rely on intelligence estimates is because according to both the US intelligence estimates and Israeli intelligence estimates Iran is not on a path to enrich uranium for the development of nuclear weapons, and in fact they've concluded that Iran have not even pursued research in that regard since 2003.

So what we keep seeing from Netanyahu in his speeches to the US Congress and the UN General Assembly is the same old rhetoric and fear mongering.

The fact that Iran has allowed the UN Nuclear inspectors to visit their uranium mines shows the level of ongoing cooperation Iran is willing to conduct, and that in itself shows these theories to be extremely weak.
U.N. nuclear inspectors in Iran to visit uranium mine

Netanyahu's insistence that Iran have no nuclear capability whatsoever including those that are illicit for it to have and to develop under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty points to the hypocrisy of his stance, since there are four nuclear rogue states who refuse to sign the treaty, one of those ironically is Israel.

The reason Israel refuse to be part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is because it has its own undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

Whats even more hypocritical is the stance the US has taken when it was the only nation in the entire history of mankind to actually use nuclear bombs on an entire population of civilians, twice, and has not been held accountable for the atrocities it inflicted in arguably the worst terrorist attack humanity has ever seen.

[cited: Josh Ruebner, Jewish-American author, political analyst]

How strong is the support for Jewish settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory?

– written by Hany Abed

There are essentially two core components of this apparent unilateral support as shown in the graphical:

1. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
2. There is a divine Right of Return to the Land of Israel (including Judea and Samaria as known by the Zionist movement), as the first step to bring about redemption of the world. 

The first is straight forward to address. Apartheid is in-congruent and incompatible with the concept of democracy.

For the second, let us put forward an argument that shows this Right of Return to be principally flawed.

The Jews (like several other tribes) originated in that area. Origins have nothing to do with title to land. That logic is absurd and nonsensical. Indian Muslims originated from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan - they cannot claim land in those countries. Parts of Indonesia, Cambodia and Thailand have Hindu origins - Indians cannot claim land in those countries. Large parts of Scotland have Nordic origins - Denmark and Sweden have not claimed any land there. The north of Pakistan is Bactrian Greek in origin - the Greeks have claimed no land there.

Jews have indeed been living continuously in the Holy Land, but between AD 70 and the end of the 19th century in very small numbers. Even as late as 1872, the Jews probably less than 4 percent of the population of the land. There has always been a Sephardic community in Palestine, but until recently it was numerically insignificant – in 1257 Nahman Gerondi found only two Jewish families in Jerusalem – and it is hard to see how its existence can be used to assert that ‘the only continuous claim [to Palestine] that exists’ is the Jewish. What the Arabs do claim, however, is that the land has been inhabited for ‘millennia’ by the ancestors of the Palestinian refugees. The modern Palestinians are a people of various ethnic origins, descended from the conquerors of Palestine since early Biblical times. Their ancestors are the Canaanites and Philistines who, unlike the Jews, were never deported. They remained in Palestine (which took its name from the Philistines) and their descendants formed, and still form, the core of the indigenous population. In the seventh century, the Muhammadan Arabs brought with them their government, their language and their religion, and a majority of the inhabitants accepted all three. Palestine and its people became "Arabised". Yet they remained the same people.

The famous British author (H.G. Wells) wrote:

"If it is proper to “reconstitute” a Jewish state which has not existed for two thousand years,, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there."

Prof. Israel Finkelstein wrote:

"The basis for Zionist land claims are absurd. The same basis can be used to create a Hutsul state in Ukraine, a Cossack state in Russia, a Macedonian state in Greece, a Kashubian state in Poland, an Alsatian state in France, a Gurkha state in Nepal, a Rajput state in India, etc. Political Zionism is ethnic madness, and is based on a racist view of demographic history."

What incentives does Israel offer Jewish settlers to live in the Occupied Palestinian Territories rather than Israel?

Jewish settlers in Occupied Palestinian Territories are quite different to those who live in Israel Proper, or even the Jewish diaspora.

Those who live in Tel Aviv are known to be more involved in their own personal civil challenges on a day to day basis. They love their shopping and are more concerned about the increase in housing prices than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Regarding the conflict, there are common differences which mainly depend on whether they are secular Jews or religious Jews.

American Jews have a definitive split in opinions between leftists and conservative right-wingers that generally revolve around either supporting the BDS movement (leftists) or have the impression that Israel is a tiny state surrounded by hostile Arab countries who want to push Jews to the sea (right-wingers).

Jewish settlers are a very different kind of people. They are known to be the "pioneers" of the future Eretz Israel, and the "front line" of the land expansions. They require little incentives from the Israeli government and, more astonishingly, sometimes break Israeli law when erecting their own makeshift homes which are unapproved by Israeli building authorities.

Many are radical in nature, banding together as thugs who's primary goal is to make Palestinians feel unwelcome in the hopes they leave the land for them. Settlers are equipped with M-16 assault rifles and are allowed to use them at their own discretion.

Here are some examples of the radicalism:

"We killed Jesus and we're proud of it"

Settler woman & children harass Palestinian homes

Settler children encouraged to harass Palestinians:

Report from Aljazeera about the constant harassment