Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[England my lionheart]

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

We could exchange videos and articles for weeks to come,i doubt it would address the reality that Israel is a state and its enemies,those who fight and those who fight by proxy obviously agree with the sentiments in the Charter,yes there are crimes but you and others count only one victim and one guilty party.

 

[FearGod]

We could exchange videos and articles for weeks to come,i doubt it would address the reality that Israel is a state and its enemies,those who fight and those who fight by proxy obviously agree with the sentiments in the Charter,yes there are crimes but you and others count only one victim and one guilty party.

i am telling you that i'll show you a recorded facts through history,if you give me the freedom of speech and to give me the guarantee from staff and mods then i'll go ahead,otherwise i'll just choose to shut my mouth,i should respect the staff & mods decision and i got no other choices.

So please i am very clear on this point,thanks a lot for your good debate.

 

[Badran]

FearGod, you are allowed to say anything you like and post any videos just as long as they are on topic and do not violate any of the other rules.

And, by on topic, i don't mean any video that has any remote connection with Israel or Judaism, but actually a connection with the particular topic of this thread.

 

[Flankerl]

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

So we are basing our standpoint on something that hasnt happened yet.

Ok my turn: What is your stance on the massacre of Tel-Aviv which will be done by Syrian and Jordan troops?

Or what about the massacre of the Western Wall which will be done by the Fatah?


This is fun.

There are a lot of videos and articles about crimes done against the palestinians,

Why are palestinian "refugees" more worth than all other refugees from anywhere else on the world?
Quite nice to be looked after by UNRWA and not the UNHCR.

 

[England my lionheart]

i am telling you that i'll show you a recorded facts through history,if you give me the freedom of speech and to give me the guarantee from staff and mods then i'll go ahead,otherwise i'll just choose to shut my mouth,i should respect the staff & mods decision and i got no other choices.

So please i am very clear on this point,thanks a lot for your good debate.

You are free to show videos and articles as long as they are in line with RF rules,i do not have the option of allowing anything that contravenes the rules.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Based on what?

Based on the fact that this is an imperfect world where people don't share. If there are only so many resources and one person has decided to hoard them all for himself, the others have a right to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that there is a more equal distribution. Keep in mind that the Jews had NOTHING before they conquered Palestine. The land they have now is miscule compared to what the Arabs possess as entire people.

 

[FearGod]

FearGod, you are allowed to say anything you like and post any videos just as long as they are on topic and do not violate any of the other rules.

And, by on topic, i don't mean any video that has any remote connection with Israel or Judaism, but actually a connection with the particular topic of this thread.

Thank you Badran for you advice.

i do realize that my planned articles and videos will be already off topic due to our debate actually have gone far from the main topic once England my lionheart converted the topic to Hamas charter which say that islam will obliterate israel as quote below,so by going deep on the subject about israeli criminals by showing facts and videos which also will be off the main topic of this thread,so i don't want to violate the RF laws and so it is better for me to leave this thread at this point,Thanks

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.

 

[England my lionheart]

Thank you Badran for you advice.

i do realize that my planned articles and videos will be already off topic due to our debate actually have gone far from the main topic once England my lionheart converted the topic to Hamas charter which say that islam will obliterate israel as quote below,so by going deep on the subject about israeli criminals by showing facts and videos which also will be off the main topic of this thread,so i don't want to violate the RF laws and so it is better for me to leave this thread at this point,Thanks

"planned articles and videos" speaks volumes,thanks for your participation anyway .

 

[Shermana]

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.

I don't understand why I would be wasting my time defending the legitimacy of Israel, I was just saying that Uganda would have been an economically suitable choice especially if that was the only option available, I'm not saying I'd relinquish claims on Israel for Uganda or that Israel's claim on "Palestine" isn't legitimate. I just wish they got both.

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.

Here is a list of all the UN resolutions against Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

Now if someone can help me calculate what percent that takes up of all resolutions, we can resolve this "annoyance".

Oh what's this quote right here?

The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.[1]

Let me repeat that.

The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.[1]

Okay, well, it's got more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined. Now if only I can find a list of all the resolutions, we can calculate the exact percentage and we can see just how hyperbolic I am being exactly.

 

[Badran]

Based on the fact that this is an imperfect world where people don't share. If there are only so many resources and one person has decided to hoard them all for himself, the others have a right to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that there is a more equal distribution. Keep in mind that the Jews had NOTHING before they conquered Palestine. The land they have now is miscule compared to what the Arabs possess as entire people.

Two things:

1) You're equating and/or mixing between having no home country and between having no resources. That doesn't make any sense to me. Not having a home country does not entail that you're not sharing in the world's resources, even including land. It does mean that you're missing out on something; i'm just saying that this something is not resources. Rather the benefit of having sovereignty over a peace of land specifically (or mostly) for you and your people, in the sense that this land would be identified as Jewish land in this case for example, and that it's destiny is almost entirely in the hands of Jews. In essence, it's an issue of power.

2) What is your criteria for qualifying a group/tribe to earning the right to a home land? Race, religion, ethnicity, all of those things or something else?

I ask only in attempt to understand your vision of how the world should be.

 

[Badran]

I don't understand why I would be wasting my time defending the legitimacy of Israel, I was just saying that Uganda would have been an economically suitable choice especially if that was the only option available, I'm not saying I'd relinquish claims on Israel for Uganda or that Israel's claim on "Palestine" isn't legitimate. I just wish they got both.

That's not what i was saying. What i was saying is that if you also feel that Jewish people had any call, or more accurately, a right, in claiming Uganda, then i think it becomes rather clear that your main criteria for what makes that claim valid is the fact that it's beneficial for Jews.

Now, to be honest, i've not been following all of your claims throughout the thread, but i'm assuming you were addressing the question of legitimacy here in this thread (and others like it) by using the argument(s) that Jews have actually lived in that area for a long time, that they were on the winning side in defensive wars, and that they bought some/most or whatever of the land. Correct?

If so, how would you have had justified "getting" Uganda? Or, put differently, how come do you wish that Jews would have gotten Uganda?

Here is a list of all the UN resolutions against Israel.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if someone can help me calculate what percent that takes up of all resolutions, we can resolve this "annoyance".

I'll do so with pleasure in the last part of this post.

Oh what's this quote right here?

The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.[1]

Let me repeat that.

The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.[1]

Well, a couple of things just before we get to actually seeing how much hyperbole you've been engaging in (possibly and hopefully unintentionally). Two things i want to point out:

1) The citation for this statement is: Error-2010

It's not actually working for me. As in, i can't see what this website is. It's title is "http://www.israel-un.org/israel-and-the-un/israel-at-the-un", but when i linked that here it shows as an error as you can see. Even when i try just "israel-un.org" it doesn't work.

2) That statement actually contradicts other information in another Wikipedia article, which i will share in the next part.

What i'm trying to say in this part is essentially that this statement is not really all that reliable.

Okay, well, it's got more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined. Now if only I can find a list of all the resolutions, we can calculate the exact percentage and we can see just how hyperbolic I am being exactly.

According to eyeontheun.com, which is the citation from this Wiki article, it's 38.94%.

Now, the Wiki article on the other hand says in the same sentence after which this is cited:

As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 48.1% of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council

Not sure how on earth are the two numbers different. But i'm assuming that it's either a mistake in the Wiki article, some difference of date thing or the "country specific bit" - as in that the 38.94 % would be addressing resolutions in general while the 48.1% would be addressing the country-specific ones.

It says "As of 2010" in the wiki statement, while in the actual link the percentage is cumulative, including 2011 and 2012. So i think that might explain the difference too (difference of date like i said).

If we go by these numbers, and examine what you said, first by saying:

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.

And then generously reducing it to:

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

From ALL, to the vast majority if not nearly all, when the actual percentage is 38.94%, or even 48.1% or somewhere around the middle, i'd say that you were being considerably hyperbolic.

 

[Shermana]

That's not what i was saying. What i was saying is that if you also feel that Jewish people had any call, or more accurately, a right, in claiming Uganda, then i think it becomes rather clear that your main criteria for what makes that claim valid is the fact that it's beneficial for Jews.

I fail to see how you derive this. I'm not justifying any Israeli claim on Uganda. They did in fact have a call to take the Uganda plan and they said no. All I said was that economically speaking it could have put them in a superior position, not accounting for anything else relevant like hostile angry tribespeople.

Now, to be honest, i've not been following all of your claims throughout the thread, but i'm assuming you were addressing the question of legitimacy here in this thread (and others like it) by using the argument(s) that Jews have actually lived in that area for a long time, that they were on the winning side in defensive wars, and that they bought some/most or whatever of the land. Correct?

Correct.

If so, how would you have had justified "getting" Uganda? Or, put differently, how come do you wish that Jews would have gotten Uganda?

Again. I'm actually not justifying any Jewish claim to Uganda, I think that's part of the problem. I'm just saying I wish they got it. Big difference.

I'll do so with pleasure in the last part of this post.

Okay, I'll have to do some more research on the math since you have shown what appears to be a discepancy especially when the 2010 date is accounted for. I'll retract for now, but still, 39-48% is still quite a bit more than it should be, no? I guess the whole "More resolutions than all other nations combined" may have been a bit faulty and I'll see what made them state that, maybe the link is simply posted wrong, but I'll do some serious fact checking on this, but still....39-48% is quite overrepresntative. And the point was mostly about CHina's place on the council.

Edit: See below. The 39-48% number only refers to the "Actions", not "resolutions".

There appears to be quite a Talk page on that article so maybe I can find something useful there.

 

[Shermana]

Actually, the eyeonthesun link only lists the 44 actions on Israel, there are hundreds of resolutions. My point may in fact stand. The actions are not necessarily the same thing as the resolutions.

"There are pro-Israeli [1] and anti-Israeli sources [2] that have noted the amount of United Nations resolutions against Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir commissioned an analysis of UN voting concerning Israel. According to results of this study [3], from 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and during that span, Israel was condemned 43 times. In the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.[4]"

From the talk page. I will continue to research this nonetheless.

 

[Badran]

I fail to see how you derive this. I'm not justifying any Israeli claim on Uganda.



Correct.



Again. I'm actually not justifying any Jewish claim to Uganda, I think that's part of the problem. I'm just saying I wish they got it. Big difference.

I'm not sure i see the difference. Could you clarify what you're saying more?

Okay, I'll have to do some more research on the math since you have shown what appears to be a discepancy especially when the 2010 date is accounted for. I'll retract for now, but still, 39-48% is still quite a bit more than it should be, no?

Yes.

But, i wouldn't judge it as blatant bias, until i find out that they actually have a pattern (if at all) of not addressing similar issues, or issues along the same line of importance in other countries/areas.

I guess the whole "More resolutions than all other nations combined" may have been a bit faulty and I'll see what made them state that, maybe the link is simply posted wrong, but I'll do some serious fact checking on this, but still....39-48% is quite overrepresntative. And the point was mostly about CHina's place on the council.

Okay.

Actually, the eyeonthesun link only lists the 44 actions on Israel, there are hundreds of resolutions. My point may in fact stand. The actions are not necessarily the same thing as the resolutions.

"There are pro-Israeli [1] and anti-Israeli sources [2] that have noted the amount of United Nations resolutions against Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir commissioned an analysis of UN voting concerning Israel. According to results of this study [3], from 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and during that span, Israel was condemned 43 times. In the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.[4]"

From the talk page. I will continue to research this nonetheless.

The statistics were only addressing the resolutions from the united nations human rights council. Nothing prior to 2006 was included.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not sure i see the difference. Could you clarify what you're saying more?

When I say "I wish they got it", I mean who wouldn't want their people to get Africa's most fertile, agriculturally productive country (arguably more so than super-lush Zimbabwe)? I think the tribes people would have probably been better off than under the British, but who knows? (And the very issue of the legitimacy of African states and boundaries is another interesting discussion topic).

The point being, Israel I believe has an actual justifiable claim to the land based on history and for the summarized reasons you listed. Uganda would just be a nice colony to supplement it but is not at all justifiably an Israeli/Jewish claim. Sort of a Have your cake and eat it too thing, where Israel is the cake and Uganda is the "eat it too". Israel is the place that actually has the claim, Uganda was just a nice bone being dangled that would have been nice to have, but not the real meat. Between the two, I'd go with Israel instead, but if there was no choice and Providence made it virtually impossible to form the state of Israel, Uganda would be a nice second choice if there was no way at all to get the actually-justified territory of Israel instead.

The statistics were only addressing the resolutions from the united nations human rights council. Nothing prior to 2006 was included.

Not sure I understand exactly. What was not included prior to 2006, the actions?

 

[lunakilo]

I'm not sure i see the difference. Could you clarify what you're saying more?

There is a difference between saying "I like my neighbor's house, I wish it was mine"
and "I have a right to claim my neighbor's house"

 

[Badran]

When I say "I wish they got it", I mean who wouldn't want their people to get Africa's most fertile, agriculturally productive country (arguably more so than super-lush Zimbabwe)? I think the tribes people would have probably been better off than under the British, but who knows? (And the very issue of the legitimacy of African states and boundaries is another interesting discussion topic).

The point being, Israel I believe has an actual justifiable claim to the land based on history and for the summarized reasons you listed. Uganda would just be a nice colony to supplement it but is not at all justifiably an Israeli/Jewish claim. Sort of a Have your cake and eat it too thing, where Israel is the cake and Uganda is the "eat it too". Israel is the place that actually has the claim, Uganda was just a nice bone being dangled that would have been nice to have, but not the real meat. Between the two, I'd go with Israel instead, but if there was no choice and Providence made it virtually impossible to form the state of Israel, Uganda would be a nice second choice if there was no way at all to get the actually-justified territory of Israel instead.

Ah, okay.

Thanks for clarifying. I disagree with some of that reasoning, but this is completely different from what i originally understood.

Not sure I understand exactly. What was not included prior to 2006, the actions?

No, i mean resolutions. It's all regarding the united nations human rights council, from 2006 to 2012.

The percentage is representing the resolutions regarding Israel in that time period.

 

[Badran]

There is a difference between saying "I like my neighbor's house, I wish it was mine"
and "I have a right to claim my neighbor's house"

True, but given what we're talking about i didn't feel like taking it that way unless he actually clarified that he wouldn't feel that it'd be justified, which he did in the last post.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Two things:

1) You're equating and/or mixing between having no home country and between having no resources. That doesn't make any sense to me. Not having a home country does not entail that you're not sharing in the world's resources, even including land. It does mean that you're missing out on something; i'm just saying that this something is not resources. Rather the benefit of having sovereignty over a peace of land specifically (or mostly) for you and your people, in the sense that this land would be identified as Jewish land in this case for example, and that it's destiny is almost entirely in the hands of Jews. In essence, it's an issue of power.

2) What is your criteria for qualifying a group/tribe to earning the right to a home land? Race, religion, ethnicity, all of those things or something else?

I ask only in attempt to understand your vision of how the world should be.

You don't consider having sovereignty over a homeland a resource? Isn't sovereignty included in the very definition of home?

 

[Badran]

You don't consider having soverienty over a homeland a resource? Isn't sovereignty included in the very definition of home?

I understand that resources is a broad term but i assumed that you were using it in its most basic sense, or at least what seems to me to be so. As in, to reference the natural resources of the world. I hadn't assumed that you were including power for example.

Can i ask why you didn't answer my question quoted below?

What is your criteria for qualifying a group/tribe to earning the right to a home land? Race, religion, ethnicity, all of those things or something else?

Like i said in the last post addressed to you, i'm really only asking to understand what is your vision regarding how the world should be like.