Cut Israel Off

[9sublime]

Israel did not defeat its enemies in battle to gain its land, it was drawn up in a mandate on a bit of paper. Thats not my idea of battle.

America stole the land off the natives. Thats a fact too.

Can't you see that a 2,000 year old claim to a piece of land is not valid? If you believe that 2,000 years is a reasonable time to still be demanding land back, don't you think the natives of the US have a very strong claim?

If you think that one religion has the right to enforce its claims on people who don't believe in it, like the Jewish religion on the Arabs inhabiting the land after world war 2, maybe you should give a bit more tolerance to the Muslim extremists who believe it is their God given right to control the Earth in one giant caliphate.

 

[jb_1430]

Israel did not defeat its enemies in battle to gain its land, it was drawn up in a mandate on a bit of paper. Thats not my idea of battle.

Wow! your perception of history is quite confused. There was no "mandate". Nothing more than a "plan" resoundingly rejected by the Palestinians and Arab nations. And then there was the 1948 Arab Israeli WAR that did establish the green line. This was through Armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors, Lebanon, jordan and Egypt. Absolutely nothing to do with any mandate.

 

[Andy]

Trying again...

Israel did not defeat its enemies in battle to gain its land, it was drawn up in a mandate on a bit of paper. Thats not my idea of battle.

Can't you see that a 2,000 year old claim to a piece of land is not valid? If you believe that 2,000 years is a reasonable time to still be demanding land back, don't you think the natives of the US have a very strong claim?

If you think that one religion has the right to enforce its claims on people who don't believe in it, like the Jewish religion on the Arabs inhabiting the land after world war 2, maybe you should give a bit more tolerance to the Muslim extremists who believe it is their God given right to control the Earth in one giant caliphate.

Uh, yes it was battle. You can go see the school busses turned into make shift tanks, and covered with sheet metal, sprayed with AK bullet holes. To say that it was just ink on paper is laughable. The Jewish people fought for independence, there's no question about it.

Somehow we are not communicating. The US natives do not have a claim. Nor do the Arabs have claim on Israel. Ding! They were defeated!

But... the Arabs claim they have a right to Israel because it's their homeland. Uh... but it's not. So they still don't have a claim!

However they say they were there first... but.... Israel was there first! So they STILL don't have a claim!

In fact... I would even go so far as to say, the natives of the US have MORE of a claim to the US, than the Arabs do to Israel, because Arabs are not natives of Israel. The US natives actually are in fact natives.

What is truly ironic is that those muslims over there do believe in Abraham, and that promise of land was given to Abraham. But you still miss the point. The Bible verifies what is historically accepted, that being, that this land belongs to Israel. I really could not care less about your personal views on God. The fact is this land belongs to Israel from every aspect. It is their historic homeland. Every archaeological dig, every research, everything points to that land being Israel's land. I'm not bring the Bible up to say "God said", I'm using it to verify what's already known.

 

[Bunz]

Andy,
Of course the Native Americans have much more or a legitimate claim to land in America than the Palestinians do to what is modern Israel. Though the situation has several key similarities, but also major differences.

As for Israel, they have fought for thier collective existence 4 major times and continiously on a smaller scale for the last 60 years. They arent going anywhere anytime soon.
That being said, I have never been able to hear how it could be done logistically, but it would make sense to have Jerusalem somehow become an International city free and open to the world, possibly with a UN or similar group administering the city. Just a thought, its not original, but there might be something there if one could figure out how to make a peaceful transition.

 

[Andy]

Not a solution.

That being said, I have never been able to hear how it could be done logistically, but it would make sense to have Jerusalem somehow become an International city free and open to the world, possibly with a UN or similar group administering the city. Just a thought, its not original, but there might be something there if one could figure out how to make a peaceful transition.

Ok I'll bite... why?

Why should Jerusalem be under international control anymore than say, Chicago or St Louis, or for that matter Washington DC?

Further, doing so would continue it being a constant source of strife, because both factions would continue to believe they own the entire city, much as it is currently.

A far better solution would be both sides accepting it, but that's a fairy tale. In the end, the only practical solution is to flat out have a battle with the victor takes all. Of course that won't happen either. But honestly, until one side dominates the other Jerusalem, it will always be in strife.

 

[Bunz]

Ok I'll bite... why?

Why should Jerusalem be under international control anymore than say, Chicago or St Louis, or for that matter Washington DC?

Further, doing so would continue it being a constant source of strife, because both factions would continue to believe they own the entire city, much as it is currently.

A far better solution would be both sides accepting it, but that's a fairy tale. In the end, the only practical solution is to flat out have a battle with the victor takes all. Of course that won't happen either. But honestly, until one side dominates the other Jerusalem, it will always be in strife.

I say this as a suggestion for a few reasons. Considering Jerusalem is the holy city of the three main monotheocracies on Earth today, and the ongoing violence and turmoil that has gripped the city for generations.

The city has always been fought over and that has historically been ineffective in producing a lasting peace. It seems to me that after all those efforts have failed that we try something else. I think the attempt to have equal access, travel and security among the residents and visitors there, it will need to be administered without malice towards one or any group of people.

As for other international communities, I could see several regional world cities. But it seems to me that if it were to be attempted that Jerusalem would be a novel place to start.

 

[Andy]

Seems like a bad idea.

I say this as a suggestion for a few reasons. Considering Jerusalem is the holy city of the three main monotheocracies on Earth today, and the ongoing violence and turmoil that has gripped the city for generations.

The city has always been fought over and that has historically been ineffective in producing a lasting peace. It seems to me that after all those efforts have failed that we try something else. I think the attempt to have equal access, travel and security among the residents and visitors there, it will need to be administered without malice towards one or any group of people.

Why would making it an international city help anything? That will only draw more nations into the conflict. This is like a fight on the play ground. You try and get between them and they will start punching you. Matters will get worse when UN troops are being killed.

Jerusalem has had peaceful times, when one group has complete dominion over the city. That's what needs to happen.

As for the religious ties. Jewish belief of course supports Jerusalem, because it's mentioned as the city of David. It's mentioned dozens of times in the old testament, or Torah, which is the cornerstone of Jewish belief.

The Christians, believe in the Old Testament too as well as the New Testament where Christ is recorded. Both, the new and old testament, indicate that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, and the Temple Mount is where the temple belongs.

So Christians and Jews should both support Jerusalem under Israeli control.

What about Muslim? The Quran never once mentions Jerusalem. It's not referred to, nor indicated by any other name. There is no 'Dome of the Rock' in the Quran, nor does it mention the land of Palestine or the Temple Mount. In fact the only city that is mentioned anywhere in Islamic reading is Mecca. (as far as I have found, I could be wrong) But Jerusalem is NEVER mentioned.

So where did all that come from? It was made up. The Dome of the Rock was invented to give ignorant muslim followers more reason to believe they had a claim to Jerusalem. It was placed on the Temple Mount specifically to piss off Jews whose Torah says that is where the Temple of God is to be.

It would be no different than if I went to Mecca, and put up building with a cross on it, and called it 'Dome of the Cross', and started trying to have worship in it, and claiming Christians have a right to Mecca.

 

[9sublime]

So the reason that Israel can have its land is because it defeated those against them and took the land, just like America took the land off the natives?

I swear that the Israelites were defeated in the first place and lost the land thousands of years ago - loosing the land and their claim to it by your logic?

 

[Andy]

I am not saying it right?

So the reason that Israel can have its land is because it defeated those against them and took the land, just like America took the land off the natives?

I swear that the Israelites were defeated in the first place and lost the land thousands of years ago - loosing the land and their claim to it by your logic?

You still missed it. Last time. The ARABS claim that it's their land because they supposedly were there first. They are making this claim. I'm simply using THEIR logic, against them.

Now... if the ARABS can make that claim 'we were here first'.... then why can't the Jews say they were there first? Because they... in fact... WERE there first.

You have to be consistent. You can't make a claim on a basis, while not allowing someone else to make a claim on the same basis.

Did I get through this time?
If that is not a legit claim, ok, then the Arabs should shut up.
If it is legit, then Israel has first dibs anyway.

Either way.... Israel wins.


I had to add this... Even by YOUR logic... they still have claim to the land. By your own logic, if they can lose the right to the land from military defeat, then they also can gain the right to land from military victory. Well... they had military victory! So they STILL have claim to the land!

Like I said before... no matter how many ways you cut it, Israel has right to the land. From any angle, any view, any perspective... if you are logically consistent... Israel has right to the land.

 

[9sublime]

I think you are trying to twist my stance with all these logic games.

The Jews original claim to the land because they lived their first is not a fair or valid claim on those who were established residents post world war two - its like someone asking for their great great great great great great great however-many-grandparents-ago house back because they lost it unfairly all those years ago to your descents. Would you give it back to them?

Would you give it back to them if they said it was the holy house of their personal religion, and the promised house given to them by a God they follow but you don't? I very much doubt you would, think of it that way.

Regardless of whether they were their first, or if they were kicked out unfairly a long time ago, or if their God promised it to them - its not their land and hasn't been for a very long time and its not fair to effect other people because of this.

 

[jb_1430]

Regardless of whether they were their first, or if they were kicked out unfairly a long time ago, or if their God promised it to them - its not their land and hasn't been for a very long time and its not fair to effect other people because of this.

Revealing that you leave out the one arguement actually made and instead address the ones that were not. The Israelis won the land in battle in 1948, more of it in 67.

 

[9sublime]

I don't care if they won it in battle, they shouldn't have been battling it out in the first place.

 

[jb_1430]

I don't care if they won it in battle, they shouldn't have been battling it out in the first place.

?? So why the false claims about matters you "dont care" about. They lived in a land without government so they formed their own. Defined the terrirtory and 7 arab nations declared war on the newly formed nation, denying them any territory.

Israel did not defeat its enemies in battle to gain its land, it was drawn up in a mandate on a bit of paper. Thats not my idea of battle.

 

[Coyote]

Revealing that you leave out the one arguement actually made and instead address the ones that were not. The Israelis won the land in battle in 1948, more of it in 67.

That isn't entirely true. The world powers that split up the Middle East determined what was Israel, what was Palestine. War changed the borders but they were finalized in 1948 and agreed to by both Israel and the Arabs and Israel was officially formed.

None of it included the current occupied territories.

IF it is part of Israel legitimately then Israel better give them their rights as citizens of Israel.

 

[jb_1430]

I wonder why you guys feel compelled to comment upon topics you know absolutely nothing about.