CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
As much research as I don't, I can not come up with one credible reason as to why a religion has the right to hold ownership of a land, over the people on that land...
The land has belonged to both parties innumerable times, so nobody has a legitimate claim to it.. Therefore, it BELONGS to those who can hold it. And, they HOLD it with guns.
If you call the Palestinians defending THEIR land a holy war, then so be it..
The Israelis should not be on that land and it is as simple as that. The man who delivered it to them was Churchill, and the only claim he had to the land was conquering it from the Otttoman empire. Most despicably of all, Israel was created on the back of one of the worst terrorist attacks in contemporary history, committed by Zionist terrorist organisation the Irgun, when they blew up the King David Hotel in Palestine, killing about 90 people.
Wow - talk about victim blaming - at the epicenter of the 'worst terrorist attack in contemporary history' and they don't even get a village to call home...
Wow - talk about victim blaming - at the epicenter of the 'worst terrorist attack in contemporary history' and they don't even get a village to call home...
Well actually no. By your very flaky definition of terrorism, atheist Russian peasants were at the epicenter of the worst terrorist attack in contemporary history. Stalin killed 7 million alone in the Ukrainian famine.
Should we give the Ukrainians America to make up for it? Yes, that sounds like a good idea. You have 24 hours to leave your homes and fuck off.
Obviously there is no easy solution to this matter. When land was appropriated from Muslims and given to Jews (for no good reason I might add) of course a violent struggle for ascendancy would result. Churchill could simply have permitted the Jews from the German empire to settle in western countries, or elsewhere within the British empire. Taking land from one group and giving it to another invariably engenders resentment and reactionary violence. There was no need for the Jewish homeland to be reinstated 1000+ years since it last existed, it simply seemed expedient at the time. Jews would not have faced persecution in, for example, America and England. Just over a million Jews had settled in Israel by 1949 (founded 1948), of which the majority were already in British Palestine! (Source 1). War immediately resulted (within 2 weeks!) from this transfer of land and since then has raged intermittently.
What's done is done though. The only manner to attain lasting peace is for Israel to give Palestine back some of what it has annexed. There is also the problem of checkpoints and the quality of land each state holds. I am not sure that even this will result in peace, however, as a great deal of resentment will remain. Moral of the story: don't take land from one group and give it to another group, especially when the groups have deep historical enmity between them and the land has religious significance to both!
Citizens of Israel can own land in Israel even if they are not Jewish. There are Muslim citizens who own land there. Judaism is the state religion of Israel. The Church of England is the state religion of the U.K.
Interesting. So how much land in Israel is not allowed to be built in because it is designated "holy land zones"? As I understand it, the reason for these zones are because theyre deemed to be cultural heritage sites, which ones of these do you feel should be built on?
If the distinction is so apparent that one must be cuckoo to not see it, then surely it will be easy for you to explain. Why is preserving natural beauty and history more valid than preserving land that is relevant to one of the worlds oldest religions?
Why is preserving natural beauty and history more valid than preserving land that is relevant to one of the worlds oldest religions?
Just what the fuck? The land belongs to the Palestinian people you crooked nosed twat. What exactly does your false dichotomy have to do with anything?
By all means, if you want to invoke legality than Israel IS occupying land it has no lawful right to and that is a fact, proven by countless UN resolutions which Israel has purposefully broken. Israel has had illegal possession of land since the six day war of 1967.
And it is a fact that Israel belongs to the Palestinians. If I come around and kick you out of your home, then give your house to someone else who hasn't lived there for 2,000 years, I'm guessing your views would be slightly different on the matter, you disingenuous cunt.
If you invade a country, and loose ground to them as a result, I think you lost it fair and square.
I think we were disputing the legality of it and you have made one of your spectacularly amusing attempts to change your own argument after the fact. The occupation of those territories is illegal under international law.
No more a fact than the fact than Spain belongs to the Iraqis.
What in the living fuck? Unless the Spanish invaded Spain in 1948 and kicked out all the Iraqis who were living there then it is considerably more of a fact than that. The Palestinians were living in what is now Israel until 1948, and were forcefully removed by an empire whose only right to the land came through military conquest.
No one alive today lost their land
Do you have any proof of this claim from a neutral (i.e. Non Jewish, Non Israeli) source?
Not that it matters of course. It's weird how you expect people to still be sad about the Holocaust, which happened even earlier than that, but the Palestinians who were robbed in 1948 can go fuck themselves, right?
From the humble beginnings of being abused you have mutated into the most abusive culture on the entire planet. You must be real proud.
The Caliphate had its center in Baghdad and its people lived in Spain among other places. But those people were ousted. Shouldn't they have it back?
International law has no jurisdiction in places it cannot where it is not enforceable because an unenforceable law is invalid.
The UN could ban guns as a matter of international policy tomorrow, but me having a gun would still be legal. If UN forces went into the Ivory Coast and was able to arrest every armed person, well it would be illegal there. World politics are anarchy.
The Caliphate had its center in Baghdad and its people lived in Spain among other places
Right. And since they moved out thousands of years ago, you have tried to compare that to the argument that the Palestinians own Israel. Except hang on a minute. You simultaneously claim that the Israelis own Israel because they moved out thousands of years ago! While the Palestinians only moved out sixty nine years ago! The very argument you use to support your own illegal occupation you use to mock the claim of the rightful owners. This is how pathetic and deceitful the Israeli right is.
International law has no jurisdiction
Just stop. We have already been over this. The UN has complete jurisdiction to tell Israel to get the fuck off other people's land. Either respect the facts or shut your lying mouth.
Before Israel owned it, the Brits did. And before them the Ottomans. It wasn't taken from the Jordanians/Palestinians. It was gifted from the Brits, that's why it belongs to them. And the Arabs haven't been ousted despite constant aggression, they even have Arab citizens.
You don't understand the philosophy of law. Some people writing some shit down is not sufficient to make actual law.
If you ever presented facts from which your arguments follow, and I just said your a liar, that wouldn't actually win me the argument. If I called you a cunt from behind my computer, I would be a coward, like any other keyboard warrior.
Can you please explain why you are repeating information I posted two hours ago? The Brits captured it through a military conquest. Since Britain has relinquished "ownership" of nearly all of its former territories, I fail to see why it shouldn't give this one back too. You guys are exactly like the kid who refuses to give back a stolen ball because a thief gave it to you and now you think you own it. Finder's keepers, losers weepers is the ideological argument for the existence of Israel.
You don't understand the philosophy of law
You are a convicted sex offender. You don't understand that no means no.
Some people writing some shit down is not sufficient to make actual law.
I'm fairly sure laws are written down, but thanks for your valuable input.
The land had belonged to the Ottomans and the Ottomans aren't here to give the land too. At best they would hand it over to Jordan, which had been all the same territory before.
You are a convicted sex offender. You don't understand that no means no
I suppose you think that by writing it down you've made it so.
I explained that two hours ago too. Is your cunning plan here to just parrot my own information back to me all night?
the Ottomans aren't here to give the land too.
Well that one is a grammatical clusterfuck, isn't it? Would you like to repeat that in Hebrew so I have a better chance of understanding what the fuck you mean?
I suppose you think that by writing it down you've made it so.
I think that every time you try to deflect the conversation with a random lie I'm going to parody it.
'natural beauty' would be up to your interpretation...
Wildlife, flora and fauna, is a reasonable preservation effort as it leads to our own continuing existence on the planet...lol.... E.g. No trees = No oxygen = You die. etc.
Didn't realize I had to explain this...
As for historical landmarks, well that falls down to the specific culture to which the landmark was preserved, I'm sure many cultures have differentiating views on what is a historical or religious landmark, and it would be there responsibility.
As for the question that this somehow gives a specific religion 'holy ground' over another. well clearly not, are you catching on?.... :)
Parks are often preserved for their beauty, not their oxygen (which is just as easily created by acres of farm crops).
As for the rest, the holy sites of Israel preserve land relevant to Jewish culture, which is tied to Jewish history and the Jewish religion. Are you catching on? Religion is typically a stronger cultural element for people than simple history.
Preservation on religious grounds is at least as valid or invalid as preservation for historical purposes. Furthermore, a religious site for Jews is almost always a religious site for Christians and is often a religious site for Muslims. Israel does not ban non-Jews from their Jewish holy sites. This means that Jewish holy sites are historical sites and are of important cultural relevance to more than just the Jews.
As for the rest, the holy sites of Israel preserve land relevant to Jewish culture, which is tied to Jewish history and the Jewish religion.
Lol. Oh, so you are a Zionist? That explains why you're such an absolutely massive liar then. By the way, I think you (deliberately) forgot to mention that the "holy sites of Israel" are also "relevant" to two other major world religions.
Preservation on religious grounds is at least as valid or invalid as preservation for historical purposes
Bullshit. Religion is stupid and has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people worldwide. Granted, it is a useful tool to indoctrinate and control people with, but since most of us have no interest in doing that to each other then it's pretty much useless to the rest of us.
You don't preserve land in the US for religious purposes because there is no state religion. But in Israel, where there state religion is Judaism, and their religion is inseparable from their culture and their history, they do. They don't ban anybody, as I've already indicated. Their religious sites are public land.
If you think they are evil for this, how evil would they be if they sold off their holy sites, tore down the Dome of the Rock, and caused WWIII?
Citizens of Israel can own land in Israel even if they are not Jewish. There are Muslim citizens who own land there.
Oh, you make it sound like such a wonderful place, Amarel. Except:-
"A Palestinian Health Policy Institute survey over two years recorded the deaths of seventy-three babies at 'military checkpoints, barriers and trenches' and found that many women facing difficult deliveries had no choice but to give birth at home with no medical help." (Pilger 2007, p127)
Two-thirds of the 621 children killed at checkpoints, in the street, on their way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half the cases to the head, neck and chest -- the sniper's wound. Two-thirds of the children were under fifteen. Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill the children in situations of minimal or no threat. These statistics attract far less publicity than suicide bombings." (Pilger 2007, p164-165, Quoting 2004 entry in the British Medical Journal.)
PILGER, J., 2007. Freedom next time. 2nd ed. Great Britain: Bantam press.*
I assume this post is meant to challenge the facts
No, it was meant to challenge your one-sided, biased rhetoric about Israel. Strange how you seem to have forgotten what rhetoric is since last night's conversation about it.
My rhetoric is based on facts and you have not refuted them. States preserve land for all kinds of reason. No one jumps on the states case unless the state is Jewish. Fancy that.