Do you agree with my statement?
Yes, I agree
26% (25)
26% (25)
No, I disagree
72.9% (70)
72.9% (70)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Israel is wrong

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Israel was made by the UN as a safe haven for Jews during WWII when there was rampant anti-semitism. But now that there are many countries with little to no anti-semitism, the Jews should go to another country and let the Palestinians have the land. A claim based on religion is no claim at all.

Well, considering I can't see what you posted (because of the messed up forums), I am going to take a chance and say... yes, I agree. I think.

EDIT: Well, now that I can actually see your idea, I say, no, I disagree with what you said. It might not have been right to create the Israeli state in the first place (I haven't decided for sure. Don't know enough about the situation and history surrounding it all), but two wrongs do not make a right. And evicting the people of Israel (most of whom have done nothing wrong) to create a Palestine state is most definitely wrong.

Okayyyyyy...... why can't the people of Palestine go somewhere else? Their claim is also based on religion......

That's.. quite an extreme point.

I don't like the Israeli government or its policies at the moment, but I think saying that people who now live there have no right to do so is kind of bizarre and a little anti-Semitic in and of itself.

Yes, I think they should try and build a multicultural society instead of trying to force the few remaining Palestinians into the oversized prison camps that are the occupied territories, or creating bizarre loopholes which allow "heritage" organizations to buy people's land without consulting them. I think they should do far more to publicly denounce anti-arab racism. I think they should sort out the conduct of their armed forces and make it accountable to the public rather than putting up walls of denial every time something goes wrong.

But my opposition to Israel is in many cases an opposition to the idea that anyone has a special and exclusive right to territory based on their race or religion. People do have a right not to be forced out of the country they live in, it's a right Israel has violated many times (not to say that its enemies haven't tried to do the same, but let's be realistic and accept that it's pretty one sided at the moment), but that doesn't make it right to do the same thing in return.

The two state solution has been an unmitigated disaster, and I wish to God people had listened to the British authorities who stated very clearly that it wouldn't work. However, it's done now. You can't tear up people's lives because a bunch of diplomats goofed.

TheTim:
Okayyyyyy...... why can't the people of Palestine go somewhere else? Their claim is also based on religion......

If I remember right it originally goes back to the Mandate. Much of the land in Palestine was owned by absent landowners who had acquired the land under Ottoman rule, Jewish immigrants arrived, bought the land directly from the landowners and then kicked the tenants off.

The tenants generally hadn't even heard from their landlords for years, so they felt this was unfair and that actually they had as much claim to the land as anyone else. It caused a lot of tension.

Not really a religious claim, more a legal one.

Erm, how about, you know, a two state solution? You can't exactly kick an entire people out of a country after 60 years and, what, two generations? I agree that the Israeli hardline government is wrong on many issues, but not on the existence of Israel as a nation.

People deciding to make a state on someone else's land is wrong. That said, should the US immediately cede all land back to the Native Americans we stole it from, and those of us whose families immigrated should all go back?

Done is done, and IMO the answer is to stop being a dick to the people you stole your land from.

Britain owned the land, and they granted it as space for the state of Israel.

They have all legal right to the land.
If the feeling is that the palestinians should have the land, then by the same thought process, the aboriginal people would have to be given back all of North and South America. They would have the same claim as the palestinians do.

Israel as a whole being wrong? I disagree, but the Israeli government is most certainly wrong.

As I said in the other thread where you posted the samething word for word,

This isn't just an apartment that you rent until you can afford to buy a house, this is peoples live we are talking about. As much as I support the idea of a Palestinian state, I also recognize that the people of Israel can't just be to to start packing, because they have lives there too, just the same as the Palestinians do. Of course, this can also be applied to the whole settlement thing, the Israelis don't have any right to kick those Palestinians off the place the have made their homes, although that is a matter for a different thread.

Ultimately Israel has the right to exist. It was created by a UN mandate and it would hardly be fair for the people living there to force them to leave. However they legally only have the right to the land given to them in 1949-not the land they have annexed after that.

Where exactly are they supposed to go?

ZAch055:
Israel was made by the UN as a safe haven for Jews during WWII when there was rampant anti-semitism. But now that there are many countries with little to no anti-semitism, the Jews should go to another country and let the Palestinians have the land. A claim based on religion is no claim at all.

I voted "No, I don't agree" mostly because the inaccuracy and over-simplifications in your post annoyed me.

Israel was created POST-WW2, although plans for the creation of a Jewish state had been drawn up for at least 40 years by this time (so it could be argued that Israel wasn't so much created as a result of the Holocaust, as the Holocaust provided the final impetus to put the plan into action).

Having said that I have no particular love for either side in this conflict. "A claim based on religion is no claim at all" - were that the case, however the reality is that no less than three major religions (and their various sects and offshoots) count that area of the Middle East as their Holy Land. Saying "why can't you just share" or "why can't group X just be migrated a few hundred miles away" isn't a satisfactory solution for anybody.

Gashad:
Ultimately Israel has the right to exist. It was created by a UN mandate and it would hardly be fair for the people living there to force them to leave. However they legally only have the right to the land given to them in 1949-not the land they have annexed after that.

Why? I thought they aquired the land after being invaded. Spoils of war sort of thing.

I might agree with you had there been another state owning that land that opposed the invasion, but to my knowledge, there was not.

Gorfias:

Why? I thought they aquired the land after being invaded. Spoils of war sort of thing.

I might agree with you had there been another state owning that land that opposed the invasion, but to my knowledge, there was not.

For the same reason why the US didn't annex parts of Japan after WWII(or indeed parts of Germany). Spoils of war hasn't been a valid claim on land since the first world war.

I obviously disagree, and I think you should hit the books. Israel wasn't made by the UN any more than Kosovo or any of the "recently" indpendent former soviet states. It's a sovereign nation and the UN certainly doesn't have the power to just dissolve it and tell all the jews to "go home". Where would home be anyway? I'm betting by now that most Israelis was born in Israel.

There is also a difference between Israel and Palestine. Hamas might not agree with me, but any reasonable aspirations for a free Palestine involves a two state solution, where Palestine is an independent state free of Israeli interference. Not where Israel is disolved and Palestine takes the whole cake.

It's annoying, alot of the people in my country (Sweden) seem to think like the OP. That the UN randomly at a place on a globe, evicted anyone who lived there and told all the jews to move there. There where already alot of Jews in that region, especially after WW2. And eventually they wanted independence. And alot of complex shit went down.

It really has nothing to do with where you stand on the whole conflict, but why try to simplify something that is so very complex as any conflict really is?

Find this offensive all you want, report it all you want, but I find the OP to be more than a little anti-semitic. Why is one entire people supposed to be forced to choose between flight or death, while the other, who have done nothing to deserve that, are to get everything?

Lacking any rational argument for that in what he's written, we're left with racism as the only explanation why the OP would want to treat the two people so differently. It's clearly treating peoples differently based on whom they are.

Sad really, that populist racist media can blind kids to such a degree. It's not the first time I've seen people being turned into raging anti-semites after not knowing much of the world, and then being exposed to Pallywood propaganda, but it still remains a sad thing that they can lower themselves that much, and not think somewhere along the way 'hey, wait, what am I saying?'.

Gashad:
For the same reason why the US didn't annex parts of Japan after WWII(or indeed parts of Germany). Spoils of war hasn't been a valid claim on land since the first world war.

That's not true. The US occupied Japan's Ryukyu Islands untill 1972. Actually, pretty much all of Japan was occupied by the US after the war. The US puppet government did many things the US wanted, like stripping the emperor of all power, and having harsh political censorship. Companies like Zaibatsu were targeted because they wielded political power, communists were persecuted on US orders, and land was forcibly redistributed to eliminate any large land owners. Ironic, since the US did there what the Soviet Union did to it's farmers. Japan lost all territory they had gained after 1894, like for instance Korea, which had been Japanese since 1905 and officially annexed since 1910. Taiwan and other land gains of the Sino-Japanese wars was also taken. They also lost the Kurile islands and Sakhalin island to the Soviet Union.

Huge chunks of Germany were annexed after WWII. And the same occured after the First World War. For instance Poland robbed a lot of land, and Prussia ceased to exist altogether. There's even an impossible Russian enclave there now called Kaliningrad. Germany also lost parts of Tjechia, Austria, and so on, that it had gained peacefully (even if threatening with a big stick) just before the second world war.

If you look at conflicts and war, spoils of war has always been a reason to claim land. The most recent example of this being the Russian re-occupation of parts of Georgia, after the Georgians had driven out the puppet warlord that controlled those northern regions for the Kremlin.

Actually, the only conflict where I have ever seen any serious objection to land annexation by the UN, has been the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Blablahb:
Find this offensive all you want, report it all you want, but I find the OP to be more than a little anti-semitic. Why is one entire people supposed to be forced to choose between flight or death, while the other, who have done nothing to deserve that, are to get everything?

Wait the Israeli deserved Israel?! Is this some kind of joke? The only reason they got Israel is because they gave the British one hell of a time through violence and terrorism and bribed US politicians with votes and money. And how would a massacre in one country make a people deserve land populated by people who had nothing to do with it?

And it's funny you mention the media while it's being as pro Israel as it can be. (though the US media is much better at it than the european one)

If you think the media is anti-israel than you really are over-idealizing Israel (it was when i relied on media info i was pro-israel and only when i started to do some research of my own i realized how bad that country has acted throughout its history)

generals3:
Wait the Israeli deserved Israel?! Is this some kind of joke? The only reason they got Israel is because they gave the British one hell of a time through violence and terrorism and bribed US politicians with votes and money.

Wait the America deserved the United States?! Is this some kind of joke? The only reason they got the US is because they gave the British one hell of a time through violence and terrorism and bribed US politicians with votes and money, and then did the same to the Mexicans.

So you see, it's all relatively. And I'm sure you can fill in a similar list for any country that exists today if you interpret it's founding history in a somewhat questionable way.

As for deserving it: Yes they did. Many Jews lived there even before the large migration waves began, and those immigrants weren't wrong in any way either and can make an own state out of the unclaimed territory if they want. The alternative is denying them that just because they're Jews, which, well, doesn't quite hold up to moral scrutiny and thus is not an option.

Also note how anti-Jewish violence by Arabs there had been going on for decades by the time Israel declared it's independance.

generals3:
And it's funny you mention the media while it's being as pro Israel as it can be.

And one or two local news media in the US equal all of the world's media right? No, obviously not. I am talking about things like Al Manar TV, nickname 'the Hezbollah channel', which was available all over the world by satelite untill 2007 when France realised what was going on and shot it down, and still is available by the internet.

Blablahb:

generals3:
Wait the Israeli deserved Israel?! Is this some kind of joke? The only reason they got Israel is because they gave the British one hell of a time through violence and terrorism and bribed US politicians with votes and money.

Wait the America deserved the United States?! Is this some kind of joke? The only reason they got the US is because they gave the British one hell of a time through violence and terrorism and bribed US politicians with votes and money, and then did the same to the Mexicans.

So you see, it's all relatively. And I'm sure you can fill in a similar list for any country that exists today if you interpret it's founding history in a somewhat questionable way.

As for deserving it: Yes they did. Many Jews lived there even before the large migration waves began, and those immigrants weren't wrong in any way either and can make an own state out of the unclaimed territory if they want. The alternative is denying them that just because they're Jews, which, well, doesn't quite hold up to moral scrutiny and thus is not an option.

generals3:
And it's funny you mention the media while it's being as pro Israel as it can be.

And one or two local news media in the US equal all of the world's media right? No, obviously not. I am talking about things like Al Manar TV, nickname 'the Hezbollah channel', which was available all over the world by satelite untill 2007 when France realised what was going on and shot it down, and still is available by the internet.

And who is trying to claim land in the US was rightfully acquired? How is them deserving it of any relevance? The Americans aren't still to this day destroying homes of natives, british or whatever to claim the land because it's their god given right.

Here we're talking about people who don't deserve the land for the slightest bit who are bullying people who live on it. A lot of the Palestinians who have been evicted out of their homes still are alive now. Don't compare something that was relevant a long time ago to something which is pretty damn relevant now.

I'm sorry but when i hear "media" i think mainstream media. And let's be honest now, how many westerners watch channels like "The Hezbollah channel"?!

(and the reason why i mention western media is because the OP is from the US , so the most likely relevant media at the basis of his opinion is the mainstream US media)

And yes there were many jews there before but that doesn't suddenly mean there should be a State of Israel. Or maybe we should make a State of Islam in the netherlands?
And unclaimed land? Bullshit, it was a British mandate and many Palestinians where eagerly awaiting the departure of the Brits to form their own state, unfortunately they were forced by the British to let the uncontrolled Jewish immigration in. Something any state would fight against , mainly when said immigrants are aggressive and sometimes smuggled weaponry in. The only reason why the Palestinians didn't have a State is because the Brits controlled the territory, it was against their will. It's not as if that land was empty.

I'd love to see your face if Germany took over the Netherlands, allowed unrestricted Muslim immigration and than let the Muslims form an Islamic state and kick you out of your house. You'd be pissed for less. (i know such a thing wouldn't ever happen but just think about it, would you honestly believe those muslims deserve that land more than you? )

PS: just to be clear, i don't want Israel to disappear (though sometimes i think that their behavior would require it...) but they should at least stop expanding all these illegal settlements and destroy them even. The Lebensraum policy has gone far enough.Israel has done nothing more than bullying the Palestinians and as long as they keep on doing it i just can't get myself to support them. (and on top of that , my stance on Israel has nothing to do with my stance on Judaism or Jews (which i have nothing against))

Blablahb:
That's not true. The US occupied Japan's Ryukyu Islands untill 1972. Actually, pretty much all of Japan was occupied by the US after the war.

Occupation does not equal annexation. Occupations are by definition temporary-the US granted control of the land back to the Japanease as they recognized that they had no claim on it(and probably did not want it). Considerable parts of Germany was annexed after world war II-but the soviet union was responsible for this-not the allies. The right of national self determination is enshrined in the UN charter and clearly shows that the spoils of war argument has no merit(its the population of an area who decide to which country they should be long-nothing else).

Gashad:

Gorfias:

Why? I thought they aquired the land after being invaded. Spoils of war sort of thing.

I might agree with you had there been another state owning that land that opposed the invasion, but to my knowledge, there was not.

For the same reason why the US didn't annex parts of Japan after WWII(or indeed parts of Germany). Spoils of war hasn't been a valid claim on land since the first world war.

I guess it is legit again (especially in a defensive action). Oh well. Seems just to me. I think, in the interest of peace, Israel could be nice and let the "Palestinians" make countries out of Gaza and the West Bank. They shouldn't have to, but again, it would be nice of them.

ZAch055:
But now that there are many countries with little to no anti-semitism

Ahahahahahahaha whaaaat? Anti-semitism certainly isn't as fashionable as it was back in the day, but this is a pretty extreme claim.

generals3:
And who is trying to claim land in the US was rightfully acquired?

I don't know, but nobody is arguing the US should be dissolved, and it's inhabitants deported to whatever random country strikes the deporters' fancy.

generals3:
Here we're talking about people who don't deserve the land for the slightest bit who are bullying people who live on it.

Can you elaborate on 'not deserve the slighest bit'? I mean, we're talking about an established state, with people who have been there all their lives, founded by people who had been there a large part of their lives, who needed that state to avoid persecution. (relevant, Kosovo was founded on the same principle)

Like I said, expect for ethnicity, it seems there are no reason to back such a point of view. You need to either back up the claim or retract it, or find yourself in a rather compromising situation.

generals3:
A lot of the Palestinians who have been evicted out of their homes still are alive now.

Oh? Who are those then? Mention names please. Wholesale claims just won't do.

Because the expected lifespan of a Palestinian versus the time ago it has been makes that claim quite unlikely. I mean, for someone to still be alive from before the time of formal hostilities... They'd need to be at the very least 80 years old.

Oh, and that is in turn made impossible by the fact that it's rather silly to throw a family out of their home because some toothless old man thinks he might have had a shack there in the 1930's.

generals3:
I'm sorry but when i hear "media" i think mainstream media. And let's be honest now, how many westerners watch channels like "The Hezbollah channel"?!

An obscure Dutch website relaying Al Manar TV had 62 positive endorsements alone, so I'm thinking thousands of people at least. And even more fall under the sway of other propagandists. A pro-Hamas demonstration in 2009 for instance drew a few hundred supporters in most large cities here. And that's just the extremest among radicals. Especially among children of Islamic immigrants such propaganda reaches a large audience. I can remember groups like the European Arab League, or immigrant website maroc.nl losing it's subsidy for holocaust denial, scientific study conclusions about groups of young Islamic people that went like 'Due to hatred against Israel, anti-semitism has become the norm' (by the WODC criminology institute).

generals3:
And yes there were many jews there before but that doesn't suddenly mean there should be a State of Israel.

There's also a lot of people in your country whichever country that is. Should your country be destroyed and occupied by an ethnic group that has vowed to kill or remove anyone?

generals3:
Or maybe we should make a State of Islam in the netherlands?

The Netherlands is an established sovereign state that can enforce it's territory, in which it is possible to live according to any religion, including Islam, without needing an own state. The discussion however relates back to Trans-Jordan, an unclaimed territory being abandoned by it's former rulers, in which Jewish inhabitants (and other non-Arabs) faced violence and likely extermination at the hands of Arabs believing in pan-Arabism.

If you look at the history of states, every time a sovereign state lays a claim on unclaimed territory, they win. They even win when other entities than sovereign states have a claim of some kind.

generals3:
And unclaimed land? Bullshit, it was a British mandate and many Palestinians where eagerly awaiting the departure of the Brits to form their own state

So, exactly like said: unclaimed territory. Anything that's not a sovereign state is unclaimed and up for grabs, that's the nature of statehood.

generals3:
unfortunately they were forced by the British to let the uncontrolled Jewish immigration in.

Aren't you forgetting the British concentration camps for Jews, and the racist White Paper of 1939?

generals3:
Something any state would fight against , mainly when said immigrants are aggressive and sometimes smuggled weaponry in.

How peculiar that people facing systematic discrimination, violence and likely extermination, of whom many had faced either or all of those things before, would do such a thing eh?

If you want to marvel about groups like the Haganah being formed, you also have to acknowledge the Arab violence.

generals3:
I'd love to see your face if Germany took over the Netherlands, allowed unrestricted Muslim immigration and than let the Muslims form an Islamic state and kick you out of your house.

Uhm, bad example, because this has actually happened already in reality. The Netherlands was occupied by Germany in the Second World War, and much like the Haganah, an armed resistance formed to combat the nazi occupation. Unlike the Arabs who welcomed the British, we also fought the nazi invasion.
A few decades later there was massive immigration of Muslims, with no actual problems occuring due to the existance of several ethnic groups.

Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find even a single Dutchman who, like the Arabs of those days, seriously believes that only Dutch who have been native for generations should live here, and all others should be killed or deported. I did research among a particular group of inhabitants of a region who inherited (now defunct) collective land rights that date back 1404, meaning that along the male line, they have been natives for at least 600 years.
Never heard any of those claim all people without those rights should be deported.

ZAch055:
isreal is wrong

Fact list incoming:

1) Their claim is not "based on religion."
2) Palestinians, as in the Arabs who live in Gaza/West Bank, did not exist until somewhat recently. The very word derives from "philistine" which were not Arabs.
3) There was no independent nation named Palestine. That area was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (Turks) for hundreds of years, and was handed directly over to the British Empire at the end of World War 1.
4) Britain divided their Palestinian mandate into two countries, Jordan, and Isreal, the latter of which became the asylum for the most brutalized group of people this planet has ever known, the Jews.
5) Opposition to Isreal's right to exist *is* based on religion.
6) Prominent muslims repeatedly and overtly threaten to wipe Isreal off the face of the Earth, and "turn the Mediterranean Sea red with the blood of the jews."
7) Isreal is generally a free society. They allow Muslim worship. Vice Versa cannot be said for the surrounding Muslim countries.

Blablahb:
Snip

1st: i don't think all Israeli should be deported so that doesn't really matter. On top of that most americans now have been there for generations, you can hardly punish them for what their predecessors did. Meanwhile in Israel settlers flock every day and up to this day palestinian homes are being teared down to make place for new settlements. See the difference? the guilty ones haven't been dead for god knows how many years, they're flocking in right now!

2nd: They don't deserve it because i don't think anyone who takes land by force deserves it. Jews, muslims or christians (or whatever). However in this situation you have many palestinians who up to this day lose their homes, they didn't claim it by force, maybe their predecessors did but they didn't which gives them more right to it than some random zionist settler who thinks it is his land because Yahweh said so.

3rd: Why do they need to be 80y old? Israeli bulldozers are still doing their job up to this day.

4th: And yes there is a certain audience for such crap. But let's be honest, it's not even comparable to the audience of more mainstream media such as your national TV / Al jazeera / etc.

5th: Them winning doesn't really matter in my opinion. The USSR conquered eastern europe, doesn't mean i have to think it was right for them to keep it.

6th: 1939 was before the massive immigration and the reason why they did that is for the same reason we have "camps" where we put illegal immigrants. To control immigration. On top of that the zionist immigration sparked a lot of tensions and violence, from both sides. Why would you allow an uncontrolled amount of immigration which leads to violence?

7th: Yes and those muslims didn't say "This land will be our nation-state". And if you look at Europe nowadays and heck the one who frigging won the Dutch election it's quite clear how europeans feel about "uncontrolled" immigration. More and more are starting to be pissed off and concepts such as "Islamization" are becoming more and more "popular". We have a nice group of people called "Shariah4belgium" believe me i want to kick their asses, coming here and threatening our way of life and pushing muslims to help them transform this country in an Islamic state? not on my watch. And that's basically what the zionists did, coming with the sole purpose of making their OWN country.

I disagree but not because I think Israel is "right". I just realise that, in a pragmatic sense, they are no more "wrong" than most countries who feel they have claims on their respective pieces of land. Consider the whole history of the Eurasian continent (from the UK all the way to Japan) and you will see that there are multiple claims to most territories, each trumping the other.

And they regularly get into conflicts over it.

ZAch055:
Israel was made by the UN as a safe haven for Jews during WWII when there was rampant anti-semitism. But now that there are many countries with little to no anti-semitism, the Jews should go to another country and let the Palestinians have the land. A claim based on religion is no claim at all.

Actually their land claim is based on the legal government of the area, England, giving them the land Full legal claim, as endorsed by the UN.

Their land claim was expanded through land captured in defensive wars, and of course most countries in the world have laid claim to land that way.

As for sending the Jews to another country, where exactly do you plan to send those 6 million people, many of which have been born for several generations now in Israel?

ravensheart18:

ZAch055:
Israel was made by the UN as a safe haven for Jews during WWII when there was rampant anti-semitism. But now that there are many countries with little to no anti-semitism, the Jews should go to another country and let the Palestinians have the land. A claim based on religion is no claim at all.

Actually their land claim is based on the legal government of the area, England, giving them the land Full legal claim, as endorsed by the UN.

Their land claim was expanded through land captured in defensive wars, and of course most countries in the world have laid claim to land that way.

As for sending the Jews to another country, where exactly do you plan to send those 6 million people, many of which have been born for several generations now in Israel?

And what about those illegal settlements they keep on building expanding which are a result of simple land grab? Because no expanding a settlement in the West Bank ruled by fatah as a result of Hamas throwing rockets from Gazah is NOT self-defence.

generals3:
2nd: They don't deserve it because i don't think anyone who takes land by force deserves it.

Who took land by force then? Can you name people? Because anything more general than that is just generalising and has no place in the debate.

generals3:
3rd: Why do they need to be 80y old? Israeli bulldozers are still doing their job up to this day.

Because people would've needed to be around 16 years old at least to have a claim in what was how things were before the Israeli War of Independance broke out, during which the Arab leaders forfeited any land claims they might have had, in favour of letting war decide who got what. The chaos that eventually erupted into war was in 1947, so a person who could still lay claim to being a Palestinian refugee would need to have been born in 1931, and be at least 80-81 years old right now.

And if any of those were still alive, it would instantly raise the question that going so far back in time would be unjust as well: victimizing people now for a claim that old is wrong.

The discussion that came after the wars, and territorial changes since then, are another matter entirely, and not one to be handled with sweeping generalisations. As I'm fond of saying: Anyone who says "Go back to the borders of [insert year]" is anti-peace, simple as that, because everybody can see that's unjust on a scale it will never be accepted.

Peace will have to come from a sensible point of view based on the current situation, not claims from ancient history which nobody can accept anyway. Although to be brutally honest, the current outcome has worked for the majority of people.

generals3:
5th: Them winning doesn't really matter in my opinion. The USSR conquered eastern europe, doesn't mean i have to think it was right for them to keep it.

But they did, and so did every other conqueror of the past century. Why should an exception be made only for Israel, while they were the victims of Arab agression no less?

generals3:
6th: 1939 was before the massive immigration and the reason why they did that is for the same reason we have "camps" where we put illegal immigrants. To control immigration. On top of that the zionist immigration sparked a lot of tensions and violence, from both sides. Why would you allow an uncontrolled amount of immigration which leads to violence?

You shouldn't. The source of the violence, in this case the Arab supremacist movement that proposed pan-arabism, should be fought to ensure they don't get their way, and a stable state can be formed without such extremists being in power, and people can live peacefully.

....Oh wait, that's exactly what happened.

generals3:
7th: Yes and those muslims didn't say "This land will be our nation-state". And if you look at Europe nowadays and heck the one who frigging won the Dutch election it's quite clear how europeans feel about "uncontrolled" immigration.

The election was decided over economic issues, secularism and governmental prowess. The previous government was indecisive, anti-secular, pro-discrimination and had a lousy budgeting.
As I said, you won't find a single person who, like the Arabs of those days, is opposed to immigration as a whole. (unless we're to consider the dumbest of the dumb of marginal paupers of course)

Heck, even the most xenophobic party we have, the radical Socialist Party, doesn't say certain things out loud, and clouds their hatred against Eastern Europeans in terms like 'improving their living conditions' (by deporting them) and such.

generals3:
And that's basically what the zionists did, coming with the sole purpose of making their OWN country.

Now you're confusing two things. You're equating wanting an 'own country' with ethnically cleansing said country, while the two are very separate issues.

It's true the Arab leaders wanted ethnic cleansing, but we adressed pan-arabism earlier, right? It's sad they got to ethnically cleanse other Arab countries, but that would be straying a bit too far offtopic.

generals3:

ravensheart18:

ZAch055:
Israel was made by the UN as a safe haven for Jews during WWII when there was rampant anti-semitism. But now that there are many countries with little to no anti-semitism, the Jews should go to another country and let the Palestinians have the land. A claim based on religion is no claim at all.

Actually their land claim is based on the legal government of the area, England, giving them the land Full legal claim, as endorsed by the UN.

Their land claim was expanded through land captured in defensive wars, and of course most countries in the world have laid claim to land that way.

As for sending the Jews to another country, where exactly do you plan to send those 6 million people, many of which have been born for several generations now in Israel?

And what about those illegal settlements they keep on building expanding which are a result of simple land grab? Because no expanding a settlement in the West Bank ruled by fatah as a result of Hamas throwing rockets from Gazah is NOT self-defence.

Maybe you missed this..."Their land claim was expanded through land captured in defensive wars, and of course most countries in the world have laid claim to land that way."

I'd also point out the "illegal" in somewhat in the eye of the beholder and that Israel has removed settlers by force when it stood in the way of peace.

Neither Fatah nor Hamas leads a country, they are on what is effectively Israeli land. I'm all for a two state solution, but right now its one state. A little peace of Jordon, for example, was captured by the Israelis and Jordon doesn't even want it back anymore. You suggesting that Israel isn't in rightful control is like telling the US that it needs to hand a big chunk of land back to Mexico.

TheTim:
Okayyyyyy...... why can't the people of Palestine go somewhere else? Their claim is also based on religion......

No, their claim is based on being the indigenous people who have lived there for over 1000 years prior to the present day.

And in fact much longer.

Realistically, the ancient population will not have been wiped out. We know the Romans forcibly deported a load of Jews, but presumably not all Jews, nor the various non-Jews of the province of Palestine - they can hardly have depopulated the whole area. Nor is there significant evidence of wholesale slaughter from various waves of later invaders. These invaders put a ruling class over the local peasants, who ultimately mostly assimilated into the dominant culture that took them over - eventually Arabs.

And there's plenty of evidence to suggest this is true. The Samaritans (same lot as mentioned in the Bible), for instance, still exist in Israel and the occupied territories.

I voted "No, I disagree".

I think my government was wrong to have placed Israel where it was - surely they should have seen how it was going to create tension in the region, particularly after screwing the Arabs over so heavily after the war, having promised a unified Arab nation and instead dividing the Middle East on a largely straight line into British/French territory. I disagree heavily with the policies and actions of the current Israeli government and think there is fair and valid criticisms of the state. I think that both Hamas and the Israeli government have acted abhorrently and all the calls for peace (from both sides) are fašades.

But I totally and utterly disagree with you, OP. The state has a right to exist, and the people of that state (i.e. the Jews) deserve to be free from oppression and have full right to live there. I also believe that Palestinians deserve a state of their own, but to suggest that the Israelis pack there things and leave the region is utterly absurd and only serves to vindicate the opinions of hard-liners who feel that the entire world is out to get them, and that a two-state solution is suggested out of anti-Semitism and hatred.

Please, please don't conflate the Israeli state with the Israeli people, or even with all Jews in general.

generals3:

I'd love to see your face if Germany took over the Netherlands, allowed unrestricted Muslim immigration and than let the Muslims form an Islamic state and kick you out of your house. You'd be pissed for less. (i know such a thing wouldn't ever happen but just think about it, would you honestly believe those muslims deserve that land more than you? )

I would not terrorise them and shoot at them with rockets and mortars if....;
-They are 'Old Dutch people' like the Celts or something that actually lived here 2000 times ago and were forcible removed by the Romans
-They continued to form a group and culture, not just 'hey look I can trace my genes back to the Netherlands!'
-They went to a largely uninhabited area like the Veluwe and bought lots of territory from the original inhabitants and the government
-Germany defeated the Netherlands in a war where we, the Dutch, were the aggressor
-And the 'DutchVeluweCelts' are way richer and more technological advanced than the average Dutch person, and just accept Dutch people within their borders

Blablahb:
Because people would've needed to be around 16 years old at least to have a claim in what was how things were before the Israeli War of Independance broke out, during which the Arab leaders forfeited any land claims they might have had, in favour of letting war decide who got what. The chaos that eventually erupted into war was in 1947, so a person who could still lay claim to being a Palestinian refugee would need to have been born in 1931, and be at least 80-81 years old right now.

And if any of those were still alive, it would instantly raise the question that going so far back in time would be unjust as well: victimizing people now for a claim that old is wrong.

You have numerous problems.

1) You're conflating the rights of Palestinian individuals with the right of a putative Palestinian state. Just because whatever Arab governmental entity has lost the right to sovereignty over much of the land Israel now occupies, it does not follow that individual Palestinians lost (and continue to lose) the right to their private land.

2) Backdating claims to 1931 with spurious and silly rationalisations is silly. 1947 is the year that would matter, except that it doesn't because property rights go to the offspring anyway.

3) Gross double standard. Israel is still gouging Germany for payments over the Holocaust. Many families are still trying to recover looted WW2 art (claims for which date back to parents or grandparents). Recently, several German companies were forced to shell out reparations for WW2 slave labour. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked