Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[Shermana]

By all means, if you have a few billion dollars to spare, feel free to spend it on arming the Kurds.

The State of Israel has a great deal of cast off (obsolete) weaponry that they could give to the Kurds, who know exactly how to use them and have much experience filling Revolutionary Guards with holes. However, I don't think I'll be able to talk such a sensible solution to the Israeli officials. The Kurds already help the Mossad by taking out nuclear sites, but they need the entire Peshmerga and West Iranian Kurdistan army equipped with heavy anti-personnal weapons. I'm pretty sure Israel will work with the Kurds in any attack, but I think the Kurds should be given far more support and attention as they can take out all the anti-aircraft with the right tools.

This is of course why everybody in the world except Israel accepts that a two state solution is the most humane and reasonable course of action.

The two state solution would only lead to setting up a much better attack with better leverage and defensive positions. They've been quite clear that that's their plan once they achieve their own (second) state. And they want to kick the Jews all out of Judea-Samaria. Why not have the second state be Jordan which is the State they already have? Jordan's a REALLY nice place for the most part, it could easily absorb a few extra million people and is teeming with resources. Better than crowding them all in Judea-Samaria and forcing the Jews to take an unfair loss, no?

How about the whole world acknowledging that Jordan already is Palestine? What's wrong with that solution? Is it too easy? Is it too obvious? Or are the Arabs too scary to work fairness and common sense with?

 

[Alceste]

The State of Israel has a great deal of cast off (obsolete) weaponry that they could give to the Kurds, who know exactly how to use them and have much experience filling Revolutionary Guards with holes. However, I don't think I'll be able to talk such a sensible solution to the Israeli officials.

I heartily thank God and all the angels (whether I believe in them or not) that you are not able to talk the Israeli government into any of your "sensible solutions", and sincerely hope that trend continues!

 

[jasonwill2]

Fallingblood reminded me about what I intended to ask but then almost forgot. Israel gains a lot of attention from USA and European countries. I'm not familiar with neighbouring countries, but I can imagine they aren't entirely uninterested either. If everyone else would leave Israel alone for a while to solve it's own problems, would it have any effect in either way? My impression is this would calm the situation after a while. What are your opinions?

Most politicians in America won't condemn modern Israel, being one of the biggest allies of Israel is a big thing with most US presidents for example. We sell them a huge amount of choppers and other weapons so USA has always been an ally of Israel pretty much.

My main question was from a legalistic standpoint of sovereignty if Israel had the right to take the land and form said nation.

 

[Shermana]

I heartily thank God and all the angels (whether I believe in them or not) that you are not able to talk the Israeli government into any of your "sensible solutions", and sincerely hope that trend continues!

So you'd rather have them bomb Iran by themselves than help the Kurds gain their freedom? Do you not believe the Kurds should have their own state? My plan would probably cause far less lives to be lost and make it more of a skirmish than a drawn out war. Explain why you're so against my plan? The Israelis already work with the Kurds. So why not help the Kurds have their own state which they deserve with land that has been historically theirs as well as let them assist the Israelis in a smoother transition of regime change of the IR of Iran? I don't get your contention. Would you rather have Iran be stronger and able to strike with stronger blows? It's either Israel goes by themselves or they go with Kurdish support. Why not let the Kurds have a successful revolution instead to achieve the same goal?

Are you just against my plans because they involve some kind of strong counter-action and don't involve quivering and submission?

 

[Shermana]

Most politicians in America won't condemn modern Israel, being one of the biggest allies of Israel is a big thing with most US presidents for example. We sell them a huge amount of choppers and other weapons so USA has always been an ally of Israel pretty much.

My main question was from a legalistic standpoint of sovereignty if Israel had the right to take the land and form said nation.

Yes, Israel is 100% legally legitimate to "take land and form said nation", I don't see why it wouldn't be. However, "Palestine" has absolutely no right whatsoever to take land from the established nation of Israel. They do however, already have a nation called Jordan, which they should not be allowed to try to cover up the fact that it is in fact the Palestinian state, built on 80% of the Palestinian mandate. They should be required to acknowledge that Jordan is in fact the Palestinian state, built on 80% of what was called Palestine. Why are not trying to liberate the 80% of Palestine called Jordan? And besides the fact that there's no actual distinct "palestinian" culture as opposed to "Arabs who lived in the region called Palestine". Much of the "Palestinians" living in Israel today descend from Egyptian, Syrian, Turkish, and other Arab immigrants. So the question then becomes, "Who deserves a state"? Should I be able to form my own little state here and call it Shermanastan? Why not? Where do we draw the line? We draw it where people are able to guard their land with a gun and tell those who want them off to go to hell. The Palestinians haven't been able to do that, the Jews have, so that should settle it. Except in Jordan, where they've established themselves as the clear majority.

So the real question is, why should the Palestinians not be happy with the 80% of the "Palestinian Mandate" that is now titled "jordan"? Does it have to be specifically called "Palestine"?

 

[Alceste]

So you'd rather have them bomb Iran by themselves than help the Kurds gain their freedom? Do you not believe the Kurds should have their own state? My plan would probably cause far less lives to be lost and make it more of a skirmish than a drawn out war. Explain why you're so against my plan? The Israelis already work with the Kurds. So why not help the Kurds have their own state which they deserve with land that has been historically theirs as well as let them assist the Israelis in a smoother transition of regime change of the IR of Iran? I don't get your contention. Would you rather have Iran be stronger and able to strike with stronger blows? It's either Israel goes by themselves or they go with Kurdish support. Why not let the Kurds have a successful revolution instead to achieve the same goal?

Are you just against my plans because they involve some kind of strong counter-action and don't involve quivering and submission?

I'm against your plans because my mind has an extremely limited tolerance for hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, and my conscience abhors violence. If it's OK for the Kurds to bomb Iran to advance the cause of sovereignty, is it OK for Palestinians to bomb Israel to advance the cause of sovereignty? Or are you just a "quivering submissive" who thinks Palestinians should not be allowed to slaughter innocent Israelis to advance their political aims?

 

[Babs]

I don't believe that Israel has a right to the land. I didn't know much about it myself (maybe I still don't exactly) other than what they would say on the news, which seemed generally to have something to do the "The Holy Land". But around 10 years ago or so, I spoke over the internet (on Yahoo Messenger, when Yahoo Messenger was good) to a Palestinian photo journalist. He explained things to me. It was quite a while ago, so I doubt I can tell you what he said verbatim or anything, but I remember he said that it wasn't about the Holy Land like a lot of people thought.

Well, anyway....I thought about what he said for the next few days. In the end, I figured that both sides had a reasonable claim to the land, but that Israel needed to pull out of Palestine. The aforementioned photo journalist said that Israel was occupying their country. If you think about it, there probably isn't a country in the world that would see a military force come into their country, say "ok. This is ours now. Leave." and just let it happen. I'm not into bloodshed, but that would be fairly reasonable to want to keep foreign military forces from taking over even a little bit of your country and bullying your people.

On the Israel side...what do they really have? From what I can see, just a petty, childish arguement. "We used to own it at one point, so it ours, go away!" If every country went to war or battle with every country that had lands that used to belong to them at some point in history, the whole world would be at war.

It's not worth the bloodshed. Israel is in the offensive position. Palestine is in the defensive. Israel needs to pull out and end this.

And from what I've heard, there are lots of Jews from around the world who are starting to speak out against Israel in what they've been doing to the Palestinians.

 

[Shermana]

I'm against your plans because my mind has an extremely limited tolerance for hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, and my conscience abhors violence.

There's going to be violence anyway, and the Kurdish situation is far, far different than the Palestinians.

If it's OK for the Kurds to bomb Iran to advance the cause of sovereignty, is it OK for Palestinians to bomb Israel to advance the cause of sovereignty?

The Kurds have actually lived in Kurdistan for millenia unlike the Palestinians who are mostly the product of Egyptian and Syrian Turkish imigrants, and the Palestinians already have a state called Jordan which they unfairly play down and act as if they have no state when they in fact do. The situations are so different I could (and should) make a whole thread detailing the differences. If the Kurds had their own state like how Palestinians have Jordan, it'd be different. And the history of the Kurdish situation is much different. Shall I make a thread?

Or are you just a "quivering submissive" who thinks Palestinians should not be allowed to slaughter innocent Israelis to advance their political aims?

Did I say anything about the Kurds attacking civilians? I mentioned Revolutionary Guards and the IR government. If the Palestinians attack armed soldiers, that's a different game for the most part. Comparing the Palestinian situation to the Kurdish situation is a common problem I even have to deal with when discussing with Islamist pro-Palestinian Kurds who don't know their own history, but most of my Kurdish friends honestly thank Israel for all their help so far, even if they may have helped hand over Ocalan to Turkey.

So should I make a whole thread to discuss the Kurdish comparison or would it be on topic for me to go into further detail here?

 

[Shermana]

If you think about it, there probably isn't a country in the world that would see a military force come into their country, say "ok. This is ours now. Leave."

Please establish that Israel invaded the "Palestinian's country" and that it was "their country". Why wasn't it the Jordanians who invaded the Israeli's country? Why are the Egyptian-Turkish-Syrian immigrants called "Palestinians" entitled to the same land that's been called "Judea-Samaria" for centuries? Now it is honest of you to admit you don't know much about the situation at least. Are you interested in an objective historical approach or are you content to anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian sources?

 

[Alceste]

There's going to be violence anyway, and the Kurdish situation is far, far different than the Palestinians.



The Kurds have actually lived in Kurdistan for millenia unlike the Palestinians who are mostly the product of Egyptian and Syrian Turkish imigrants, and the Palestinians already have a state called Jordan which they unfairly play down and act as if they have no state when they in fact do. The situations are so different I could (and should) make a whole thread detailing the differences. If the Kurds had their own state like how Palestinians have Jordan, it'd be different. And the history of the Kurdish situation is much different. Shall I make a thread?



Did I say anything about the Kurds attacking civilians? I mentioned Revolutionary Guards and the IR government. If the Palestinians attack armed soldiers, that's a different game for the most part. Comparing the Palestinian situation to the Kurdish situation is a common problem I even have to deal with when discussing with Islamist pro-Palestinian Kurds who don't know their own history, but most of my Kurdish friends honestly thank Israel for all their help so far, even if they may have helped hand over Ocalan to Turkey.

So should I make a whole thread to discuss the Kurdish comparison or would it be on topic for me to go into further detail here?

I seen to recall that the last time Hezbollah targeted Israeli soldiers, Israel started a war over it.

 

[fallingblood]

Another one who completely dismisses the history of the Jordanian situation and the arguments of the "Jordan is Palestine" movement. So it will create more tension. Oh my. More tension. Because doing the right thing that's fair and actually calling them out on their shenanigans might "Cause more tension". Well let it cause more tension. Do you believe Israel should hand over Judea-Samaria to the Palestinians to not have "more tension"? My solution is very fair and very feasible, your solution involves a completely unfair deal to the Jews, letting the Palestinians have their way with having TWO states instead of one, and keeping the Palestinians holed up when they could be in a country twenty times the size.

You have no idea about my view or stance on the subject, and I would appreciate it if you simply didn't make things up about what I think. There is no room for that in a rational discussion.

So since your argument really has no basis in what I was saying, I see no reason to address it in content.

I simply think it's ridiculous to force people from their homes based on them being different. I think humans in general should have learned better than that from past mistakes.

 

[Shermana]

You have no idea about my view or stance on the subject, and I would appreciate it if you simply didn't make things up about what I think. There is no room for that in a rational discussion.

Nice cop out of the actual issues and contention. What there's no room for in rational discussion is completely avoiding the issue of "Jordan is Palestine" and then saying that such a solution of implementing a population transfer which the Palestinians are already planning for the Jews if they get a state should be out of the question. If you don't want to rationally discuss the actual historical objectivity and geopolitik of the situation without resorting to emotional appeals that undercut the facts on the ground, feel free to not reply.

So since your argument really has no basis in what I was saying, I see no reason to address it in content.

Please explain how exactly what I said has no basis in what you're saying. You are definitely a level 9 cop-outer, I am impressed. You have expertly dodged the entire issue of how Jordan is already their state and it's only fair for the victorious party in a war the other team started to dictate the terms, especially when they have their own state.

I simply think it's ridiculous to force people from their homes based on them being different. I think humans in general should have learned better than that from past mistakes.

How do you plan to tell the Palestinians to not kick the Jews out of Judea-Samaria as part of the 2 state solution, and do you think a 2 state solution should go through even if it involves Ethnic cleansing of Jews? I don't see what's wrong with fighting fire with fire, especially when the other side already has a state which comprises 80% of the territory claimed as "Palestine".

 

[RisingKnowledge]

To my mind the important question is not a historical one but a contemporary one.
Do the people of Israel have a right to their state? The answer seems obvious to me. Of course they do. Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

So do the Arabs in Israel.

 

[RisingKnowledge]

Both groups have a right to the land I don't agree with either side most of the time.
There is a song by lupe fiasco called words I never said that really fits how I think about Israel "Now you can say it ain't our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam!
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them"

 

[Caladan]

Since this has already been ignored several times in this thread, and since this is central to the OP, I'll discuss it shortly again.
The reasons for creating Israel are not because Jews around the world suddenly decided to reclaim the Promised Land. The prime reason was an attempt to find a solution to European Jewry's status in Europe. Let's remember that this is a community who went from being highly active in the German military during WWI, to being expelled from practically all walks of life a few short decades later as WWII was brewing.
Furthermore, we are not discussing a monolithic military invasion of Jews into Palestine. Jews have immigrated to the land, dried swamps, worked the land and created towns and communities already since the 19th century when Palestine was under Turkish rule (and later British rule).

 

[TashaN]

I'll admit I don't know everything about the situation with modern Israel, but the idea I hear sometimes that it is on Biblical justification because Jews had it thousands of years ago is a strawman to me. I've read from anything that the Jews and Israel has a right to the land to that they stole it and that Israel is a terrorist state.

For about four years I maintained that Israel really didn't have a right to the land after learning more about it, and before then, I didn't really have an opinion. Though most recently I think I have realized that maybe I prematurely formed my views on it, though I have my suspicions of how both sides paint each other. If anyone has an opinion on either the formation of modern Israel or Israel's situations in the Middle East politics and world events, I would like to hear it.

You could benefit from a thread i started a while back.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/middle-eastern-politics/70821-palestine-clearing-up-dust.html

Part of my thread:

Dr. Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian at Haifa University who writes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the history of the 1948 war. He was interviewed on 11 Sept. before addressing a public meeting and open debate at the University of Manchester. Both events were recorded by Joseph Cooper and Kristin Karlson.

I think there are 3 main myths that inform mainstream Israeli Jewish society.

A lot of them still believe, because that’s the way they have been educated, that Palestine had been empty when the Jewish settlers came there in the late 19th century. There is still a feeling there that basically the Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine are either a nuisance or newcomers, or irrelevant. They are an obstacle, but not people with rights or indigenous rights.

The second myth is more directly connected to 1948. Most Israeli Jews believe that the Palestinians left voluntarily in 1948. They are not aware, or do not want to be aware of the fact that an ethnic cleansing took place in 1948.

And the third myth concerns the Occupation. Very few Israelis would call it an Occupation at all. Very few relate to any of the Palestinian demands to end the Occupation, and most Israeli Jews would regard the war against them not as a war of liberation or a war against Occupation, but as part of the more general scheme by Arabs or Muslims in general to destroy the Jewish State.

http://www.bestcyrano.org/israeliMythsPappe.htm

 

[lunakilo]

I really have no idea what on Earth you are talking about by skipping the "other post", what does it matter what post I respond to? I was making a point. Nor do I see what rereading your post will garner that I didn't already. What did I misunderstand? You basically dismissed what I said and then dodged out when I countered your dismissal. Why does it matter whether I reply to his post or yours? My point is the same. And then you DISMISSED WHAT I SAID without addressing it. Otherwise, kindly explain what exactly you are talking about.

Now if you don't want to actually address specific points and details when you simply dismiss everything I bring up without addressing it, just don't reply, it's that easy. That way you don't get called out. If you're going to make comments about Israel and Palestine, especially if you're going to stick up for the Palestinians, you must address the totality of both sides, and not squirm away when your one-sided approach is called out.

Just so that I am sure that you noticed I am going to tell you that all I did in my first post was to copy the previous post and replace the one word 'Israel' with 'Palestine'. This was supposed to indicate that the arguments for why the israeli have a right to a state in my opinion would work for palestinians too.

You indicated that if any palestiens in Judea-Samaria (which wikipedia tells me is also known as the West Bank) want a state of their own, they should go away to Jordan.

Maybe we should just rename Jordan to Palestine, since it was historically in fact referred to as Palestine before 1946 (was an emirate/province of the Palestinian Mandate from 22-46), so that would be an easy transition. I'm sure the Israelis would be happy to offer free bus rides and transition funds to Amman to unite the Palestinans in Judea-Samaria with their majority Palestinian brethren in "Jordan".

Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it does sound like you are saying that in your opinion the west bank does not belong to the (mostly) palestinians who live there.
Demographics of the Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And that they have no right to call that land theirs.

What's unfair is ignoring Jordan, the State they already have.

But I bet you have NO problem with the OFFICIAL Palestinian plan to deport all Jews. If the Jews get deported from the contested territory, that's fine, right? Because any two-state solution (in which the second state SHOULD be Jordan which is already the Palestinian state) involves deporting all Jews from Judea-Samaria. So if you don't have a problem with deporting Jews from Judea-Samaria, that speaks volumes. Because that's the ONLY way a two-state solution would go down.

Anyways though, thanks for totally ignoring the history and critical points and not caring about the specifics.

So what makes you conclude that I would have have no problem with a plan to deport jews? Have I ever said anything to that effect?
I believe I have said the exact opposite actually

... and I would say that by now you cannot claim that the israeli do not have a right to be there.

I have a problem with any solution which involved deporting anyone. Period.
I personally don't care if people make a one-state or a two-state solution, or any other kind of solution.
I was just pointing out that I don't think the israeli are more in the right than the palestinians and vice versa.
I hope people will be able to work out a proper solution at some point.

The fact is, if you're going to complain about my idea of sending the Palestinians to their state called Jordan especially after ignoring everything I posted about how Jordan is in fact "Palestine", you can't just ignore the fact that the Palestinian plan involves KICKING THE JEWS OUT TOO. Otherwise, you reveal that you don't mind the idea of Jews being kicked out.

So do you support the idea of Palesitnians kicking Jews out of Judea-Samaria or not?

Kapiesce?

Let me know if you need a further breakdown.

This whole Palestine = Jordan seems silly to me, but I will read the links that you posted and which I did ignore.

As I said before any idea that involved deporting anyone is a no go.

Kapiesce?

Let me know if you need a further breakdown.

 

[lunakilo]

Jordan Is Palestinian :: Middle East Quarterly
Jordan is Palestine - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

This whole Palestine = Jordan seems silly to me, but I will read the links that you posted and which I did ignore.

(How many hate pills did the person who wrote that eat before writhing that I wonder...)

I still don't see any argument in those links as to why the people of the west bank should go to Jordan.

As far as I understand your argument it goes like this. Jordan has a large palestinian population and is therefore a palestinian country.
Palstinians who want a nation to call their own should therefore go to Jordan where they belong.

Imagine Germany invading Denmark and then claiming the land as their own (Silly I know, germans never do such things ).
Imagine the people of the land formerly known as Denmark objecting and saying that they want their own country.
The german rulers of the land the say. "Well you are scandinavian are you not? Sweden is a scandinavian country so you should leave and go to Sweden where you belong!"

Does that sound fair to you?
(Any swedish people who care to comment? )

 

[lunakilo]

So why not help the Kurds have their own state which they deserve with land that has been historically theirs ...

Because the turks would probably object...
Don't mess withe the turks please.

 

[Flankerl]

I seen to recall that the last time Hezbollah targeted Israeli soldiers, Israel started a war over it.

Evil evil Israel. Reacting to an act of war with war.