Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[-Peacemaker-]

The British offered them all of Uganda, which economically speaking, could have been far better. But only economically speaking. Personally I wish they got both.

It probably would've been better for us all if they had. Let's face it, the Ugandans are a little further away from developing a nuke than some of Israel's current rivals in the region

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the point remains the same despite the Hyperbole.

Sadly, the point is your hyperbole.

Until we can counterpose two narratives the merit of which are recognized and acknowledged by both sides there will be zero chance of meaningful dialogue. Folks like you (on both sides) are a significant part of the problem.

 

[jazzymom]

Here's a question. Is there a piece of land that the Jews could've actually purchased and consequently avoid a potential world war?

The issue is that there are people living all over the world. Do you think the other people would be happy for the Jews to have come and lived? The Jewish people have a historic connection to the land of Israel and have always lived in the middle east.

It seems strange that people would say it is not ok for them to be in Israel but it would have been ok to have made their home in another country.

All countries of the world have people already living there.

 

[FearGod]

It probably would've been better for us all if they had. Let's face it, the Ugandans are a little further away from developing a nuke than some of Israel's current rivals in the region

i think Uganda should be a better choice at least to be far from Iran.

Yes nuke is an advantage for Israel to kill millions at one strike and that is the problem i guess between president Obama and Netanyaho.

Israel wanted to strike Iran and Obama administration disagreed whereas Iran is saying our reply will be a horrible one and warned that israel will be wiped off the map,could iranians had already nuke bombs or developed new destructive bombs,everything still possible.

Moreover they have the power to close the only entrance to the arabian gulf and they even did it for a short period of time in their maneuver for their readiness to the expected war.

Obama administration is wise enough that they know already that striking Iran will bring catastrophe to the whole world.

Just few days ago Netanhayu was trying to convince the world to declare war on Iran by his famous speech with his bomb diagram in the UN which became as a joke in some western tvs.

So back to our main topic the best choice is 2 states solution,not for us,but for the future of the kids to come,the next generation,lets imagine that one day the west including USA got many internal problems that they won't able anymore to support Israel ,so i think Israel should think about her neighbors and how to develop peace and good relationship with them.

[youtube]NsZ8xN6TeWg[/youtube]
Netanyahu Draws a Cartoon 'Bomb' at United Nations! - YouTube

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would be like saying if some Native American tribes wanted to have their own country and it was finally granted to them, the UN should ship them off to some far away corner of Siberia instead of letting them have their own homeland.

This type of silliness is unhelpful and reflects either gross ignorance or gross dishonesty - and I say this as a Zionist. Aside from religious attitude, the overwhelming number of Jews immigrating to Israel between, lets say, 1881 and 1947 had about as much connection to Israel as the Cookie Monster, while the strongly religious Jews were, for the most part, less than enthralled with the Zionist endeavor. (See here.) To compare a German or Polish Jew's ties to Jaffa with a Native American's ties to Arizona is simply inane.

 

[Badran]

I erred on the UN-HR council and Iran, it's other countries that are objectionable that have been seated on it.

The Real Rules of the U.N. Human Rights Council - Claudia Rosett - National Review Online

Okay, and i agree that some of the names on the council are objectionable if not flat out laughable.

However, i don't think we can safely conclude from that fact an "International blatant, undeniable, obvious unfair bias against Israel".

That is not to say that there isn't any bias, or addressing the severity of said bias. But to say that the mere fact that there are some objectionable countries on the council can be interpreted in many ways, or analyzed to be for many possible reasons.

So i think that merely highlighting that fact does not support your conclusion logically.

Also, your link doesn't accept clicks from other sites,

Try this

If that works, then you will find the resolution i had referenced in that list. Titled "The situation in Libya".

It was a resolution from this year regarding Libya. If this link also doesn't work, you can confirm that resolution at the UN.org website, in the documents section.

(I know you don't need to since you clarified you were exaggerating, but i figured i clarify what the link was anyway)

there have been SOME resolutions, so I was hyperbolic when I said "All", but the vast majority, if not nearly all, have been against Israel, and many countries are very noticeably absent from those resolutions.

I wouldn't mind the fact that you've engaged in hyperbole in that last post at all since you clarified that you have here, had it not been for the fact that you're still doing it.

"but the vast majority, if not nearly all"

I find this stuff annoying because it has and does make it unnecessarily hard to gain reliable information from these kinds of debates and discussion. Not to mention impede these discussions in general from resulting in anything positive.

 

[jazzymom]

i think Uganda should be a better choice at least to be far from Iran.

You just lost all credibility in my opinion. It is ok to displace the Ugandans to make a Jewish homeland.

Do you think the Ugandans would be any happier then the Palestinians? Uganda is a country not a territory. The Jewish people were not already living in Uganda but in fact were already living in the middle east as they had for 1000s of years.

 

[Badran]

The British offered them all of Uganda, which economically speaking, could have been far better. But only economically speaking. Personally I wish they got both.

Why are you wasting your time trying to defend the legitimacy of the land Israel has got, then?

I mean it's clear to me that it's not a question of legitimacy for you, but rather just what you perceive as beneficial for Jews.

 

[FearGod]

You just lost all credibility in my opinion. It is ok to displace the Ugandans to make a Jewish homeland.

Do you think the Ugandans would be any happier then the Palestinians? Uganda is a country not a territory. The Jewish people were not already living in Uganda but in fact were already living in the middle east as they had for 1000s of years.

i am just responding to what Shermana said that Uganda was among the list offered for the jews as quoted below.

i don't know what the problem i did that i lost all credibility,did i reach the red line.

The British offered them all of Uganda, which economically speaking, could have been far better. But only economically speaking. Personally I wish they got both.

 

[jazzymom]

i am just responding to what Shermana said that Uganda was among the list offered for the jews as quoted below.

i don't know what the problem i did that i lost all credibility,did i reach the red line.

Because you seem to think it would have been better to make Uganda the place that would have been the country for the Jewish people.

>>i think Uganda should be a better choice at least to be far from Iran.<<

Historically Uganda is not the homeland of the Jewish people. The original plan was to partition the territory of Palestine into a Jewish and Palestinian state. Two states side by side.

No people was ever to be displaced, but in fact both were to have their own states.

One side said yes the other said no.

Yet we are speaking of Uganda which is a sovereign country in Africa.

Would it have been acceptable to take a sovereign country away from the Ugandans?

Palestine was not a sovereign country but a territory and the Palestinians were not having anything taken.

2 people and 2 states was to happen.

You did not reach a red line but its hypocritical to say its not ok to displace Palestinians but its ok to displace Ugandans.

 

[Badran]

i am just responding to what Shermana said that Uganda was among the list offered for the jews as quoted below.

i don't know what the problem i did that i lost all credibility,did i reach the red line.

It's because you expressed it in a way that can be interpreted that you would have been fine with it if Uganda was the place where this has happened.

I understand that you might be going off the premise that supposedly "since there has to be a place where this happens", but if that is the case it would have still been better to clarify that you also wouldn't have been okay with that.

 

[Badran]

Though I also believe that they would've had the right to stake a claim to the land of another nation/tribe with a surplus.

Based on what?

 

[Rakhel]

Because you seem to think it would have been better to make Uganda the place that would have been the country for the Jewish people.

>>i think Uganda should be a better choice at least to be far from Iran.<<

Historically Uganda is not the homeland of the Jewish people. The original plan was to partition the territory of Palestine into a Jewish and Palestinian state. Two states side by side.

No people was ever to be displaced, but in fact both were to have their own states.

One side said yes the other said no.

Yet we are speaking of Uganda which is a sovereign country in Africa.

Would it have been acceptable to take a sovereign country away from the Ugandans?

Palestine was not a sovereign country but a territory and the Palestinians were not having anything taken.

2 people and 2 states was to happen.

You did not reach a red line but its hypocritical to say its not ok to displace Palestinians but its ok to displace Ugandans.

Actually at the time that all this mess was talked about, Uganda was no more a sovereign country than that of Jordan or Iran. It was no more than a territory of Great Britain.
British
And, yet, according to much of what I have read about this project, it was as hostile to the thought of new inhabitants as the Muslim Arabs were. (btw, the Mau Plateau is now in Kenya). Further, the Uganda program was just supposed to be a temporary home for those escaping the pogroms in Russia.
But i have to say, suggesting the Mau Plateau is about as silly as suggesting the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in USSR.. Might as well suggest Atlantis, and give every Jew some SCUBA gear.

 

[lunakilo]

... Might as well suggest Atlantis, and give every Jew some SCUBA gear.

So we are driving jews into the sea again, are we?

 

[jazzymom]

Actually at the time that all this mess was talked about, Uganda was no more a sovereign country than that of Jordan or Iran. It was no more than a territory of Great Britain.
British
And, yet, according to much of what I have read about this project, it was as hostile to the thought of new inhabitants as the Muslim Arabs were. (btw, the Mau Plateau is now in Kenya). Further, the Uganda program was just supposed to be a temporary home for those escaping the pogroms in Russia.
But i have to say, suggesting the Mau Plateau is about as silly as suggesting the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in USSR.. Might as well suggest Atlantis, and give every Jew some SCUBA gear.

Thanks for the correction on that Uganda was a territory not a country but what did I say about the Mau Plateau or Kenya? I was just responding to the idea that Uganda for a Jewish state is ok vs Palestine because both means a population already there won't be happy.


This was my comment.

Originally Posted by jazzymom
Because you seem to think it would have been better to make Uganda the place that would have been the country for the Jewish people.

>>i think Uganda should be a better choice at least to be far from Iran.<<

Historically Uganda is not the homeland of the Jewish people. The original plan was to partition the territory of Palestine into a Jewish and Palestinian state. Two states side by side.

No people was ever to be displaced, but in fact both were to have their own states.

One side said yes the other said no.

Yet we are speaking of Uganda which is a sovereign country in Africa.

Would it have been acceptable to take a sovereign country away from the Ugandans?

Palestine was not a sovereign country but a territory and the Palestinians were not having anything taken.

2 people and 2 states was to happen.

You did not reach a red line but its hypocritical to say its not ok to displace Palestinians but its ok to displace Ugandans.

 

[Rakhel]

I know you didn't say anything about Mau Plateau, but that was the area of interest within the Uganda Program. Surrounded by lions and a tribe that was hostile to anyone that wasn't them.....Actually not sure if there would have been much of a difference from what we have now...

 

[England my lionheart]

I think its called grasping at straws.

I agree,i wonder at people who can read the Hamas Charter then ignore what it says and quote the leader of some non significant group rather than acknowledge that the big bad Gorilla is actually a government.

 

[FearGod]

I agree,i wonder at people who can read the Hamas Charter then ignore what it says and quote the leader of some non significant group rather than acknowledge that the big bad Gorilla is actually a government.

A leader of non significant group can be tomorrow the vice president of Israel,
persons aren't god,some come and others go.

There are a lot of videos and articles about crimes done against the palestinians,
if you can protect me as not to be banned or not to delete my post,then i'll be glad to show you many recorded crimes,but i am sorry that i won't able to do so except if you give me a permission to post freely all facts i want to show here with your agreement and the other staff and mods,otherwise i'll choose to shut my mouth.

Thanks & peace

 

[Rakhel]

A leader of non significant group can be tomorrow the vice president of Israel,
persons aren't god,some come and others go.

Umm just a side not. Israel doesn't have a political position called "vice President"

 

[FearGod]

Umm just a side not. Israel doesn't have a political position called "vice President"

you can choose whatever name to represent political position,that isn't the crux of my topic,but thank you for your note.