Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[Shermana]

Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Just looking at that part of the article it looks like there has been some positive overtures lately. Not perfect but a far less dreary picture than is being painted. Not close to healing the schism but I see a light at the end of the tunnel if such positive overtures can be kept going.

However, in 2010, even Fatah leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,[169] while the leader of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, which is the official Fatah's military wing, publicly disclosed Fatah's "ultimate goal" to be the destruction of the Jewish state, and that Abbas would lie about recognition of Israel following "Zionist and American pressure" for "political calculations" as one of the means to achieve the aforementioned goal

Politicians lie, and their overzealous paramilitary organizations reveal too much.

 

[Dingbat]

Politicians lie, and their overzealous paramilitary organizations reveal too much.

Wonder how I missed that. Oh humanity you fickle beast.

 

[lunakilo]

Well since Israel has most of the land and still illegally occupies Palestine's land i think that the ball is at the Israeli government. There has been done no effort to stop the illegal settlements in Gaza and the West-bank so claiming to want a two state solution or a peaceful ending is just laughable.

But don't they kind of have a point (twisted as it may be).

They can't withdraw from the occupied territories, because if they do guys with rocket launchers will move in and attack Israel.

They can't annex the area(s) because they will get in trouble with the internaltinal community (which is probably not the biggest problem) and because that will make the jewish population a minority in the state if Israel.

So all they are left with is slowly taking over the areas and driving out the current population.
Now doing so is not nice so thay have to make up all sorts of silly excuses for why this is ok.
Excuses like:
* "They shot first, so we can do what we want" (though I doubt most of the people living in Gaza or on the West Bank today were ever among the people who werestupid enough to start a war with Israel in the first place)
* "Jordan is Palestine, so the palestinians who want a state of their own can just move there". (though many of the people we are talking about probably lived on the land for generations and consider it home and I doubt Jordan will accept a large influx of palestinians anyway, so it is just not sensible)
* "The palestinians said no to the to state plan, so they said no to having their own state and so land does not belong to them."

The less fanatical israeli seem to just accept that this is a mess with no solution and try to make the best of the status quo.

But like Caladan suggested, you could try to the time honered solution of a bribe.
That is, try to increse the living standards of the people in the occupied territories. When people have something to loose they are much less likely to want to blow stuff up, because it could be that their own stuff ends up getting blown up.
Maybe in the long run things will stabilize enough for the israeli to withdraw.

 

[lunakilo]

They have one, it's called Jordan. Sits on 80% of the Palestinian mandate in fact. The Palestinians got 80% of Palestine, and they accuse the Jews of being greedy? Just because it's ruled by the Hashemite Monarch who the world doesn't care about doesn't mean his rule is legitimate. Why aren't the Palestinians spending the same energy overthrowing the Hashemites?

You have said that a hundred times, saying it again does not make it right.
Do you think that if you just say that often enough it will somehow become true?

 

[lunakilo]

Thanks to Shermana, Jazzymom and the other Jewish members of the forum for providing so much good information and countering arab propaganda/conspiracy theories on the forum. There's really not much more for me to add at this point seeing as I joined the conversation halfway through.

I odly enjoy your propaganda actually. I feel like I have this window into a world that I somehow dodn't know existed. I am willing to saw you expanded my horizon.

But I will say this:

It seems to me the whole idea of a "Palestinian" nation is quite racist.

Where as a jewish state is not?

Besides the fact that they want to destroy Israel just for being a Jewish state, the idea that a separatist Palestinian nation has to be created "just" for Palestinians reeks of racism. In fact it's quite similar to the notion that the Germans deserved a nation all to themselves just because Germans were German!

So the jews didn't deserve a nation because they are jews then?

In this case the "Paleestinians" actually believe that there is some vague unwritten rule that says that only Palestinians can rule Palestine and other Palestinians because of a supposed “palestinian-ness”.

What an Earth do you mean by that? How do you know what "Paleestinians" actually believe?

There never was a self-proclaimed “Palestine” until 1948, with reaction to Israel’s rebirth (the most hateful kind, usually). The only parallels I think of are the various "white separatist" movements which currently lurk in various rural parts of North America that are a reaction to the social progress that happened during the 60's. Hate and antisemitism is what naturally what hateful people spew in response to social progress, and it should come as no surprise that people who have been indoctrinated in hate are acting this way.

Rebirth? Are we talking 70 AD again?
The starte of Israel did not exist before 1948 either.

The funny thing is that everything you are saying exactly the same thing as you claim makes the palestinians bad people, but you just don't notice.

 

[lunakilo]

I don't believe the UN is authoritative on this matter whatsoever, that's kind of my point, they were just the mediators. If anything, I put far more credence in the Balfour Declaration which was more of a binding internal British empire ruling that was only broken because of Arab pressure. We don't need the UN to justify our claims for us.

The British promised all of Mandatory Palestine, including Trans-Jordan, to the Jews initially.

So the UN has no authority, but the brittish do? I think the reason you say that is that you like the what they said better than you like what the UN said.
And anyway, the british changed their minds. If they are an authority thet must count too and make the promise void.

If you don't recognize that he UN has authority in this matter you are also dismissing the reason most people (out side of Israel anyway) accept that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.
The only other reason I can see that Israel have a right to the land is that it seems to hit harder than it's neighbors and they have not been able to "Drive the Jews to the Sea". But it that is your argument for Israels right to exist then you have no right to complain about people fiering missiles over the border og blowing them selves up in busses killing lots of people. They have a right to fight for what they believe in too don't they?

What do you mean haven't lost? The Jews had an autonomous kingdom until 70 A.D., even under Roman rule they were mostly independent and in power, and from there succeeding Byzantine, Persian, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Turkish, and British empires occupied the land. It was "lost" at 70 A.D when the Jewish kingdom was overthrown by the Romans. What makes it any different than 1948? The land was called JUDEA SAMARIA historically, always had a large Jewish population (with an arguably Jewish majority in Jerusalem for many of those years), it doesn't matter what one empire or another said. If anything, going by the territorial colonial rulers, both the Ottomans AND the British, even the French under Napoleon for a brief period, had sympathies with the Jewish political side. So there's no reason to say that the Jews ever ceded their claim to JUDEA SAMARIA, it was just managed by different empires. The Palestinians however NEVER had a claim to it, never had autonomous rulership until 1946 when Jordan (which was an Emirate of Mandatory Palestine) was independent. I don't see why Arab claims for 600 A.D. are any more valid than Jewish claims from 1000 B.C.

And some of my ancestors had settlements in Canada a thousand years ago, and some settled along the rivers of Russia.
If I were to claim all the land any of my ancestors had ever held I would be able to claim most of norther europe, England, the islands of the north atlantic and Canada.
(Hey, maybe I should try that , no I think I will stick to claiming the north pole )

No Seriously, just because jews have lived on the land for a long time doesn't give you the right to proclaim it a jewish state. Others live there as well you know, and they have as much right to be there as you do.

Why did Jordan take over the "West Bank" if it's supposed to be a Palestinian state for almost 20 years, and why didn't the Palestinians complain? Research it first before answering.

See how it says "Jordan annexed the West Bank"? That's what you're supposed to explain.

Yes, as well as their occupation before annexing 2 years earlier. If it's supposed to be "Palestine", why did Jordan take it over and why didn't the Arabs clamor for a Palestinian state during that time?

I already answered this.

Do you subscribe to the idea that perhaps you might want to read the basic history of an event before you get too involved in a debate about it? Just saying. You may want to know what you're talking about before making claims or defending one side of the story.

No, I subscribe to the idea that I will read about an event before I take part in a discussion about it, but if I already knew the answers to my questions before I asked them there would be no point in asking.
And I am not "defending one side of the story", I am asking questions and I am also giving you my oppinion on the facts that I do know.
If you feel I have been missinformed, you are welcome to try to educate me.

No that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that Jordan's occupation of the "West Bank" (Judea Samaria) and the fact that the Palestinians didn't demand a state during that time proves that their claims are all lies and fabrications, they don't really want a Palestinian state, they just want Arab domination and to drive out the Jews. It had nothing to do with the historical claims and who interprets them. But it can prove that their historical claims are a joke and a cover for their agenda of "Driving the Jews to the Sea". Do you understand that NO ONE COMPLAINED WHEN JORDAN TOOK OVER? Do you not see how that applies? The point is proven that they never really had a "Palestinian identity" until 1963 or so, until then they were all just "Southern Syrian Arabs", in a desparate land battle against the Jews. The Palestinians did not consider the Jordanian occupation an "invasion", they never even considered themselves a sufficiently distinct people for the most part until over a decade after that fact. The word "Palestinian" was never used until the 60s.

In other words, it's not so much they lost their claim, it proves they NEVER HAD A CLAIM. The only claim they claimed was for "Arabs to occupy the land and drive the Jews into the sea", not "For a Palestinian state", and this claim had NO basis, weight, authenticity, or justification to begin with, the Jordanian occupation accentuated this fact and proved this.

As to how that applies to Palestinian claims for the land, again, it proves that they never really wanted a Palestinian state as much as they wanted Arab occupation of Jewish territory. Why do you suppose they rejected the 1948 partition in the first place?

I don't know if no one complained when Jordan took over, but let us assume that that is true, that would just mean that they are ok with their land being part of Jordan.
They still have claim to the land they live on. They never left it and no one ever made them leave.
I don't understand how you feel that this justefies telling them to move to Jordan or become second class citizens.

Now again, I recommend you read the history before you reply. Just a quick 2 minute browse should be sufficient to understand where this is coming from.

When you ask me to browse it is helpfull if you provide something to browse through

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you think that if you just say that often enough it will somehow become true?

It's his mantra and he's sticking to it.

 

[lunakilo]

A Jewish state is anti-racist because of the historical persecution that the Jewish people have faced over the centuries. Israel was necessary to serve as a safe haven for the oppressed Jewish people.

So you are claiming that jews cannot be racists because they them selves were treated very badly in the passed.
That makes no sense.

"Jewish" isn't a race. At most it's a religion. In fact, Israel is as diverse as any other country. The 'Jewish' population of Israel includes people from fifty countries, of different physical types, speaking different languages and practicing different religions (or no religion at all).

Nor is "palestinian" a race, or at least it wasn't last time I looked.
But I am glad you don't seem to think the fact that they were jews entitled them to the land.
Ant it is not the fact that "they" are "palestinians" that entitles them to the land either, it is the fact that "they" live there.

Truth is relative. Different things can apply depending on time and space. For instance the statement that "it's raining" is truthful on a rainy day and false on a sunny day. You can't always take one standard and apply it to everyone else. In fact a ethical system which cannot account for different contextual situations is incomplete.

La la la ... is all I hear.

Is sound a lot like you are trying to avoid the issue.
I don't hear an explanation to why someone saying they want to "Drive the Jews to the Sea" is any more ore less right that somoene saying they want to "drive the palestinians to Jordan"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But don't they kind of have a point (twisted as it may be).

They can't withdraw from the occupied territories, because if they do guys with rocket launchers will move in and attack Israel.

They can't annex the area(s) because they will get in trouble with the internaltinal community (which is probably not the biggest problem) and because that will make the jewish population a minority in the state if Israel.

The phrase that comes to mind is "tiger by the tail."

It is very, very hard to look at what happened in the north, and then later in Gaza, and not come to the conclusion that every inch of land vacated becomes real estate dedicated in part to terrorist infrastructure. That does not, in my opinion, justify the Gaza blockade, and it in no way justifies anti-Arab bigotry. But when letting go of the tiger can too easily mean that the next attack on the nearby bus stop or falafel stand may shred you spouse or your child, the tendency is to hold on fatalistically while wishing that there was some other way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't hear an explanation to why someone saying they want to "Drive the Jews to the Sea" is any more ore less right that somoene saying they want to "drive the palestinians to Jordan"

I have serious issues with forcefully driving anyone anywhere. At the same time, one can live in Jordan. Driving the Jews into the sea is code for genocide.

Equating the two is egregious.

 

[lunakilo]

I have serious issues with forcefully driving anyone anywhere. At the same time, one can live in Jordan. Driving the Jews into the sea is code for genocide.

Equating the two is egregious.

Ok, I see your point, but I hope you also get the point that i was trying to make.

 

[jazzymom]

Originally Posted by lunakilo
I don't hear an explanation to why someone saying they want to "Drive the Jews to the Sea" is any more ore less right that somoene saying they want to "drive the palestinians to Jordan"


One calls for genocide of the Jews and the other calls for relocation to Jordan which has a majority Palestinian population.

Comparing the two as equal is problematic.

 

[Caladan]

Originally Posted by lunakilo
I don't hear an explanation to why someone saying they want to "Drive the Jews to the Sea" is any more ore less right that somoene saying they want to "drive the palestinians to Jordan"


One calls for genocide of the Jews and the other calls for relocation to Jordan which has a majority Palestinian population.

Comparing the two as equal is problematic.

To be fair, what are we discussing here? relocation of homogeneous Palestinian populations into Jordan?
How is that going to be executed?
I have to admit that removing heavily populated Palestinian areas, doesn't sound very different from calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.

It's true that there is a Palestinian majority in Jordan, and it is even true that Palestinian organizations attempted to overthrow Jordanian rule a few decades ago. But 'importing' the Palestinian problem is what all nations in the region have been doing for decades now. Egypt has relinquished control over the Gaza strip and Jordan over the West Bank, these are Palestinian territories today, and I don't see what realistic incentive would make them leave, especially as they have been denied basic rights in other Middle Eastern states.

 

[FearGod]

Originally Posted by lunakilo
I don't hear an explanation to why someone saying they want to "Drive the Jews to the Sea" is any more ore less right that somoene saying they want to "drive the palestinians to Jordan"


One calls for genocide of the Jews and the other calls for relocation to Jordan which has a majority Palestinian population.

Comparing the two as equal is problematic.

Please it is very easy to say what ever you want,but what is your evidence that palestinians want to drive the jews to the sea.who said that and when ?

 

[jazzymom]

The phrase that comes to mind is "tiger by the tail."

It is very, very hard to look at what happened in the north, and then later in Gaza, and not come to the conclusion that every inch of land vacated becomes real estate dedicated in part to terrorist infrastructure. That does not, in my opinion, justify the Gaza blockade, and it in no way justifies anti-Arab bigotry. But when letting go of the tiger can too easily mean that the next attack on the nearby bus stop or falafel stand may shred you spouse or your child, the tendency is to hold on fatalistically while wishing that there was some other way.

I have serious issues with forcefully driving anyone anywhere. At the same time, one can live in Jordan. Driving the Jews into the sea is code for genocide.

Equating the two is egregious.

To be fair, what are we discussing here? relocation of homogeneous Palestinian populations into Jordan?
How is that going to be executed?
I have to admit that removing heavily populated Palestinian areas, doesn't sound very different from calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.

It's true that there is a Palestinian majority in Jordan, and it is even true that Palestinian organizations attempted to overthrow Jordanian rule a few decades ago. But 'importing' the Palestinian problem is what all nations in the region have been doing for decades now. Egypt has relinquished control over the Gaza strip and Jordan over the West Bank, these are Palestinian territories today, and I don't see what realistic incentive would make them leave, especially as they have been denied basic rights in other Middle Eastern states.

I am not for relocation. I was just saying the 2 driving a group to the sea and relocation of a people to Jordan are not the same.

One is genocide the other is not.

I am for a 2 state solution.

 

[FearGod]

I am not for relocation. I was just saying the 2 driving a group to the sea and relocation of a people to Jordan are not the same.

One is genocide the other is not.

I am for a 2 state solution.

Yes right, 2 state solution is the best choice,but
"Palestinians are trapped" whereas jews got all the power and supported by advanced weapons and money mainly by USA.

So you can see the difference,even they aren't allowed to annownce their own state by UN refusal due to US Veto.

Can you see where the problem is located.

 

[Shermana]

You have said that a hundred times, saying it again does not make it right.
Do you think that if you just say that often enough it will somehow become true?

Please explain why it's not right. Do you really think that saying its not right makes it not right? Why don't you actually explain your contention.

You can only say "nuh uh" so much before you actually make a rebuttal, otherwise you're just being dismissive without any actual rationale.

So please explain what exactly about my "mantra" is so false or kindly admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just arguing against me to argue.

I guess if I say the Sky is blue, you'll say the same thing. No matter how times I say the sky is blue, it doens't make it right?

Will you also deny if I say that Iraq is next to Iran? Will you say that repeating that Iraq is next to Iran does not make it right?

What if I said Madonna's name starts with an M? Will you say that repeating that Madonna's name starts with an M doesn't make it right?

If I said that Jordan was an Emirate of the Mandatory Palestine, will you say that repeating that Jordan was Emirate does not make it right?

If I said 2 + 2 = 4, will you say that repeating that 2 + 2 = 4 does not make it right?

If you can't actually disprove my claim, don't reply.

Maybe there's a reason I keep repeating it, because those on the anti-Israel side need their noses vigorously and repeatedly rubbed in the facts because they like to ignore if not deny the basics.

 

[Shermana]

It's his mantra and he's sticking to it.

So you disagree with that "mantra" Jay? You disagree that Jordan sits on 80% of Palestine and is the Palestinian state or are you just making a snide comment simply because it's me saying it?

 

[England my lionheart]

Please it is very easy to say what ever you want,but what is your evidence that palestinians want to drive the jews to the sea.who said that and when ?

Drive to the Sea,forget that,the opening of the Hamas Charter is much more explicit:

“‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’. (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

Those are the words of the Egyptian founding Father of the Muslim Brotherhood,it gets worse though,read through the Charter and ask for evidence.

 

[FearGod]

Drive to the Sea,forget that,the opening of the Hamas Charter is much more explicit:

“‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’. (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

Those are the words of the Egyptian founding Father of the Muslim Brotherhood,it gets worse though,read through the Charter and ask for evidence.

Do you mean as the rabbi Manis Friedman said :
The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle.)

Reference : Manis Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i am sorry that i can't show more sources or offensive videos because i have already received a warning from the RF mods which i should respect and i won't show any video or more offensive similar actions done against the palestinians.

Also i don't agree with any muslim extremist,killing innocents can't be justified.

So i think yes,there are stupid people in both sides,but there are millions of innocents from both sides whom want to live in peace side by side.

in other words,one bad muslims or one bad jew shouldn't be an example for the whole comminity.

One example is the organization formed by some educated jews to stop the war.
www.jewsagainstthewar.org ,i guess their websight have been closed but i found a video on youtube for their action to stop the war,find it yourself if you wish.

i promised not to make any mistakes anymore.