Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[Shermana]

Manis Friedman wasn't in charge of any armies.

The Mufti and Nasser were in charge of armies.

Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger [American Jewish Committee, 2002], p47)

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

Azzam Pasha can arguably be called a war leader.

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)

“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”
- Salah al-Din, Egyptian Foreign Minister
(Al-Misri, Egypt, October 11, 1949; quoted in Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate for Terror: The United Nations and the PLO [Shapolsky Books, 1989], p239)

But here's perhaps the best one of all:

“Israel, to the Arab world, is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it just like a cancer… Had we united then [in 1948] Israel would not have come into existence. Israel is a serious wound in the Arab world body, and we cannot endure the pain of this wound forever. We don’t have the patience to see Israel remain occupying part of Palestine for long… We Arabs total about 50,000,000. Why don’t we sacrifice 10,000,000 of our number to live in pride and self-respect?”
- King Saud of Saudi Arabia
(New York Times, January 10, 1954)

How nice of King Saud to recommend the Arabs to sacrifice 10,000,000 of themselves to kill a few million Jews, too bad he didn't want to set the example.

And the list goes quite extensively on, want more? We're talking about actual political leaders, not minor Religious ones.

I think part of the problem is that those on the anti-Israel fence don't realize just how serious things have been. The Arab leadership have been quite serious about their plans to have a Tartar-style massacre, and the Jews are supposed to just say "It's okay".

 

[Shermana]

I have made the following thread if anyone wants to discuss specific ways of how they'd implement this 2 state solution they claim to support.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...cs/139649-how-implement-2-state-solution.html

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

I agree,it is unfair to label a significant amount of people because of the actions of a minority but the Charter is a covenant,there is no grey area as to what they mean by Al-Banna's preamble.

I have a hypothetical question for you,you are an Israeli and after reading the Hamas Charter what would be your reaction?,just interested.

 

[FearGod]

I agree,it is unfair to label a significant amount of people because of the actions of a minority but the Charter is a covenant,there is no grey area as to what they mean by Al-Banna's preamble.

I have a hypothetical question for you,you are an Israeli and after reading the Hamas Charter what would be your reaction?,just interested.

My reaction would be anger,but the same problem goes around.
Did you hear about the greater israel,that is charter.

On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."

Reference : Eretz Israel HaShlema / Greater Israel

Excuse me that i'll not post any videos which you can find it yourself.

So both wrong can never make one right.

 

[England my lionheart]

My reaction would be anger,but the same problem goes around.
Did you hear about the greater israel,that is charter.

On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."

Reference : Eretz Israel HaShlema / Greater Israel

Excuse me that i'll not post any videos which you can find it yourself.

So both wrong can never make one right.

Is your example on par with the Charter?,are they representative of their government?.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

Since when has common ethnic ties made someone accepted into a different nationality? I am primarily Romanian. Does that mean the Romanian government should accept me as a citizen? Does that mean I should leave America, where 3 generations of my family have lived, and move to Romania?

 

[lunakilo]

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.

I already did, you just ignored. See post #78

Same reason Sweden isn't Denmark.

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.

<sigh!>

 

[Shermana]

II already did, you just ignored. See post #78

I ignored Your comparison to the situation to German occupying Denmark because it was absolutely ridiculous. Nothing close to the situation at hand. It's pointless trying to argue with people who compare the Israel-Palestinian situation to Germany occupying Denmark. And with that, that doesn't even begin to actually address the situation to Palestine being situated on 80% of Palestinian land. It's almost as if you're deliberately avoiding the issue..

Same reason Sweden isn't Denmark.

You're not even close the being on the right page, stick to subjects that you're able to actually discuss remotely in context.

<sigh!>

My sentiments indeed.

 

[Shermana]

Since when has common ethnic ties made someone accepted into a different nationality? I am primarily Romanian. Does that mean the Romanian government should accept me as a citizen? Does that mean I should leave America, where 3 generations of my family have lived, and move to Romania?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison.

More like this: The Romanians violently invade Moldovan Bessarabia and say they're going to massacre and slaughter all the Moldovans. Then the Moldovans go on a counter offensive, after stopping the bloodthirsty Romanians who publicly announced their desire to mass slaughter the Moldovans, and they take land that they traditionally held for hundreds of years ago including their old Capital city they almost always held a demographic majority in even when it wasn't autonomous, let's say a region called "Moldovia-Samaria" that was historically populated by Moldovans until the Romanians drove them out and built a giant castle on their Holy Site, and the Romanians tried several times after that to brutally massacre the Moldovans, not being satisified to losing a war they started. And that's not the best example, missing a few key details in comparison. Now from there, the Moldovans simply think that the Romanians who are now on the land that the Moldovans won in the counter-offensive should go back to Romania instead of claiming this region as a part of Greater Romania. Should the Romanian government NOT accept its former citizens who were occupying this territory now held by the victorious Moldovan army after their defensive war?

So with that, your Romanian citizenship example has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Likewise with Lunakilos' Denmark-Germany comparison.

Can the Pro-Palestinians even find a remotely in context argument? Apparently not.

 

[Flankerl]

Is your example on par with the Charter?,are they representative of their government?.

I think its called grasping at straws.

 

[lunakilo]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison.

More like this: The Romanians violently invade Moldovan Bessarabia and say they're going to massacre and slaughter all the Moldovans. Then the Moldovans go on a counter offensive, after stopping the bloodthirsty Romanians who publicly announced their desire to mass slaughter the Moldovans, and they take land that they traditionally held for hundreds of years ago including their old Capital city they almost always held a demographic majority in even when it wasn't autonomous, let's say a region called "Moldovia-Samaria" that was historically populated by Moldovans until the Romanians drove them out and built a giant castle on their Holy Site, and the Romanians tried several times after that to brutally massacre the Moldovans, not being satisified to losing a war they started. And that's not the best example, missing a few key details in comparison. Now from there, the Moldovans simply think that the Romanians who are now on the land that the Moldovans won in the counter-offensive should go back to Romania instead of claiming this region as a part of Greater Romania. Should the Romanian government NOT accept its former citizens who were occupying this territory now held by the victorious Moldovan army after their defensive war?

So with that, your Romanian citizenship example has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Likewise with Lunakilos' Denmark-Germany comparison.

Can the Pro-Palestinians even find a remotely in context argument? Apparently not.

Let's see. In your analogi Romanians = Arabs, Moldovan Bessarabia = Israel, Moldovia-Samaria = West Bank, so where do the palestinians fit in?

Of course the Romanians should go back to Romania ( Romani ite domum after all ), but what of the Moldovia-Samarians, why should they go to Romania?

 

[Badran]

Can the Pro-Palestinians even find a remotely in context argument? Apparently not.

Just because they find your interpretation, view and proposed solution in regards to the situation object-able doesn't mean that they're Pro-Palestinian, and i think you already know that.

At least in one case it has also been flat out stated for you.

 

[Shermana]

Let's see. In your analogi Romanians = Arabs, Moldovan Bessarabia = Israel, Moldovia-Samaria = West Bank, so where do the palestinians fit in?

Of course the Romanians should go back to Romania ( Romani ite domum after all ), but what of the Moldovia-Samarians, why should they go to Romania?

The Moldovia-Samarians who are ethnically and culturally Romanian and refused to accept Moldovian citizenship (There's a reason 20% of Moldovia is ethnically Romanian-Moldovian citizens here) have as much "right" to be there as any other defeated population. They aren't necessarily "moldovia-Samarian" as in a distinct cultural entity. Let's say that they declared Moldovia-Samaria to be Romania and say the Romanians renamed their country to "Danube". Does the country of "Danube" no longer count as Romania? And let's say that the leadership of the "Romanians" (who are in Moldovia-Samaria) has actively declared the destruction of Moldovia and Moldovians? Would not in any other event the Moldovians be justified in eliminating the "Romanian" government who has sworn to destroy them? Are they not justified in using whatever tactics necessary? I'd say the relocation from "Romania" to "Danube" would be far, far more humane than what their leadership had in mind for the Moldovians.

The point is, they had a chance to become citizens, they didn't. So what do you do with non-citizen squatters whose leadership is actively looking to destroy you?

 

[Shermana]

Just because they find your interpretation, view and proposed solution in regards to the situation object-able doesn't mean that they're Pro-Palestinian, and i think you already know that.

At least in one case it has also been flat out stated for you.

What would be a better word to use?

 

[Falvlun]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison.

More like this: The Romanians violently invade Moldovan Bessarabia and say they're going to massacre and slaughter all the Moldovans. Then the Moldovans go on a counter offensive, after stopping the bloodthirsty Romanians who publicly announced their desire to mass slaughter the Moldovans, and they take land that they traditionally held for hundreds of years ago including their old Capital city they almost always held a demographic majority in even when it wasn't autonomous, let's say a region called "Moldovia-Samaria" that was historically populated by Moldovans until the Romanians drove them out and built a giant castle on their Holy Site, and the Romanians tried several times after that to brutally massacre the Moldovans, not being satisified to losing a war they started. And that's not the best example, missing a few key details in comparison. Now from there, the Moldovans simply think that the Romanians who are now on the land that the Moldovans won in the counter-offensive should go back to Romania instead of claiming this region as a part of Greater Romania. Should the Romanian government NOT accept its former citizens who were occupying this territory now held by the victorious Moldovan army after their defensive war?

So with that, your Romanian citizenship example has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Likewise with Lunakilos' Denmark-Germany comparison.

Can the Pro-Palestinians even find a remotely in context argument? Apparently not.

Actually, I think we could make this a whole lot simpler. Say some other nation came in and took over the US. They tell the Americans who live there "Go back to the countries of your origins! You have a country already that you should be happy to move to, and the citizens of that country should be happy to accept you! After all, Germany is 80% ethnic German, just like you, and Romania is 80% Romanian, just like him!". Etc.

The point being, of course, that just because a nation and an individual share ethnic ties does not mean that the individual should be expected to be a citizen of that country, or that that country should accept that individual.

The point is, they had a chance to become citizens, they didn't. So what do you do with non-citizen squatters whose leadership is actively looking to destroy you?

What exactly are you talking about here? I don't think the Palestinians ever had a chance to become Israeli, and they did have Jordan citizenship until Jordan lost control of that land. They also had a chance to become citizens of their own country-- the two state solution-- but they did unwisely reject that when it was offered 50 years ago. Just wanted to know which you were referring to.

 

[Shermana]

Actually, I think we could make this a whole lot simpler. Say some other nation came in and took over the US. They tell the Americans who live there "Go back to the countries of your origins! You have a country already that you should be happy to move to, and the citizens of that country should be happy to accept you! After all, Germany is 80% ethnic German, just like you, and Romania is 80% Romanian, just like him!". Etc.

Again, not really a close comparison. More like this, which isn't the best but closer: Say some Aztecs start buying land in Mexico, which is ruled by Spain, and the Mexicans are somewhat genetically related to the Aztecs but not really too much culturally. The Spanish actively encourage Aztec settling in Mexico. Then later, the Spanish even PROMISE the ENTIRE LAND of Mexico to the Aztecs, which they later renounce. Later, the UN decides, after Mexican and Aztec gangs drive the Spanish forces out, to split the country. The Aztecs agree, the Mexicans don't. The Mexicans, with all their allies in Central and South America, invade the Aztec-held territories. The Aztecs win. Now the new land of "Aztecestan" comprises only 20% of Mexico. And the problem with this analogy is that Mexico in this analogy, was never an actually sovereign state, and never had a strong Latino population until after the Aztecs came in to settle and build wealthy towns. I don't even think this example is that great.

(Note I got nothing against Mexico and Mexicans and Latinos or Aztecs, this is all just an example I could make with Native Americans, Colonists, and British and still wouldn't be 100% accurate)

Also, in my example, keep in mind that the Latino leadership have been actively trying to drive the Aztecs into the sea and take their land by force. So what reason should the victorious Aztecs allow this Latino leadership to exist in the lands it has taken in a defensive war which the Latinos started and intended to kill the Aztecs?

The point being, of course, that just because a nation and an individual share ethnic ties does not mean that the individual should be expected to be a citizen of that country, or that that country should accept that individual.

Well we can look at the issue of their leadership. What do you do about their leaders? How do you force them to adopt a government that doesn't have designs to murder/drive out your entire population?

What exactly are you talking about here? I don't think the Palestinians ever had a chance to become Israeli, and they did have Jordan citizenship until Jordan lost control of that land. They also had a chance to become citizens of their own country-- the two state solution-- but they did unwisely reject that when it was offered 50 years ago. Just wanted to know which you were referring to.

Do you understand why Israel has allowed 20% of its population to become citizens? Do you think Israel just arbitrarily chose which ones to grant citizenship to?

 

[Falvlun]

Again, not really a close comparison. More like this, which isn't the best but closer: Say some Aztecs start buying land in Mexico, which is ruled by Spain, and the Mexicans are somewhat genetically related to the Aztecs but not really too much culturally. The Spanish actively encourage Aztec settling in Mexico. Then later, the Spanish even PROMISE the ENTIRE LAND of Mexico to the Aztecs, which they later renounce. Later, the UN decides, after Mexican and Aztec gangs drive the Spanish forces out, to split the country. The Aztecs agree, the Mexicans don't. The Mexicans, with all their allies in Central and South America, invade the Aztec-held territories. The Aztecs win. Now the new land of "Aztecestan" comprises only 20% of Mexico. And the problem with this analogy is that Mexico in this analogy, was never an actually sovereign state, and never had a strong Latino population until after the Aztecs came in to settle and build wealthy towns. I don't even think this example is that great.

(Note I got nothing against Mexico and Mexicans and Latinos or Aztecs, this is all just an example I could make with Native Americans, Colonists, and British and still wouldn't be 100% accurate)

Also, in my example, keep in mind that the Latino leadership have been actively trying to drive the Aztecs into the sea and take their land by force. So what reason should the victorious Aztecs allow this Latino leadership to exist in the lands it has taken in a defensive war which the Latinos started and intended to kill the Aztecs?

I think you may be mistaking what the whole Romanian analogy was about. It was specifically in response to your assertion that because Jordan is 80% ethnically Palestinian, the Palestinians already have a state and should just go move there. It really has nothing to do with whether the Palestinians have a right to the West Bank, or whether we should support a two-state solution, or not.

You seem to think moving the Palestinians to Jordan is the ideal solution. Fine, it may be. However, the justification that you have given for it-- that Jordan is ethnically 80% palestinian-- doesn't really mean much.

Do you understand why Israel has allowed 20% of its population to become citizens? Do you think Israel just arbitrarily chose which ones to grant citizenship to?

This isn't about who Israel has granted citizenship to. It was about your assertion that the Palestinians had a "chance to become citizens". What country did they have a chance to become citizens of?

 

[Badran]

What would be a better word to use?

A word to describe what, essentially?

The fact that they do not agree with you in regards to your dismissal of international law, and that Palestinians just ought to be moved to Jordan to get this over with?

 

[Shermana]

However, the justification that you have given for it-- that Jordan is ethnically 80% palestinian-- doesn't really mean much.

The MAIN justification is that they've collectively been outright hostile to Israel and their leadership is actively and has been seeking to utterly obliterate the Jewish state. Population transfers have been historically effective methods of dealing with hostile ethnic groups, especially when one side wins a defensive war. Besides, it's what the Palestinian leadership wants for the Jews. Why are they electing leaders who want to ethnically cleanse the Jews? It's not a matter of 2 wrongs, it's a matter of dealing with people who collectively vote for organizations that want you dead and gone and their leadership.

And besides that, it's not just that Jordan is mostly Palestinian ethnically, it SITS ON 80% OF WHAT IS CALLED PALESTINE.

Population transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't about who Israel has granted citizenship to. It was about your assertion that the Palestinians had a "chance to become citizens". What country did they have a chance to become citizens of?

Of course it's about who Israel gave citizenship to. They gave it to those who were peaceful and didn't clear out their villages on their own will to pave the way for the advancing Arab armies. Thus, they had the chance to become ISRAELI citizens, and most of them refused.

 

[Shermana]

A word to describe what, essentially?

The fact that they do not agree with you in regards to your dismissal of international law, and that Palestinians just ought to be moved to Jordan to get this over with?

Sure, you can use that definition, essentially since they don't mind the flagrant violations of international Law on the part of the other side, or the planned Population transfers of Jews. So what do we call people who decry my side of the argument while giving the pass to the other side who wants even worse?

Besides, the question of whether Israel truly violates International Law is not a very cut and dry concept. The same UN that issues every single of its resolutions against Israel appoints Iran to its Human rights council and doesn't issue resolutions for any other country. So it's not exactly a matter of "International Justice" as it is a matter of "International blatant, undeniable, obvious unfair bias against Israel".