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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews.
If it wasn't for the Arab attack on the jews in 1948, the british mandate of palestine would have been divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state as per the UN plan. Pity they lauched an attack on the Jews which resulted in the latter's victory, followed by the creation of Israel. Not their fault the Arabs attacked them !
If I remember my 20th century history correctly, Britain "owned" the land which now makes up Israel. They, after WWII, either to give the Jews a place to be free or to keep the Jews from clogging up Britain, gave the land now known as Israel to the Jewish people. So long as Britain was in possession of the land, I see no reason why Britain ought not have been able to give the land away to anybody of their choosing; therefore, I believe that the Jews have a rightful claim to Israel.
I don't understand how you, a solipsist and a libertarian, would accept that Britain occupying Israel by military force gives it the right to give it ownership, or to give it to Israel. That judgement goes completely against what I would have expected you to answer.
Also, it's worth noting that Britain didn't give the land directly to Israel. Under Security Council Resolution 242, the lands were divided, Palestine having the Gaza strip & a significant portion of the West Bank, and Israel having the rest - Jerusalem was considered international land (only 55% of land area went to Israel). The Palestinians rejected this (why should their land be given away?), and so the two began a conflict that ended up driving the Palestinians out, and Israel essentially kept ownership from then onwards.
But the whole idea does bring up an interesting point. Where do you, as a Libertarian, feel that property ownership originates? It's quite a vital point to the Libertarian ideal.
I fail to see how my being a [latent] solipsist plays into this. If I were a hardcore solipsist I'd never leave that which I perceive as being my place of residence.
would accept that Britain occupying Israel by military force gives it the right to give it ownership, or to give it to Israel.
Strictly speaking, The United States of America was founded the same way.
Also, it's worth noting that Britain didn't give the land directly to Israel. Under Security Council Resolution 242, the lands were divided, Palestine having the Gaza strip & a significant portion of the West Bank, and Israel having the rest...
My Israeli history is not what it should be; but, the way that I see it, Palestine was under the control of Great Britain for some length of time before 1948. Britain gave that plot of land to the Jews and, the Palestinians being opposed, violence began some time later. The Six Days' War came in the late '60s and Israel defeated its enemies monumentally, reasserting their claim to ownership (in my uneducated mind, at least). Violence persisted and Israel has given up a great deal of land for peace, but the Islamists maintain that the whole region - having once been under Islamic occupation - must again be Muslim, and so they refuse to give up.
This brings me to an interesting point: the area has been under the dominion of many empires throughout history. There was once a Kingdom of Jerusalem; the Ottomans took over a while back; Britain came; Romans came, etc. Who has a valid claim after such a tumultuous history? How is the Ottomans' ownership any different than that of the British?
Where do you, as a Libertarian, feel that property ownership originates?
Couldn't say for sure. The question is too vague for me to feel comfortable answering with my opinion.
I fail to see how my being a [latent] solipsist plays into this.
I was simply using it as an example of how much you typically question authority and the status quo. It seemed out of character (of my perception of your character, obviously) for you to not do this in this example.
Strictly speaking, The United States of America was founded the same way.
There are definitely similarities. But I would hardly use USA as an example of moral integrity.
My Israeli history is not what it should be; but, the way that I see it, Palestine was under the control of Great Britain for some length of time before 1948. Britain gave that plot of land to the Jews and, the Palestinians being opposed, violence began some time later.
This is my main problem with your post. If you're accepting British ownership, and therefore Britiain's right to give its land to whoever it sees fit to, then 45% of Israel is illegally occupied land. Although I would agree with you that the wars fought on the land does give Israel some moral claim to what they don't legally have. Other than that, your history was accurate.
Who has a valid claim after such a tumultuous history? How is the Ottomans' ownership any different than that of the British?
To me, it is people that give claims. If the Palestinians had left Palestine & lived in Jordan or Lebanon (as many did), I don't believe there would be Palestinian attempts at statehood. That's why I would not claim that Palestine should gain its entire land mass back, the Israeli people do occupy much of it. But at the same time, Palestine is deserving of its own land, its own statehood.
I have never got into this idea, but Israel's policies somewhat reflect this. Its settlements put its people on 'Palestine's land', and its wall keeps Palestinians from taking back land. Both of these play on this emotional and illogical sense of ownership.
But I would hardly use USA as an example of moral integrity.
Still, the USA is quite the example.
If you're accepting British ownership, and therefore Britiain's right to give its land to whoever it sees fit to, then 45% of Israel is illegally occupied land.
I'm unfamiliar with this. Please explain.
Although I would agree with you that the wars fought on the land does give Israel some moral claim to what they don't legally have.
Haven't they legally a claim through Britain?
But at the same time, Palestine is deserving of its own land, its own statehood.
Why?
and its wall keeps Palestinians from taking back land.
And it keeps Palestinians from suicide bombing the people of Israel.
Resolution 242, the first UN resolution passed on Israel-Palestine, was proposed by the British delegate to the Security Council just before Britain left what is now Israel. It supported splitting the country into two states, where Israel would be 55% of what it is today, and Palestine would be 45%. Palestinians refused to give Israel 55%, and were driven out of their country. Therefore, what the Israeli's took from Palestine, 45% of what is today Israel, is illegally occupied land.
Haven't they legally a claim through Britain?
In this instance, I'm referring to the 45% that would legally be Palestines.
Why?
It has just as much a legal claim as Israel. It has just as much of a moral claim, or more, as its people have occupied the land for over a hundred years, and been oppressed. The people have a right to self-determination, as opposed to oppression. Why not?
And it keeps Palestinians from suicide bombing the people of Israel.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not I agree with the wall, simply using it as an example. But as far as I'm aware, it's more shooting RPG's and such at Israel than suicide bombing.
Palestinians refused to give Israel 55%, and were driven out of their country.
Correction: The Jews in British Mandate had declared the state of Israel as per the UN partition plan to which the Palestinians disagreed and along with four other countries and many supporters launched an attack on them. The result - Israel captured the other 50% land which was allotted to the Arabs as per the partition plan. Fair result in a war.
Well that's just wrong. The UN Partition Plan was based on the idea of a two state solution. Yes, the Palestinians disagreed, but it was never the Jewish peoples decision to make, to take what was given to the Palestinians. The result - Israel captured the other 50% land which was allotted to the Arabs as per the partition plan. Fair result in a war.
If you believe Israel's best claim to the land is when it took it from the Arabs, I'm amazed that you're still defending it.
"But at the same time, Palestine is deserving of its own land, its own statehood.
Why?"
So, I take it that you subscribe to a tribalist morality that at its core lacks any real objectivity and effectively alters the definitions of right and wrong to mean whatever behavior members of your tribe exhibit. In essence, what you subscribe to is easily reducible to the principle of might makes right, which of course is a challenge for anyone to undermine your countries (or Isreals) supposed "might", and you can be sure there is no shortage of contenders in the world today for that proposition.
The world is overwhelmingly in favour of right of Palestian self determination, why aren't you?
"And it keeps Palestinians from suicide bombing the people of Israel."
Why not educate yourself on the topic before spouting pro-zionist propaganda.
America is the greatest (in terms of power) nation in the world. They are precedent setting.
So, I take it that you subscribe to a tribalist morality that at its core lacks any real objectivity and effectively alters the definitions of right and wrong to mean whatever behavior members of your tribe exhibit.
No.
I suppose that you could say that, at my core, I believe that morality is a human construct without any real bearing. I don't change my morals to accommodate the crimes of my "tribe"; my notion of morality remains the same until I undergo a "paradigm shift" in my thought processes, something which has only happened once: about a decade ago when I became a libertarian.
The world is overwhelmingly in favour of right of Palestian self determination, why aren't you?
Argumentum ad populum.
Why not educate yourself on the topic before spouting pro-zionist propaganda.
Why not read what I actually write before accusing me of spouting "pro-zionist propaganda". I explicitly mentioned that I am far from as knowledgeable about Israeli modern history than I should like to be; don't assume, though, that my lack of education in this area (which is still greater than that of most people, I take it) is responsible for my stance. Nobody has a "right" to the land, as I see it; however, the fact that it was under British domination for a time before it was given to the Jews gives credence to the Jews' claim.
"America is the greatest (in terms of power) nation in the world. They are precedent setting."
Yes, but why does that matter as an example? What argument does it serve?
"I believe that morality is a human construct without any real bearing."
This interpretation of morality is most certainly popular among nihilists, i.e. "Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes."
Although, Nihilism and Solipism are most certaintly conflicting ideologies, and since I have seen you profess to being a solipsist, how do you reconcile this?
"Argumentum ad populum."
No, if you re-read it you'll see it was actually a question, in order for it to be fallacious the logic of the statement would be need to read:
"The world is overwhelmingly in favour of right of Palestian self determination, therefore you are wrong not to be in favour of right of Palestian self determination."
That's argumentum ad populum, I think your trigger happy finger was a little too icthy there, I'm asking you by what reasoning you disregard the international consensus, and more importantaly, international law. If you don;t subscribe to a tribalistic morality, then what is the reason?
"Nobody has a "right" to the land, as I see it; however, the fact that it was under British domination for a time before it was given to the Jews gives credence to the Jews' claim."
Again, at the risk of sounding repetitve, it seems to me the only way one can hold that position (unless one is quite ignorant of the history) is to adopt a tribalistic morality that equates might with right, if you can present me with a viable alternative to this, I would very much like to see it.
I understand your nihilistic morality allows you to be apathetic to the whole thing, but if that was that was really the case, why did you come and post in favour of Isreal?
Yes, but why does that matter as an example? What argument does it serve?
If you are going to argue that the Jews ought to cede Israel back to the Palestinians, then you ought likewise to argue that Americans ought to cede America back to the Natives thereof.
Although, Nihilism and Solipism are most certaintly conflicting ideologies, and since I have seen you profess to being a solipsist, how do you reconcile this?
I disagree that "moral nihilism" is incompatible with solipsism. As a solipsist, I disbelieve the "fact" that you are in existence; you exist in my mind, but you are not in existence as far as I can know. How can I believe that there is a "greater morality" if I don't believe in anything but my own existence?
No, if you re-read it you'll see it was actually a question, in order for it to be fallacious the logic of the statement would be need to read:
I meant that the implication is in line with argumentum ad populum.
I'm asking you by what reasoning you disregard the international consensus, and more importantaly, international law.
Because I am my own moral agent; I decide what is and is not right for myself and, based on all the information to which I am privy, have decided for myself what I believe to be the correct position on this issue.
is to adopt a tribalistic morality that equates might with right, if you can present me with a viable alternative to this, I would very much like to see it.
As I attempted to argue previously, were not the Jews there thousands of years ago? A few hundred years ago came the Ottomans, and then about a hundred years ago came the Brits. What makes the Jewish claim (by way of Britain and their own history in the region) any more valid than the claim by the Muslims, primarily by way of the Ottoman Empire?
"If you are going to argue that the Jews ought to cede Israel back to the Palestinians,"
Isreal is what is, what has been has been done, I am favour of granting the Palestians the contiguous state they most certainly deserve, based on UN 242, it doesn't require any Isrealis to leave, it more than likely won't even require the majority of the illegal settlers to leave (see argument to Ben on other side).
"then you ought likewise to argue that Americans ought to cede America back to the Natives thereof."
Well, American settlers did a pretty good job of wiping American Indians out, but of the ones that still exist, yes, I am emphatically in favour of them being granted more independence, the most notable examples are the Cherokee and also the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma who sent more than $710 (about 1 million dollars today) to help Irish famine victims.
"I meant that the implication is in line with argumentum ad populum."
Not really, I'm asking you why you don't agree with the consensus, in doing so I fully acknowledge that you may be right, but somehow I think it has more to do with you being American than anything else.
"Because I am my own moral agent; I decide what is and is not right for myself "
So your belief is based on self interest inasmuch as you beleive holding such a position is advantageous for you as an individual, again, this argument is can be distilled to tribalism.
"As I attempted to argue previously, were not the Jews there thousands of years ago?"
That is pathetic argument, firstly, if the 3,000 year old ancestors of the people that lived where you currently do came back telling you to get off their land, I doubt you'd view that legal or moral justification, secondly, most Isrealis are not the actual descendants of the Isrealites of the bible, that is a myth intentionally propagated by the American right wing in order to engender religious fanatacism to the cause among the Christian right.
"A few hundred years ago came the Ottomans, and then about a hundred years ago came the Brits"
Again, theses are the views of person who doesn't see any problem equating might with right.
"What makes the Jewish claim (by way of Britain and their own history in the region) any more valid than the claim by the Muslims, primarily by way of the Ottoman Empire?"
Nothing, but just in the same way I wouldn't agree to forcing all the Protestants who live in Northern Ireland their off the land they stole from my ancestors, I'm not going to agree to the Palestians being wiped out, and neither will the rest of the world, I can assure you.
Good to see you're still 100% present behind the racist aparthied zionist regime currently in government in Isreal.
I suppose you were crestfallen when racial segregation in South Africa ended, and you're probably still heart broken that those "dam'ned niggers" don't have to sit at the back of bus.
Also it is God's people and God will protect Isreael if Iran tries to attack them.
I'd pay to watch, from afar. I'm sure you'd recant and then tell me that God will take all his Israelis to heaven with him when theyre killed by missiles and gunfire. But I'm not saying they'd lose, no, they would win. They have a very adept army, with plenty of nuclear warheads -- all of which are undeclared.
"lso it is God's people and God will protect Isreael if Iran tries to attack them"
Firstly, Isreal are the ones threatening Iran with attack, not the other way round, also, you actually think God will send a few lighting bolts (ala Zeus) Tehrans way in the event of war. Hmmm? I guess the Americans won't need to intervene.
Actually I have followed this story for awhile now and it really is Iran that is threatening Israel to wipe them off the map. That is why they have nuclear capassabilities because they are going to make nuclear weapons and once they are done they are going to attack Israel
Actually I have followed this story for awhile now and it really is Iran that is threatening Israel to wipe them off the map
Source?
That is why they have nuclear capassabilities because they are going to make nuclear weapons and once they are done they are going to attack Israel
Other way round. Israel has been attacking Palestine for decades. They have been forcibly evicting innocent people without consequence thanks to Uncle Sam. Israel already has 300 NUKES!
It wasnt so much Iran as Iran's insane president, and it seems to be up for interpretation. He either said something along the lines of 'wipe them off the map,' or 'the state will eventually collapse.'
Israel has been attacking Palestine for decades.
Most of the Arab/Israeli wars were started by the Arabs. Of those that weren't, many were enacted by the Israeli Defense in response to terrorist attacks. And lets be clear, Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, and they will never be happy with a peaceful settlement as their goal is the extermination of Jews. Terrorist methods, terrorist mission.
And while i cant agree with the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their own land, I also cant agree with how the Arab governments are reacting to the situation. Instead of providing refuge, as you'd think a 'Muslim Brotherhood' ought to, Arab apartheid (evicting, ghettoizing, and denying citizenship) against Palestinians worsens and prologues the situation, allowing the refugee camps to continue to garner sympathy for the cause.
And hearing there are more nukes in the world always makes me sad, but i would rather Israel, a modern democracy and leader in the world of science, technology, and medicine, have nukes than literally any other country in the Middle East today, as charming a group of barbaric theocracies they can be. Don't you agree?
"Actually I have followed this story for awhile now and it really is Iran that is threatening Israel to wipe them off the map."
The infamous "wipe Isreal off the map" statement made by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia could easily run as the most widely and intentionally misconstrued statement in history.
That statement has been used by all sides on the West to demonise Iran in order to eventually justify killing innocent Iranians.
The phrase he used was: "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود", which translates to: ""the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.""
This was subsequently changed to 'wipe Israel off the map.'
Even though this has long since been cleared up, and Ahmadinejad completely absolved of making any such threat against isreal, the meme still perists, and is continually perpetuated in order to serve the official narrative against Iran.
You are evidence of the power of proganda in being able to create truth from lies.
Even if I did prove to you God exists and gave you all the evidence I have you probably would say that all the evidence that I had was not true and you won't accecpt the fact that God exists. Also you probably even if I did tell you about how God exists it will have no value to you. So there is no point of telling you God exists when you won't accept the evidence that I would give you, it the same old atheist way that all of the atheists do if I give evidence they claim that isn't evidence that is why I don't proove God exists because it is a waste of words to me and all that work I did went down the drain
Even if I did prove to you God exists and gave you all the evidence I have you probably would say that all the evidence that I had was not true and you won't accecpt the fact that God exists
I'm not as close minded as you seem to think. All I want is irrefutable evidence that your God is the true one. If I look up tonight and see written in the stars "I, the Christian God, am real", I would probably believe he exists. Unfortunately this is unlikely to say the least, so you have to give evidence to support your view.
Also you probably even if I did tell you about how God exists it will have no value to you.
I wouldn't fall to my knees and worship him, no. But I would accept his existence.
. So there is no point of telling you God exists when you won't accept the evidence that I would give you, it the same old atheist way that all of the atheists do if I give evidence they claim that isn't evidence that is why I don't proove God exists because it is a waste of words to me and all that work I did went down the drain
It is not a waste of time, because it is the crux of your argument! You're trying to justify Israel's actions based on religious grounds. But to do this, you must first prove that the religion is true. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
'Even if I did prove to you God exists and gave you all the evidence I have you probably would say that all the evidence that I had was not true and you won't accept the fact that God exists.
I'm not as close minded as you seem to think. All I want is irrefutable evidence that your God is the true one.'
It says on your profile you're from India, you sound like an American neo-con. Let's examine what you said.
Now, you seem to be quite ignorant of history, firstly the land belonged to Palestine, therefore, Britain had no right to give it away. The original Balfour Declaration (1917) promised a homeland for the Jews without encroaching on the territory of non-Jewish people, Britain liked the idea of creating a nice little Jewish colony or Jewish "Northern Ireland" (if you will) in the areas within which they still ruled, but they had no right to give that land away. It would have been equivalent to the British giving Ireland to the Jews, and forcing out all the Irish Catholics.
Now, this policy eventually backfired when the British tried to put a limit on the number of Jews that could successfully emigrate (the white paper), this resulted in the formation of Jewish terrorist groups that routinely attacked the British empire, when this became too much, the British turned the problem over to the UN (1947), it decided to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state (see video), the Jews accepted this, the Arabs did not. The reason they did not should be immediately apparent to anyone with a functioning brain, i.e. IT WAS THEIR LAND
There was simply no way to create a Jewish state without carrying out ethnic cleansing of the local population. This simple slice of history seems to have somehow been forgotten (or intentionally obfuscated) in the wake of the infinite superfluity of pro-Zionist propaganda (that nearly always has virtually zero truth value) that has been unleashed on the world since. This resulted in the 1948 war.
BTW don't give me the: "It was their land originally" defence, I highly doubt your ancestors from 3,000 years ago lived where you currently do, and I doubt if the ancestors of the people that did live where you currently do came back to claim what they believed was their land you'd be amenable to the idea of giving it up.
Also, please don't give that me that overzealous BS that the land belongs to the Jews cause it says so in the bible, God (if he exists, and that's a big fucking if) is not a real estate agent, and the bible is not his fiduciary relationship with his clients.
Something worth noting, in 1917 when the Balford declaration was announced, the global Zionist movement was miniscule relative to all other Jewish movements, and it most certainly wasn't religious. Most Jews were leftists, and didn't actually want to move to Palestine (it's true). Most didn't want to have to be pushed out of the homes they had made for themselves around the world.
I would love if Israel could abandon their racist apartheid regime, and actually extend an olive branch to their neighbours. Ideally, I would love to see a one state settlement with Israelis and Arabs living together as equals, the idea of having a solely Jewish state is repulsive to me, it has led to a racist apartheid regime, and a rogue extremist state (Israel), the ongoing slow genocide against the Palestinians, and the discrimination and restriction of equal right for non-Jewish (i.e. Arabs) Israelis. However, you have to be pragmatic, and realise that this is a long way from becoming attainable (if at all).
There will not be peace in Palestine until the Jews give the Palestians their dignity back. I am in favour of two state settlement based on pre-1967 borders, and UN 242. No justice, no peace, no justice, no peace!!!!!!!!!
Out of interest, how do you support both the 67 & 242 borders? 67 only goes further into Palestine, and 242 should have been the original basis for borders, anything less is simply accepting Israel's misdemeanour's. There might only be slight changes on a map, but those are thousands of square kilometres more of illegally taken land we're talking about.
"Out of interest, how do you support both the 67 & 242 borders? 67 only goes further into Palestine, and 242 should have been the original basis for borders"
You seem to think there is some conflict between UN resolution 242 and 67 borders, I'm not aware of any, UN242 is the formula that makes the land acquired in the June 1967 war illegal, and thus makes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and (to a lesser extent since the withdrawl) Gaza occupied Palestian territory. And also includes within it's framework a just settlement to the refugee question in order to compensate those who forced out of their native land.
"anything less is simply accepting Israel's misdemeanour's. There might only be slight changes on a map, but those are thousands of square kilometres more of illegally taken land we're talking about."
Now I understand your confusion. You see, a return to the June 1967 borders is exactly what is called for in UN 242, but the interpretation of what constitutes a return to pre-June 67' borders has been a controversial topic ever since Moshe Dayan claimed it allowed for "territorial revision." This was, in effect, a devious way of trying to secure much of the land they had acquired in the war by annexing large segments of the West Bank (in particular), and thus preventing the creation of Palestian state, at least anything that could be called a state.
UN 242: "the consensus interpretation of Resolution 242, making allowance for only "minor" and "mutual" adjustments on the irregular border between Israel and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank."
The key word there is mutual, as in, Isreal cannot keep any land without full Palestian agreement, but the Palestians have been extraordinarily flexible on this issue, they are willing to grant Isreal the right to keep the majority of their settlements which constitute approximately 2-3% of the occupied territory, but as long as they get land of equal size, and crucially, of equal quality, in return.
Source: Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York: 1995)
Now, this Isreali view point was largely dismissed and deplored internationally until the US shifted their position on Isreal, i.e. "In a crucial shift beginning under the Nixon-Kissinger administration, however, American policy was realigned with Israel's.Except for Israel and the United States (and occasionally a US client state), the international community has consistently supported, for the past quarter-century, the "two-state" settlement: that is, the full Israeli withdrawal/full Arab recognition formula as well as the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel."
Source: Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle (Boston: 1983), pp. 65-6.
Since then the issue has become clounded in myth and propaganda, and when people in the West refer to 67' borders it is highly unliklely they are taking about faithfully adopting the framework set out in UN 242, that's why you here statements in the Western media referring to "a two state settlement that is today's consensus", i.e. the consensus of Isreal and the US
Ya, I probably would to given that they're being unequivocailly backed by the worlds only hyperpower. How do you think they won the 6 day the war, I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with the US sending one of the largest consignement's of military aid in history, oh wait, that wasn't a hint.
Islamic regimes don't know the first thing about justice or peace. If the Israelis conceded or compromised it would assure neither of these things.
I can agree with about 90% of your post, but you seem to have fallen for the lie of the Religion of Peace. Pro-Palestinian propaganda would love to paint the Palestinians as passive victims and have us believe this is purely about territory, and, like all good lies, this has an element of truth. But they've omitted the fact that this is as much about Islamic Jew-hatred as it is anything else. For that reason a two-state solution will forever be impractical. At least for as long as the Palestinian cause is led by hate-mongers and terrorists.
But, like i said, you're quite right about the territorial issues, and it's all valid and well-crafted. Up-vote for you.
The Islamic-Jewish hatred is entirely caused by Israel (as in the occupation of land). There would be lingering tension between the two cultures, but it would quickly dissipate, especially if part of the deal was a peace treaty (which there most definitely would be). Muslims have no real problem with Judaism as a religion, they are simply against anyone taking land from their 'brothers', and this is what they perceive Israel to have done.
Muslims have no real problem with Judaism as a religion, they are simply against anyone taking land from their 'brothers', and this is what they perceive Israel to have done.
I tried to express that i am aware that Muslims, those that aren't taught from childhood in Islamic schools to hate Jewish "pigs," can have peaceful attitudes towards Jews. The problem on that score is corrupt Palestinian leadership.
How do you explain anti-Jewish crimes, genocides, and discriminatory acts that predate the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? Indeed, doesn't it say something about the Muslim attitude towards Jews before the creation of Israel that the leader of religious practices in Jerusalem was a friend and ally of Hitler? And that the Muslim world produced Islamic recruits for the SS around that time?
I have no doubt that the creation of Israel inflamed things, but it didnt start the fire. Religious hatred did.
I haven't researched pre-1900 violence against Jews too much, so before I look like an idiot, was it before 1900 (when Jews started coming to what we now know as Palestine), or before 1947 (when Jews got their own state)? Because both are significant dates, but Jews had a significant enough majority (and power) in the area that I'd still guess the main factor was land & occupation, rather than religion.
firstly the land belonged to Palestine, therefore, Britain had no right to give it away.
The British RULED Palestine and of course they can give it to anyone they feel like. You know about how colonization and occupation has worked for centuries? If not, then it's you who is ignorant of history. The British divided the land into two - one for Jews and one for Arabs. They didn't give the entire land to the Jews.
The reason they did not should be immediately apparent to anyone with a functioning brain, i.e. IT WAS THEIR LAND
By the way, didn't your United states of America belong to the native Americans (Indians) and Australia to the 'stolen generations' ? It was THEIR land. Did they have any choice?
BTW don't give me the: "It was their land originally" defense,
No I won't give that defense. I am against that defense myself.
Also, please don't give that me that overzealous BS that the land belongs to the Jews cause it says so in the bible, God
I don't believe in the bible and I don't believe in any of your Abraham religions.
I would love if Israel could abandon their racist apartheid regime, and actually extend an olive branch to their neighbors.
The neighbors who collectively attacked them thrice ?
There will not be peace in Palestine until the Jews give the Palestians their dignity back. I am in favour of two state settlement based on pre-1967 borders
There won't be any peace until Palestines and the rest of the world recognize the state of Israel. It is a land won by the Jews in a war, the same kind of war that has led to the formation of every country in this world. Tell me, which country today is NOT formed by occupation or capture succeeding a war? If the state of Israel is recognized, then only Israel will give back the illegally occupied lands and that would bring peace. I don't think there's any other way out.
"The British RULED Palestine and of course they can give it to anyone they feel like. "
The British also RULED India, does the same logic apply in that example?
"You know about how colonization and occupation has worked for centuries? If not, then it's you who is ignorant of history."
No, I'm not ignorant of history or international law.
"By the way, didn't your United states of America belong to the native Americans (Indians)"
I'm Irish.
"It was THEIR land. Did they have any choice?"
No.
"No I won't give that defense. I am against that defense myself."
Well I'm glad you are, because even if someone actually thought that was a viable defence, the fact is, if the lineage of most Isreal Jews was traced back 3,000 yrs, not many of their roots would correspond to Palestine.
"I don't believe in the bible and I don't believe in any of your Abraham religions."
Again, just trying to pre-empt the usual neo-con responses.
"The neighbors who collectively attacked them thrice ?"
Actually, I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of wars and conflicts that have transpired since the establishment of the state of Isreal were intentionally initiated by it.
"There won't be any peace until Palestines and the rest of the world recognize the state of Israel."
The world has already recognised the state of Isreal, and even Hamas, the most extreme representative of the Palestians has acknowledged the reality of the state, and please don't give me the: "they must recognise the right of the state of Isreal to exist."
No state in mankinds history has ever had to recognise the right of another to exist, even Gandhi said: "I will acknowledge the existence of a Pakistani state, I will never recognise it's right to exist."
The zionist created the "Palestinians need to acknowledge our right to exist" defence in order to counter the increasingly moderate peace offensive of the PLO, they did so knowing full well nobody would submit to such a declaration, what they were effectively asking was, you need to acknowlegde our right to rob you of your lives, homeland, and dignity. It infuriates me when I here idiotic Americans use that defence as if it has merit.
"It is a land won by the Jews in a war, "
UN 242 states clearly that any territory acquired by war is inadmissable by law.
"Tell me, which country today is NOT formed by occupation or capture succeeding a war?"
Why do you think the UN was orginally formed?
"If the state of Israel is recognized, then only Israel will give back the illegally occupied lands and that would bring peace."
It's quite apparent to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, the entire world has recognised the state, and ones that haven't have made assurances to do so in the event that Isreal ceases its expansionist policy, and abides by international law.
The British also RULED India, does the same logic apply in that example?
In fact, that WAS applied in India. It was divided into India and Pakistan. Nobody blames British for dividing the country and for the displacement of 12.5 million people and death of about a million.
Actually, I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of wars and conflicts that have transpired since the establishment of the state of Isreal were intentionally initiated by it
That's subjective. Whichever side you see from, the other will look guilty to you.
Why do you think the UN was orginally formed?
UN divided the Mandate of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, just like they divided India into a Hindu state and a Muslim state. It was the Arabs who disobeyed the UN and attacked the Jews along with the neighbouring Arab countries. They disobeyed, went on war, lost it and had to let go of their land. Their mistake, they face the repurcursions, their problem.
UN 242 states clearly that any territory acquired by war is inadmissable by law.
Fair enough.
A. It was in 1967 and shouldn't be applicable for lands acquired before 1967.
B. Apparently Israel is disobeying the law by UN just like the Arabs did in 1948. Not that its okay, but well neither of them, Israel and Palestine, are innocent.
It's quite apparent to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, the entire world has recognised the state,
You took the words 'the state of Israel is recognized' too literally. I presumed you would understand it actually meant not blaming Israel for apparently 'robbing palestines of their lives, homeland and dignity'
In fact, that WAS applied in India. It was divided into India and Pakistan. Nobody blames British for dividing the country and for the displacement of 12.5 million people and death of about a million.
That's a strawman argument. That partition left the citizens in control of their own land, the occupiers simply decided on the borders. Palestinian land is still officially controlled by the Israelis. And I blame the British, they could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives with little effort. It was neither morally or legally correct.
That's subjective. Whichever side you see from, the other will look guilty to you.
Who starts a war is subjective?
UN divided the Mandate of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, just like they divided India into a Hindu state and a Muslim state. It was the Arabs who disobeyed the UN and attacked the Jews along with the neighbouring Arab countries. They disobeyed, went on war, lost it and had to let go of their land. Their mistake, they face the repurcursions, their problem.
When you say Arabs, you don't mean Palestinians? Because they didn't attack, it was the neighbouring countries. So, even if your logic is morally correct & agrees with your previously stated opinions on land acquisition, it doesn't apply.
A. It was in 1967 and shouldn't be applicable for lands acquired before 1967.
Remember that the word 'acquired' is in the past tense, meaning that it does apply retrospectively.
B. Apparently Israel is disobeying the law by UN just like the Arabs did in 1948. Not that its okay, but well neither of them, Israel and Palestine, are innocent.
If they are both in the wrong, why is it Israel who has their own state, while the Palestinians do not? If they are equally wrong, why do you support Israel? Why do Israeli's get to try and enforce a one state solution, where Palestinians even asking to rule themselves, and be free of direct interference, get killed?
You took the words 'the state of Israel is recognized' too literally. I presumed you would understand it actually meant not blaming Israel for apparently 'robbing palestines of their lives, homeland and dignity'
So Israel will give back Palestine if it loves Israel? That's hardly consistent with countries policies, either written or in action.
And do you also deny that Israel has robbed Palestinians of their lives, their homeland, or their dignity? I feel that much is undeniable.
That partition left the citizens in control of their own land, the occupiers simply decided on the borders.
Same would have happened in Israel-Palestine if not for 1948 war. The situation today is not the same because of the 1948 war where Jews took control of the Palestine land as well as the land given to them, after winning the war.
Who starts a war is subjective?
That wasn't what my comment meant. But anyways, Jews aren't responsible for starting the war.
When you say Arabs, you don't mean Palestinians? Because they didn't attack, it was the neighbouring countries.
Why would the Arabs risk their lifes and attack Jews if not for the supposed rights of Palestinians. And yeah Palestinians are Arabs. The ethnic group called 'Arabs' includes Palestinians.
If they are equally wrong, why do you support Israel?
I support the right of Israel to exist along with the Palestinians land it has occupied in 1948 as it's own. If Pakistan attacks India and the latter win the war, it has every right to occupy the former's land and never give it back.
Same would have happened in Israel-Palestine if not for 1948 war. The situation today is not the same because of the 1948 war where Jews took control of the Palestine land as well as the land given to them, after winning the war.
Except Pakistan & India didn't look to invade, they simply disagreed over Kashmir. It's a completely different situation. And no, it's definitely not the same, but that doesn't explain why you support Israel.
That wasn't what my comment meant. But anyways, Jews aren't responsible for starting the war.
They were responsible for being there, the original cause for the war. They were responsible for assassinations before partition, of major Palestinian leaders. And they were responsible for pre-48 riots. I agree that they didn't throw the first punch in the '48 fighting, but there's a lot they are responsible for, throughout history.
Why would the Arabs risk their lifes and attack Jews if not for the supposed rights of Palestinians. And yeah Palestinians are Arabs. The ethnic group called 'Arabs' includes Palestinians.
Anyone who's studied that war comes to the conclusion that it was for their own gain. 'Arabs' are not one group, that's like saying all white people are on the same team. The neighbouring countries (Syria, Jordan and Egypt) all attacked Israel, and looked to control Palestinian land, so they could gain it themselves. There are no signs that they looked to return it to Palestinian control. The Palestinians themselves are mostly free of blood in that fight, Israel are not, they defended themselves (legitimately), then attacked and invaded Palestinian land - this is where I have a problem with their conduct.
I support the right of Israel to exist along with the Palestinians land it has occupied in 1948 as it's own. If Pakistan attacks India and the latter win the war, it has every right to occupy the former's land and never give it back.
So you don't support the right of Palestine to exist? Why? What has it done?
-
Also, I'd like you to explain why Israel should be exempted from these issues:
The killing of about 1000 citizens, and intentitive destruction of tens of thousands of houses, and other forms of infrastructure, in the 2006 conflict against Lebanon.
The assassination of Hamas & PLO leaders, which have often disrupted ceasefires.
Unreasonable attitudes towards negotiations.
The wall it's built around much of Palestine (most of which goes over the 242 borders).
It's settlements, most of which is built on privately own Palestinian land, and often on Arab-Israeli's land.
The britishers (colonizers) let them in. You find whites living in Australia, South Africa as well. If there was such a war in Aus and SA, between the natives and the whites, would you say the same? That these whites are responsible for being there?
but there's a lot they are responsible for, throughout history.
Who isn't? If you talk about history, whites have done the most damage to the world by colonizing, occupying, plundering cities and countries.
Anyone who's studied that war comes to the conclusion that it was for their own gain
Fair enough.
then attacked and invaded Palestinian land - this is where I have a problem with their conduct.
That's what has happened throughout history. Empires won wars and captured lands. I am not saying what Israel did was right or what it did was wrong. Even if I think it is right since it was the Arab countries which attacked the jewish group first, but yeah, it was for their own selfish motive. Palestinians paid for it!. But I accept it as it is, because then, that's not the first time this has happened in mankind's history...
Also, I'd like you to explain why Israel should be exempted from these issues:
Before that care to explain why nobody blames America for butchering thousands of citizens in Afganistan and Iraq? Even recently 17 afghan citizens, some of them children, were killed. Why Israel is pinpointed everytime for attacking Palestine when in many cases it is Palestine which attacks first with rockets and Israel just retaliated to their attacks?
"If it wasn't for the Arab attack on the jews in 1948, the british mandate of palestine would have been divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state as per the UN plan. Pity they lauched an attack on the Jews which resulted in the latter's victory, followed by the creation of Israel. Not their fault the Arabs attacked them!"
Under that thought then doesn't Tibet rightfully belong to China???
Also why did the UN (which was then mostly controlled by US, Britain, and France) have the right to control who get which land?
The reason Jews keep trying to claim Palestine is because of their constant discrimination. the US government kind of didn't want the Jews. And this isn't only Jewish occupation, it is Zionist occupation. And do you have any idea what is happening to the Palestinian children?
well Zionism is basically Jewish nationalism or extremism and lots of Jews are anti-Zionists. This extremism can lead to many immoral acts. So because they are such nationalists they would want to take over other territories and change the ways of life which would explain the crimes being committed against the Palestinian people.
I know what is Zionism. What I am asking is why you say it's Zionist occupation and what is it that is 'immoral'. Also, which territories you talking of? The ones occupied illegally (not in wars) or the state of Israel itself?
I dont see how Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews. It's one of the most contested territories in history, and it was held by Arabs for a long span of time before the Western world carved it up out of sympathy for the Jews. And the Jews hold it for a stupid reason: religion.
However, it's a little late for any attempt to give Israel back, and even the two-state solution is, at this point, and impractical ideal. A solution could've been worked out several times if the Palestinian cause wasn't led by corrupt religious fascists and allied with brutal terrorists. Given their predicament, it's obviously in the Jews best interests to seek peace; they are surrounded by countries that hate them. But because their opponents are driven by hate-filled religious zeal in addition to a desire to see the land returned, peace is not in their interest. If the Palestinians and Hamas stopped fighting there would be peace. If the Israelis stopped fighting there would be a genocide.
So while i don't agree with everything Israel does and i don't think the Jews have any inherit claim to the region, I support Israels right to exist, both because in an ever-growing pro-Islamic anti-Semitic world the Jews need their own state, and because any admission or concession to the hate-filled, Islamic terrorist cause brings us one step closer to the next Holocaust.
I used to support Palestine quite rigorously, until is became apparent that the Western liberal pro-Palestinian groups and the victims of displacement outside Israel are a peaceful front for the homicidal leadership of Palestine, validating the cause and garnering sympathy so that the maniacs are free to pursue their real goal: driving the Jews into the sea.
t was totally unfair for the Jewish people to take the land which belonged to the Palestinians for centuries upon centuries based upon a book. it doesn't matter if thousands of years ago their ancestors inhabited the land, that doesn't give them divine right to barge in on whoever lived their now. they gave the land up, the least they could do is accept the consequences of permanently leaving your homeland for such a long time. it would have been reasonable for them to simply move there, just as long as the Palestinians can support immigration of the Jewish people in that small area, but no, they literally barged in under the banner of the UN. now 67 years later, the Israeli government have committed quite the rack of human rights abuses, while at the same time illegally moving into whats left of the Palestinians land creating more neighborhoods, and leaving the Palestinians more crammed in their land mass everyday.