Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My avatar is invisible? Oh, that explains a lot
Thanks, I missed hat somehow.
Thank you very much for answering.
The implication is that their claim is "lesser" to "non-existent", I should have included that when I said "That is not greater". So no, they have no claim. At all. None. Any claim they make is a pretensious fabrication based on historical revisionism and a geopolitik that no other country in history has been forced to play by. Just because the UN partitioned the area as an Arab state does not make it a legitimate claim, just like how the Arabs complain that the UN partition did not justify an Israeli state. Technically we can say the Balfour declaration which gives Israel the territory of Transjordan should be considered more binding, the British broke their promise on that one due to Arab pressure, so why should the broken UN deal be counted if the Balfour didn't go through? Who is to say exactly?
Please explain why Jordan occupied Judea-Samaria if it was rightfully ceded to the Palestinians. Most Jews supported the UN partition I'll say that but once the Arabs invaded, all that went out the window. They may have a claim in the sense the UN designated the area to them but that's about it, once the Jordanians entered the "Arab-designated area", it was no longer a game under UN rules.
Welcome Jazzymom, I think this is my first nugget to you, but your post got me thinking.
Welcome Jazzymom, I think this is my first nugget to you, but your post got me thinking. Oddly, the first time I heard about the DNA link you are talking about it was used to support the idea that "Palestinians" had a right to the land now touted as being "Palestine". Further to this, the DNA link was given as proof that the "Palestinians" deserved "their" land. What was breathtakingly amusing is that there was no discussion whatsoever of this same DNA link directly supported Jewish claims to the same area... a land that they, ostensibly, had no legitimate claim BECAUSE the DNA link proved "Palestinians" to be the rightful heirs.
(No... you can't make this stuff up. It's too rich.)
If the the fact that the UN partitioned the area as an Arab state does not make it a legitimate claim for the paestinians then you could claim the same for the jews and the state of Israel.
Sorry, you lost me there. How is this reply an answer to my question on how you can take back something you haven't lost?
If the the fact that the UN partitioned the area as an Arab state does not make it a legitimate claim for the paestinians then you could claim the same for the jews and the state of Israel.
Are you asking me to explain why?
I don't know why, ask the Jordanians
What did Jordan do with the land? Did their plans include attempting to expel and marginalize the people already living there? Did they steal land and bulldoze houses? Did they set up settlements and deny Palestinians the right to move around freely? Did they limit access to water?
Well No Man's Land without the poison gas.
I am aware that there has been bickering and refusal to share going on in that region for a very long time. And no, it doesn't matter and no, I don't think it's relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I already answered this question. If the Jordanians were treating them fine and/or leaving them alone, then there would be no reason to desire independence.
According to Wikipedia, they granted the Palestinians full citizenship. That probably was pretty uplifting. Other than that, it seems like it was business as usual. People tend not to care about politics and such until it adversely effects them.
So? My dad is a third generation German-American. Doesn't mean that this is any less his home, and everything he has ever known. And what about those who have been there for much longer? Even if you are correct in that a majority were relatively new-comers, that doesn't equate to all. And if newcomer status is a criteria as to who should get kicked out, then that doesn't bode well for the Israelis.
I'm not talking about history. I am talking about the present day living conditions imposed upon the Palestinians by the Israelis.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right even if you really really want it to.
There have been multiple reports indicating that the settlements have been built on privately owned Palestinian land, appropriated public land that was in use by Palestinians, and took advantage of the lack of modern documentation indicating ownership. See the section entitled "Land Ownership".
Basically, simply because no one really recognizes the legality of Israel's claim to it. I'm not well versed in international war laws, but it seems that if you really had won land upwards of 50 years ago, things should be more settled by now. And yet they're not. Which means it's still a no man's land, at least until the legality and borders have become settled.
I don't see why what Israel does is a "wrong", that in itself is the #1 rub that must resolved in order to move on.
But they weren't necessarily. I'd say the Jews treated them much better.
I don't see how it would have been worse under the 1948 partition plan or under general treatment from Jews before then.
I can't really disprove a negative, all I can prove is that the word "Palestinian" did not gain circulation until well after the Jordanian occupation. I'm sure there were some among them who wanted the Hashmite Monarchy to leave but there was no distinct "Palestinian" movement until over a decade after the Jordanian occupation.
My point was in comparing those who say the Israelis are new to the Palestinians who claim to have been there. In any event, the Arabs started the war and tried to drive the Jews into the sea, they lost. The loser doesn't get to dictate the terms.
Well if you don't factor in the history, you can't reap a fair solution. What solution do you have in mind, kicking the Jews out of Judea-Samaria? That's what the Palestinians want. I simply counter and say they should all go back to Jordan instead, which is 80% of Palestine and is the Palestinian state.
Again, what the Jews do is not necessarily wrong. That's completely subjective and worthy of its own thread's worth of debate.
You were talking about back then, not now. For the now situation, other Arab countries have plenty of water which they can help with but don't. There's a whole river called the Jordan for example. And if the UN wanted to, they could take a few billion away from their pedo-Peacekeeper funds and build some Desalinization plants, but that would mean less children to trade services for the blue helmets perhaps.
The exact specifics of this are in dispute and would make a great thread.
The same international community that puts Iran in the Human Rights council, they can go eat (Censored) and (censored) until they stop supporting terrorist regimes, you ever wonder why almost ALL the UN resolutions are against Israel? Are they too scared of the hundreds of other places on Earth that may violate human rights? No, it's quite clear that the UN has shown its colors as blatantly against Israel, so this too deserves its own thread.
First off, Israel is not an 'occupying power". That itself is debatable, like the rest of your contentions.
Well first off, explain to me why the UN put Iran in the human rights council and why they totally ignored Turkey's treatment of Kurds, and then we can talk about whether the opinion of the rest of the world matters 2 ****s. To put it shortly, it would have been settled quickly if the UN and rest of the world didn't decide to drop everything they were doing to tell Israel that they can't annex Judea Samaria.
