Zionism

[Agnostisch]

Who cares what who resents?

It create an ever lasting hate. This is problematic.

Fair is fair and what's right is right. If the majority don't respect what's fair and right, let them make right with might, and if they can't make right with might, that's fair and right.

So basically you are saying if the Palestinian won the war, the land should be theirs. I mean this what I understand by the statement unless you have something else in mind.

Besides, why should Jordan be given to the Hashemites to rule as their private fiefdom? Especially when the population is 80% "Palestinian"?

The Hashamites are not native to the region and their rule is not secure it's always threatened by internal pressures. In fact many Jordanian tribal groups don't like the Hashamites and see them as aliens who got imposed on them. Since the Hashamites came from Hejaz which was an independent kingdom until it was annexed by Ibn Saud into the Saudi kingdom and expelled them there. For example the Bani Shacker Bedouin tribe is highly opposed to the Hashamites, and at one point created a revolt called the Adwan revolt, which was crushed by the British Rafs and Hotitwat Bedouins, traditional allies of the Hashamites. Did you know what the Slogan was Jordanian for Jordanians ie referring to the local native Bedouin tribes in the region like the Bani Shacker, Attayah, Rawllah, Zyoudi, Bedul, Akeesh (Christian Bedouin), Hezajin(Christian Bedouin), Hotiwat allied with the Hashamites, considered the most powerful and largest tribe in Jordan. Palestinians only came to Jordan in 1948 because they were expelled, and not only that Jordan's native population was small, and they eventually became a majority, it was also under Western pressure that the monarchy issued them Jordanian citizenship, something that came as shock and dismay to the native population. Even if they are 80% now, Jordan is not really their native land. The number is high Palestinians are like 60%, well the natives are like 40% which is more accurate.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I beg to differ. Israel is backed by the US, so any invasion of the land wouldn't last long at all.

Hmmm, funny because without US backing the world can really see the face of Islam which is the main reason not many Muslims are getting involved in this thread.
If people think Muslims wish to take back rightful land they are mistaken. This is the continuation of old grudges.

On the other hand I am all for the destabilization of Jordan and Saudia Arabiyyah

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Well then I am all for conquering but Filistinians make no such claim as they must make their religion seem peaceful. Filistinians have no ethnic ties to the land period so why do they claim such? Well to answer that it is mostly because medieval Islam encourages bold faced lying.

Their tie to the land is that they live there, nothing more... I'm not a Wampanoag, but I would say I very much have ties to Boston because I was born here and live here. This doesn't give me any more of a blood right to Boston than the Wampanoags have, which is none at all. If the Wampanoags tried to take my home from me I would fight and kill them to keep it.

.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So basically you are saying if the Palestinian won the war, the land should be theirs.

Now you're catching on, except there's no "should be". If the Palestinians win the war, the land IS theirs.

 

[Shermana]

It create an ever lasting hate. This is problematic.

Every state with borders has created ever lasting hate. What's new about this situation? Are you implying they'll be satisfied and won't look at Israel as weak kneed easy targets if they comply with their demands and won't want more and more?

So basically you are saying if the Palestinian won the war, the land should be theirs. I mean this what I understand by the statement unless you have something else in mind.

That's right. As stated in the above post, not "Should", but "is". As David Hume says, you should not confuse "ought" with "is".

The Hashamites are not native to the region and their rule is not secure it's always threatened by internal pressures. In fact many Jordanian tribal groups don't like the Hashamites and see them as aliens who got imposed on them. Since the Hashamites came from Hejaz which was an independent kingdom until it was annexed by Ibn Saud into the Saudi kingdom and expelled them there. For example the Bani Shacker Bedouin tribe is highly opposed to the Hashamites, and at one point created a revolt called the Adwan revolt, which was crushed by the British Rafs and Hotitwat Bedouins, traditional allies of the Hashamites. Did you know what the Slogan was Jordanian for Jordanians ie referring to the local native Bedouin tribes in the region like the Bani Shacker, Attayah, Rawllah, Zyoudi, Bedul, Akeesh (Christian Bedouin), Hezajin(Christian Bedouin), Hotiwat allied with the Hashamites, considered the most powerful and largest tribe in Jordan. Palestinians only came to Jordan in 1948 because they were expelled, and not only that Jordan's native population was small, and they eventually became a majority, it was also under Western pressure that the monarchy issued them Jordanian citizenship, something that came as shock and dismay to the native population. Even if they are 80% now, Jordan is not really their native land. The number is high Palestinians are like 60%, well the natives are like 40% which is more accurate.

[/QUOTE]

Well looks we agree on something. The Hashemites should go and their state should be the Palestinian state. Now how to make that happen......(PS The native population isn't exactly all that unique compared to the Palestinian Arabs)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Hmmm, funny because without US backing the world can really see the face of Islam which is the main reason not many Muslims are getting involved in this thread.
If people think Muslims wish to take back rightful land they are mistaken. This is the continuation of old grudges.

On the other hand I am all for the destabilization of Jordan and Saudia Arabiyyah

I agree; I view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the same way I view the Syrian conflict, or Godzilla VS Mothra... There is no "good" side to take, but the stronger one will win.

 

[PastorClark]

Have we been conquered by aliens and I just don't know it yet?

Maybe we did and maybe we are low grade aliens, that are trying to go back to our home planet.

Try that one next time the rent is due...

Okay so if i give you 1.3 million pieces of notebook paper to buy your 2013 Bugatti Veyron 16.4, would you take it. knowing you can't sell back the paper.

Not if you pay it off... You didn't build the computer you're using to so poorly argue your point; does it belong to the factory?

Actually i built the computer that i'm using, until i give it to my brother, and went and bought a laptop that i'm still paying for. So yes it's still owned by the factory.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Okay so if i give you 1.3 million pieces of notebook paper to buy your 2013 Bugatti Veyron 16.4, would you take it. knowing you can't sell back the paper.

Of course not, it's not money... Yes, I'm aware of how fractional reserve banking works and that there's no actual standard for the value of our money. That doesn't change the fact that money buys things and notebook paper doesn't.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Actually i built the computer that i'm using, until i give it to my brother, and went and bought a laptop that i'm still paying for. So yes it's still owned by the factory.

You built every piece yourself with metals you mined and plastic you refined; didn't just buy parts at a store and assemble the thing? Unless you were involved in every step of its construction, by the very logic you used to argue with me, you don't own it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

By the way, if you build your own house, the government can still take it from you if you don't pay your taxes... Doesn't mean you don't own your house

 

[PastorClark]

You built every piece yourself with metals you mined and plastic you refined; didn't just buy parts at a store and assemble the thing? Unless you were involved in every step of its construction, by the very logic you used to argue with me, you don't own it.

The computer itself is mine i built it, but no the hardware inside and out isn't my works. i have no legal rights over it. My Actual point is, is that we don't own anything on this planet, we wasn't here first and that is my original point. Now unless you can prove that we was here first, then i may stand down. But i'm sure science would agree with me that we wasn't here first, the ones that has more rights to the planet is the animals(non humans).

By the way, if you build your own house, the government can still take it from you if you don't pay your taxes... Doesn't mean you don't own your house

No the government cannot take it away from you, they don't own anything, they just say they do, take a look at the native reservation, they can't take their land because they don't own it. And taxes is nothing but horse shtako.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The computer itself is mine i built it, but no the hardware inside and out isn't my works. i have no legal rights over it. My Actual point is, is that we don't own anything on this planet, we wasn't here first and that is my original point. Now unless you can prove that we was here first, then i may stand down. But i'm sure science would agree with me that we wasn't here first, the ones that has more rights to the planet is the animals(non humans).

In the REAL WORLD, you do in fact have "legal rights" to the hardware in your computer, because you paid REAL money for it and it's REALLY in your possession. That makes it yours, just like everything I own is mine...

My point is that it doesn't matter who was here first. We are the superior life form on the planet right now, and can kill any animal that tries to take something from us. That means everything belongs to us... Until some super intelligent animal rises up and wipes out the entire human race, we own the planet.

No the government can't take it away from you, they don't own anything, they just say they do, take a look at the native reservation, they can't take their land because they don't own it. And taxes is nothing but horse shtako.

Ok, don't pay your taxes and see how long you keep your house. The Native American reservations are a completely different story; they're granted autonomy and are exempt from taxation. I'm guessing by your terrible grammar and general ignorance about the importance of money that you're not yet out of high school and live with your parents, but when you begin to pay your own bills you'll understand.

 

[PastorClark]

I'm guessing by your terrible grammar and general ignorance about the importance of money that you're not yet out of high school and live with your parents, but when you begin to pay your own bills you'll understand.

Do you really have to go so low to make yourself feel so superior then everyone else by attacking my flaws that i'm very aware of. You shouldn't make claims about someone that you don't even know. I live with my mother, because without me paying her bills she would be on the streets. I don't go to high school because one i'm 22 years old. And two the school systems wasn't doing any progress on helping me with my learning disabilities. So i starting learning how to work with computers and started learning how to spell and read. I taught myself how to read and spell, and also how to build and fix computers. I also taught myself how to build car engines and small engines. So if you don't get it by now i'm self taught.

And money as in paper money has no real value, real money as in gold, silver, nickel, copper and diamonds has real values. Paper money is just that paper. We have been conned into thinking paper money has value which in fact it has none.

We're not superior we're far from superior my friend, and plus i don't see a deed that said that this planet was given by so and so to humans. Trust me we're not alone in the universe, and if you think that we're the only planet with life in the whole universe. Then i can see that you're a very arrogant and self centered person. But is that really true my brother, i mean I can't know for sure because i don't know you, i only know of you on what you just commented.

Every head of not judging a book by its cover? Its the same with a person. I mean i could go all out and start calling you names and attacking your flaws, but what kind of person would i be if i done that. When someone starts attacking peoples flaws, it means they are trying to make themselves feel superior. Is this what you're trying to do here? i'm sure the rules on the forums says that you shouldn't call out members with name calling. In Which you're doing so in a coded message format.

 

[Flankerl]

It create an ever lasting hate. This is problematic

Thats a weird argument.
Okay so a dominant state of Israel creates hate on the arab side.

But if you make Palestine/the arab states dominant you create hate on the jewish side.


So either way there will be a disagreement.

 

[1robin]

If you look at a map of Israeli/Palestinian territory as of right now, I'd say the original deal went sour... I would have no problem had they kept to the spirit of their agreement, but as of now the Palestinians are on what are essentially reservations, with large gaps of Israeli territory in between them, which shuts down the building of any kind of community.

You are right the original deal went sour. That is specifically because the Palestinians refused to allow Israel one single inch of land. The deal was nullified but Israel still only occupied that which the deal gave them until they were attacked over and over again by the Palestinians and Israel's five incompetent neighbors armies. Israel whipped the aggressors and took some of the land used to launch the attacks against them and has occupied land where snipers have killed women and children from to stop the attacks. That is why Israel occupies addition land at the current time not because they without justification are taking lands from people who live peaceful with them.
If Israel knew no snipers, kidnappings, or terror attacks would be launched from these occupied areas they would gladly give them back.

Also, as more and more Jews move into Israel, these Palestinian areas are being destroyed to build new settlements and the Palestinians are moved to the other reservations in the area, which causes overcrowding and poor living conditions. I don't see how this is any different than the constructions of the ghettos during the Nazi occupation.

Nothing going on around Israel bears any resemblance to what happened in Germany. The Palestinian people own neighborhoods are not ghettos because they are forced to be such by the Jews. They are ghettos because the Palestinians turned them into ghettos. All these disputed lands are occupied for the reasons I gave above.

I'll concede this point. There have been Jews in Palestine for thousands of years, but in my opinion they are the only ones with any rights to the land; not Europeans who happen to follow the same religion.

Why are the descendants of people who owned the land but were forcibly removed not entitled to their ancestors lands? Are the people who simply moved onto land that was owned by people who were forcibly removed more entitled to it? Was not the original agreement the Palestinians rejected not the best possible solution to these issues? Could not the British who controlled the area at that time give the all the land back to the Jews if they wished?

I find it disturbing to believe that the people who live, and have lived for quite some time, in a certain area have no right to defend their homes from foreign invasion. If it was decided that the Native Americans could take their land back, and the powers that be demanded that you hand over your house, would you do it voluntarily and without fuss?

I am a native American (Cherokee) and Indians do not merit right of return. Most of the Indians especially in the mid west took the land by killing other Indians for it. They swooped down out of Canada and murdered their way all the way to Mexico a few years before the Europeans arrived. So if you want to equate the Palestinians to the Indians they deserve nothing. The white man's settling the territory was the best possible outcome. The same way Israel's use of the land has been extraordinarily more productive and valuable than it ever was under the Palestinians who simply moved into the area when the Jews were kicked out. I also personally regard the fact Israel has defeated their enemies who outnumbered them at times 20-1 with some of the most lopsided victories in history (even when they had three tanks, no air force, and no organized army)time after time as God's stamp of approval on the issue.

 

[1robin]

Palestine is just a word used to designated the rough area of Israel along with the bordering areas of Syria and Jordan. It is not an actual country but a territory then goes beyond Israel.
If Filistine is a country then Siberia is a nation

I agree. Palestine was a Roman word used to describe a geographical area not a nation. There has never been a distinct Palestinian language, nation, or even culture.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I agree. Palestine was a Roman word used to describe a geographical area not a nation. There has never been a distinct Palestinian language, nation, or even culture.

Filistine is nothing bt a name given to a territory and includes small fragments of Jordan, Egypt(Sinnai Desert), Lebanon and Syria. It is used to refer to the more hospitable land found in the Semitic territories

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You are right the original deal went sour. That is specifically because the Palestinians refused to allow Israel one single inch of land. The deal was nullified but Israel still only occupied that which the deal gave them until they were attacked over and over again by the Palestinians and Israel's five incompetent neighbors armies. Israel whipped the aggressors and took some of the land used to launch the attacks against them and has occupied land where snipers have killed women and children from to stop the attacks. That is why Israel occupies addition land at the current time not because they without justification are taking lands from people who live peaceful with them.
If Israel knew no snipers, kidnappings, or terror attacks would be launched from these occupied areas they would gladly give them back.



Nothing going on around Israel bears any resemblance to what happened in Germany. The Palestinian people own neighborhoods are not ghettos because they are forced to be such by the Jews. They are ghettos because the Palestinians turned them into ghettos. All these disputed lands are occupied for the reasons I gave above.

Why are the descendants of people who owned the land but were forcibly removed not entitled to their ancestors lands? Are the people who simply moved onto land that was owned by people who were forcibly removed more entitled to it? Was not the original agreement the Palestinians rejected not the best possible solution to these issues? Could not the British who controlled the area at that time give the all the land back to the Jews if they wished?


I am a native American (Cherokee) and Indians do not merit right of return. Most of the Indians especially in the mid west took the land by killing other Indians for it. They swooped down out of Canada and murdered their way all the way to Mexico a few years before the Europeans arrived. So if you want to equate the Palestinians to the Indians they deserve nothing. The white man's settling the territory was the best possible outcome. The same way Israel's use of the land has been extraordinarily more productive and valuable than it ever was under the Palestinians who simply moved into the area when the Jews were kicked out. I also personally regard the fact Israel has defeated their enemies who outnumbered them at times 20-1 with some of the most lopsided victories in history (even when they had three tanks, no air force, and no organized army)time after time as God's stamp of approval on the issue.

I've already made my point on all these issues. I would refer you to post 23 for my example. If I have a birth right to Navarre, then the Jews have a birth right to Israel. Fairly conquered land is fairly conquered land; anyone that claims a right to a certain area by blood is just plain pretentious. The only to claim a land as yours is to fight for it. If you want further explanations just read through the thread, I've made my arguments multiple times already.

On a side note, I'm also Cherokee (Eastern Band)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Do you really have to go so low to make yourself feel so superior then everyone else by attacking my flaws that i'm very aware of.

I never said I was superior to you, just that your grammar sucks.

And money as in paper money has no real value, real money as in gold, silver, nickel, copper and diamonds has real values. Paper money is just that paper. We have been conned into thinking paper money has value which in fact it has none.

Again if money had no value, you couldn't buy anything with it. Money has no STANDARD, but it still has VALUE because you can buy things with it, as I've already said. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Go to the grocery store and try to pay them with a gold chain, they'll look at you like you're crazy.

We're not superior we're far from superior my friend, and plus i don't see a deed that said that this planet was given by so and so to humans. Trust me we're not alone in the universe, and if you think that we're the only planet with life in the whole universe. Then i can see that you're a very arrogant and self centered person. But is that really true my brother, i mean I can't know for sure because i don't know you, i only know of you on what you just commented.

1)Name one animal that's capable of taking our homes from us and wiping out our species. If you can't, that definitely makes us superior.
2)I never said we were the only life in the universe, just the superior life form on Earth.

 

[Levite]

What gives them this right? Before 1946 the Palestinians had clearly conquered the land. I find this claim to be more than a little pretentious.

There has always been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. When the original majority of the Jewish People were forced to leave, it was not willingly. The Jews have been extraordinarily clear to all and sundry for the better part of a millennium and a half that the Land of Israel was their homeland, from which they had been forced, and to which they intended to one day return. The fact that for much of that time, our population was in the minority of residents, does not change the fact that we never relinquished our claim.

The Arab residents prior to 1948 hadn't conquered anything. They were subjects of the Ottoman Empire who simply happened to be living there. In many if not most cases, if they had simply agreed to become Israeli citizens, they would still be living there. They were offered a more than fair resolution to the issue of dividing the land by the UN in 1947: they rejected it. And when Israel achieved its independence, none of the Arab nations declared that there should be an independent nation called Palestine there, they simply said it was Arab land, and should be controlled by Arabs. The primary claims to it, as I recall, were made by King Farouk of Egypt and King Abdullah of Transjordan. And, indeed, those parts of the Land of Israel that remained in Arab hands after 1948 were not set up into an independent state called Palestine. They were declared parts of Jordan or Egypt. The "West Bank" was captured from Jordan in 1967, not from "Palestine." The Gaza Strip was captured from Egypt. The concept of a national identity called "Palestinian" was invented by Arab politicos and revolutionaries in the 1950s and 1960s. There were no "Palestinians" to conquer the Land. Anyone who happened to live in the Land of Israel, regardless of national or ethnic origin, was referred to as "Palestinian" prior to 1948. My Jewish stepmother, who was born in Petach Tikva under the British Mandate, has "Palestinian" on her birth certificate. The term has no meaningful historical significance as a political identity, and to suggest otherwise is both ludicrous and ignorant.