• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. support for Israel

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
What is the difference between ancient land claims and more recent land claims? I do not know. Some Palestinians who saw some of their land stolen in 1948 are still alive today. Today, if an obviously more powerful military force were to invade and occupy the U.S., it is probable that many Americans would resist it, even 62 years later (1948-2010) as is the case with the Palestinians.

Many native American Indian tribes have lawyers, and are trying to acquire more land and rights.
 
Last edited:

Levite

Higher and Higher
Yes, surely Israel should "give back" the land to the Palestinians. Also, the US should get all its 300 million citizens out and give back the land to the Native Americans. France should really make all those invading Frankish people get out, and leave the country to the original Gaulish Celts. All you Normans, better get out of England: that's Saxon country! For that matter, let's go ahead and just give up having civilization at all: everyone try to find the cave his ancestors came from-- that's the only place to which we all have any real claims. Unless we should cede those back to the bears we kicked out of them....

Israel exists. It's done. Biotching and whining about its founding is just whipping a dead horse: you can hit all you want, but it won't go anywhere. The Arabs rejected the 1947 UN partition plan. No reason the Jews-- who were willing to accept it at the time-- should have to go back to that now. Israel's further land was won in wars defending itself. No reason that should go "back" to anyone either.

As for Jerusalem, it wasn't "given" to Israel-- Israel held on to barely half the city until 1967, and from 1948 to 1967, not a single Jew was permitted even a sight of the Western Wall. Whereas since 1967, Muslims continue to enjoy regular prayer at the Dome of the Rock and the Mosque of Omar. Considering the previous abuses when Jerusalem was in Arab hands-- to say nothing of Jerusalem being a functional city, Israel's capitol-- what possible motivation would Israel ever have to give it over to an unfriendly power?

As things stand, a Palestininan state in most of the West Bank and Gaza is inevitable, presuming the Palestinians can ever get their act together, and stop embracing terrorism and indoctrinating their kids with anti-Semitism. But frankly, they ought to be grateful they're getting any of that. Israel should've annexed the West Bank outright in '67. There's already a Palestinian state: it's called Jordan.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Levite said:
Yes, surely Israel should "give back" the land to the Palestinians. Also, the US should get all its 300 million citizens out and give back the land to the Native Americans. France should really make all those invading Frankish people get out, and leave the country to the original Gaulish Celts. All you Normans, better get out of England: that's Saxon country! For that matter, let's go ahead and just give up having civilization at all: everyone try to find the cave his ancestors came from-- that's the only place to which we all have any real claims. Unless we should cede those back to the bears we kicked out of them....

Israel exists. It's done. Biotching and whining about its founding is just whipping a dead horse: you can hit all you want, but it won't go anywhere. The Arabs rejected the 1947 UN partition plan. No reason the Jews-- who were willing to accept it at the time-- should have to go back to that now. Israel's further land was won in wars defending itself. No reason that should go "back" to anyone either.

As for Jerusalem, it wasn't "given" to Israel-- Israel held on to barely half the city until 1967, and from 1948 to 1967, not a single Jew was permitted even a sight of the Western Wall. Whereas since 1967, Muslims continue to enjoy regular prayer at the Dome of the Rock and the Mosque of Omar. Considering the previous abuses when Jerusalem was in Arab hands-- to say nothing of Jerusalem being a functional city, Israel's capitol-- what possible motivation would Israel ever have to give it over to an unfriendly power?

As things stand, a Palestininan state in most of the West Bank and Gaza is inevitable, presuming the Palestinians can ever get their act together, and stop embracing terrorism and indoctrinating their kids with anti-Semitism. But frankly, they ought to be grateful they're getting any of that. Israel should've annexed the West Bank outright in '67. There's already a Palestinian state: it's called Jordan.

But if the Partition of Palestine had been more fair, it is probable that there would have been much less violence.

Please read a pro-Palestinian article at Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states?
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
You really don't understand the matter do you? When was the land stolen and what land was stolen? Also, you should be aware that Palestine was a British mandate since 1917 (my previous date was off as I stated was possible). It was not under Muslim rule since then.

So who stole the land? Also, how much of that land was taken after Israel was attacked in 1967, starting a short lived war that Israel won?

You need to do more research.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I've read your article. It was already discussed by another member, and still shows you don't understand the situation. Now, please answer my questions. Don't post articles that really don't add anything. Just answer the questions I've posed quite a few times now.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Levite do you think that Israel's right to exist makes it alright for Israel to do whatever it pleases, even to mass exterminate a people it considers outsiders in it's country? At this rate I'd hate to see what Israel does next, mass extermination or deportation of all non-Orthodox Jews? I could live in Israel if I wanted to, I don't want to, because frankly I don't think it's special and I like America better.
 

AK4

Well-Known Member
Look... I totally disagree with what the OP'er is saying here, but you have seriously got to stop screaming anti-semite every chance you get. Maybe they have a legitimate grievance with the policies of Israel and it has nothing to do with what race the people happen to be.

All I'm saying is maybe chill out pulling the anti-semite card at every possible opportunity..

Amen. I started to respond to his post with "oh cry me a river"
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
I've read your article. It was already discussed by another member, and still shows you don't understand the situation.

I do not know if the article is true or not, but if it is, the Partition of Palestine was not fair.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I do not know if the article is true or not, but if it is, the Partition of Palestine was not fair.
This shows clearly you need to do more research. You are, as you like calling me, uninformed, and you just stated it right here. If you don't know if it's true, then why try to use it as support? Also, why not answer the questions I have posed to you twice?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Levite do you think that Israel's right to exist makes it alright for Israel to do whatever it pleases, even to mass exterminate a people it considers outsiders in it's country? At this rate I'd hate to see what Israel does next, mass extermination or deportation of all non-Orthodox Jews? I could live in Israel if I wanted to, I don't want to, because frankly I don't think it's special and I like America better.

My support for Israel has nothing to do with the actions of the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate or the Ultra-Orthodox political parties. The former institution I would like to see dismantled, and the latter institutions I would like to see voted out of the Knesset by the populace. I disagree nearly as violently with the Ultra-Orthodox as I do with the anti-Zionists.

As for "mass extermination:" please. According to a very leftist source (B'Tselem), total casualties for the Israel-Palestinian conflict from 1987 to 2008 are fewer than 8,000 (Israelis and Palestinians both). If we add in the years 1984-1987 and 2009-10, let's be generous and say perhaps there might be a little under 10,000 total. This is out of 7.45 million Israelis, and 3.95 million Palestinians. That is hardly mass extermination, even if the majority of casualties suffered were Palestinian.

Not to mention that, if we look around the world in the same period, there was a succession of civil wars in the Congo that killed over 275,000 people; maybe 500,000 to 1,000,000 died in the Iran-Iraq war; the first Gulf War killed nearly 40,000 directly, and perhaps as many as 100,000 indirectly; over 100,000 died in the Yugoslav wars; regimes in Liberia, Sudan, Rwanda, Syria, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and other countries massacred many tens of thousands of civilians.... Just in that period alone, the conflicts, wars, uprisings, and massacres taking place in the world are so many, and so staggeringly high in casualties, it boggles the mind. But what do we all spend our time talking about? Israel, and its wicked, wicked "massacres" of the Palestinians. But that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism! Ridiculous notion. It's purely a coincidence that amidst all this unrestrained slaughter, it's the careful, restrained attempts of the Jewish State to resist being overrun by terrorists that garners all the attention and the shock and the condemnation.

Yes, I did say careful and restraint. For all the instances where IDF soldiers have refused to abide by the high honor code they were sworn to, or where such soldiers have become demoralized and desensitized by the endless conflict to the point of becoming reckless or unethical in their dealings with the civilians amongst whom the terrorists cravenly hide, I still say that overall, Israel has acted with restraint.

Israel has the best-trained, most advanced military in the Middle East, if not even further bounds. If Israel really was the bloodthirsty, unrelenting mass exterminators that people like to portray it as, there would be no Palestinians left. Any day Israel wanted to, it could flatten the West Bank and Gaza into a Stone Age parking lot. They could solve their problem the really old fashioned way: just kill everyone who's not you. But they don't do that. They defend when attacked. They work and plan as best as is possible to minimize collateral damage in large military actions and retaliatory strikes. They try to punish perpitrators and those who give aid and comfort to terrorists not with death (or deliberate injury, as is commonly practiced in Saudi Arabia, and other such countries), but with destruction or confiscation of property, or imprisonment. Even during these long, sustained periods of closed borders, Israel still permits Palestinian ill and injured to enter Israel and receive treatment there. The Red Cross is still permitted to deliver aid to refugees. And Israel still tries to play this game of "peace negotiations," where somehow every offer, every gesture that Israel puts forward is inevitablyjudged insultingly insufficient, while they hope in vain for a real dialogue partner to emerge. They even hold financial revenues in trust for the Palestinian people, should the Palestinians ever find a leader who won't cheat his citizens blind. And within Israel, Jewish and Arab civil rights activists work to try and better the social condition of Arab Israeli citizens-- even those sympathetic to Palestinian causes-- who, in the meantime, enjoy a higher standard of living and more freedoms than their kin in most of the nearby Arab nations (except maybe Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain: they seem to be doing okay)..

Yeah. That's bad, all right.

:facepalm:
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
I do not know if the article is true or not, but if it is, the Partition of Palestine was not fair.

fallingblood said:
This shows clearly you need to do more research. You are, as you like calling me, uninformed, and you just stated it right here. If you don't know if it's true, then why try to use it as support? Also, why not answer the questions I have posed to you twice?

What questions are you referring to? We are discussing whether or not the Partition of Palestine was fair. If the article is true the Partition of Palestine was not fair. At this time, I do not have any good reasons to believe that the article is not true. It is well-documented with lots of references. What do you know about whether or not the Partition of Palestine was fair?

I should have conducted more research before I started this thread, but I made a mistake and didn't. Everyone makes mistakes. Whatever I have said, it is what I believed was true.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
So you are just going to refuse to answer the questions that I posed you? They would shed additional light on this subject, as to whether or not the Partition of Palestine was fair or not (which wasn't what the thread even started about). Why do you refuse to answer the questions that I've posed at least twice now?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
You really don't understand the matter do you? When was the land stolen and what land was stolen? Also, you should be aware that Palestine was a British mandate since 1917 (my previous date was off as I stated was possible). It was not under Muslim rule since then.

So who stole the land? Also, how much of that land was taken after Israel was attacked in 1967, starting a short lived war that Israel won?

I do not have time right now to do a lot of research about this issue, but did you read all of the article that I mentioned? If so, what is your opinion of it? Are you saying that the original Partition of Palestine was fair?
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I did read the article and I think it is nothing more that Palestinian propaganda because they are upset with what happened. I think the Partition of Palestine was fair enough.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
I did read the article and I think it is nothing more that Palestinian propaganda because they are upset with what happened. I think the Partition of Palestine was fair enough.

Maybe so, but I do not have enough time to research the issue adequately.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Then why even post anything about it? If you don't have enough time to be informed, or even make an informed statement about this, then don't post and try to argue a point when you don't, by your statements, understand the issue adequately.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
Then why even post anything about it? If you don't have enough time to be informed, or even make an informed statement about this, then don't post and try to argue a point when you don't, by your statements, understand the issue adequately.

You are not running these forums. I will post whatever I want to.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
If the Partition of Palestine in 1948 was fair, I agree that Jews have generally acted with restraint, but if the Partition was not fair, what actions would be justified for the Palestinians to take? I am not certain whether or not the Partition was fair.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
If the Partition of Palestine in 1948 was fair, I agree that Jews have generally acted with restraint, but if the Partition was not fair, what actions would be justified for the Palestinians to take? I am not certain whether or not the Partition was fair.
Why? Why take a position that you have no idea about? Why argue about something that you are not informed about? Do you have a point?
 
Top