ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Israel offered the Arabs ("palesteinians" is made up recently) the same rights when it was formed. They wanted it all, so Israel told the to get out if they didn't like it. Jordan wised up to these a-holes and kicked them out too. Syria is hiding behind them to constantly shell Israel. When ISrael retaliates to protect itself, it gets lambasted for "attacking". Yeah, but they protect themselves AND then go one step further... Always upping the ante. Not saying the other side does the same. True, you have whole sets of issues to the lead up of 1967... Yet, everytime the Jews get pushed (right or wrong), they push back and push back with an added "face wash." It has gotta stop, and the burden is more on Israel. That burden is more and more increasing. These are two diverging roads (with the US' unwitting help) and needs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Israel offered the Arabs ("palesteinians" is made up recently) the same rights when it was formed. They wanted it all, so Israel told the to get out if they didn't like it. Jordan wised up to these a-holes and kicked them out too. Syria is hiding behind them to constantly shell Israel. When ISrael retaliates to protect itself, it gets lambasted for "attacking". Assuming you are referring to the partition plan, you may consider that offering 56% of the land to a people who comprised only 33% (and of those many were very recent arrivals) of the population a fair and just solution. I do not. In any event, the Zionists never intended to stick to the partition plan either - it was always their intention to grab as much land as they possibly could. “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Ben Gurion “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“. Menachem Begin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Assuming you are referring to the partition plan, you may consider that offering 56% of the land to a people who comprised only 33% (and of those many were very recent arrivals) of the population a fair and just solution. I do not. In any event, the Zionists never intended to stick to the partition plan either - it was always their intention to grab as much land as they possibly could. “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Ben Gurion “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“. Menachem Begin First of all the Jews have rights to that land, they were there way before the Palestinians. Second of all the UN partition plan of 1947 was rejected by all the Arab countries. Arab leadership in Israel and in the countries surrounding Israel, planned a holy war, against Israel and encouraged the Arabs to leave Israel promising their return after they purge the land of Jews. The great majority of Arabs left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 First of all the Jews have rights to that land, they were there way before the Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Historically speaking, accurate. Worthy of the however. What's not debatable is that they're there now, and the only way they're getting removed is by cataclysm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Israel became a nation about 1300 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. The myth of a Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide. Jews come from Judea, not Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian, or any Palestinian culture distinct from that of all the Arabs in the area. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Historically speaking, accurate. Oh I know they've been there for quite some time. Israel became a nation about 1300 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. The myth of a Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide. Jews come from Judea, not Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian, or any Palestinian culture distinct from that of all the Arabs in the area. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. So Jewish presence = Jewish right to land? You're joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Oh I know they've been there for quite some time. So Jewish presence = Jewish right to land? You're joking, right? No, it establishes their right to the land whose status is unchanged whether they occupy it or not. The Jews have re-inhabited their historic homeland Edited February 4, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) No, it establishes their right to the land whose status is unchanged whether they occupy it or not. Status unchanged? How do you mean? The Turks dominated the area for 200 years or so. The Egyptian kings dominated the area for 400+ years before that. Hell, you have to go back to the Kingdom of Judah to find an extended period of time in which the Jews ruled the area. I'm not saying they shouldn't stay there now, there's no way to move them without quite a bit of !@#$ing **** up (not to mention they're the only real ally we have in the middle of those Arab states). I just think that people yelling about how the Jews have some sort of right to the land because of Old Testament-era kings is somewhat ridiculous. Edited February 4, 2011 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Status unchanged? How do you mean? The Turks dominated the area for 200 years or so. The Egyptian kings dominated the area for 400+ years before that. Hell, you have to go back to the Kingdom of Judah to find an extended period of time in which the Jews ruled the area. I'm not saying they shouldn't stay there now, there's no way to move them without quite a bit of !@#$ing **** up (not to mention they're the only real ally we have in the middle of those Arab states). I just think that people yelling about how the Jews have some sort of right to the land because of Old Testament-era kings is somewhat ridiculous. You don't have to have faith in the old Testament to establish Jewish rights to the home land. You dig in the soil there and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Assuming you are referring to the partition plan, you may consider that offering 56% of the land to a people who comprised only 33% (and of those many were very recent arrivals) of the population a fair and just solution. I do not. In any event, the Zionists never intended to stick to the partition plan either - it was always their intention to grab as much land as they possibly could. “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Ben Gurion “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“. Menachem Begin You can round up statements by any politicians throughout history to make a statement. What separates rhetoric from reality though is what those politicians did when they were in power. So correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Begin give up Sinai? Did Ben Gurion actively expand Israel's borders while he was in power? Did the equally hawkish Sharon hold on to Gaza? Do the Arabs in Israel have greater rights than most Arabs in their own countries? Do Palestinians have more rights and better opportunities in the West Bank or in Jordan? Is there a greater risk of a Shiite getting blown up in Israel or in Iraq? So while the world loves to ask Israel to make the first move, it's perfectly rational to understand why it doesn't want to budge. Despite the old proclmations by the original Zionists, I on't think that anyone is seriously contemplating Israel's rights beyond its current borders and whatever new lines come out of the eventual settlement with Fatah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You don't have to have faith in the old Testament to establish Jewish rights to the home land. You dig in the soil there and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_ancient_church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You don't have to have faith in the old Testament to establish Jewish rights to the home land. You dig in the soil there and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls. So we're back to the homeland thing? In that case, we ought to defer to the Iroquois Confederacy's right to most of New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_ancient_church The building had been built atop another structure around 500 years older, dating to Roman times, when scholars believe the settlement was inhabited by Jews. So we're back to the homeland thing? In that case, we ought to defer to the Iroquois Confederacy's right to most of New York. Yes, they may still have rights to it if not signed away during a treaty. So, let them raise and army, build tanks, planes and bombs and try to take it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 So we're back to the homeland thing? In that case, we ought to defer to the Iroquois Confederacy's right to most of New York. And give England back to the Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Yes, they may still have rights to it if not signed away during a treaty. Are you familiar with the Sullivan Campaign? In any case, I brought up the Iroquois because they were pretty much a conquered people, much like the Jews were. Only might makes right when it comes to nation ownership. The state of Israel has the might, they should stay. Historic "right" means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Edited February 4, 2011 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Are you familiar with the Sullivan Campaign? There was no treaty at the conclusion of that. LOL, let em try to take it back than cause they sure as hell are not going to get it back through the legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 LOL, let em try to take it back than cause they sure as hell are not going to get it back through the legal system. See my edit, I'm trying to draw a comparison between two CONQUERED PEOPLES. Perhaps I should have used that phrase earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 See my edit, I'm trying to draw a comparison between two CONQUERED PEOPLES. Perhaps I should have used that phrase earlier. what who conquered who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 what who conquered who? Well, we pretty much conquered the Iroquois and co. Romans, crusaders, Turks, Egyptians, and the like conquered the Jews (or, more accurately, conquered their land). Again, the only point of disagreement here is whether historic "right" to land means/should mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts