• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Creation of Israel Violated the Palestinian Right to Self-Determination

psionl0 said:
If you want to ask a "foundational" question then try this:

Should Israel be permitted to continue to exist as an independent Sovereign nation in the region they have had since then end of WW2 or do you want to kick them out and hand the land to the Palestinians?
Click to expand...

Please illustrate a command of a consistent set of principles that should prevail in this discussion of land, its inhabitants, rights, and law. One that does not require special pleading or consist of implicitly accepting judeochristian precepts as having greater authority on religious grounds; i.e., an unstated cultural bias.

Or, provide your own list of foundational questions. The one you formulate has already been answered, and not in any sort of alarmist terms, and furthermore requires fleshing out the more proper questions helpfully provided you. As it stands, since you state no foundation for validity of land claims, and that of Islam is both more recent and far more related to the 1930s and prior inhabitants of the land, Islam's claims are on a par, if not superior, to those of either Judaism or its now-evil cousin, Zionism. A Caliphate does more justice for more people in the region than does the state of Israel, accomplishes a greater good.

Or as the Crusades showed, the region needs liberation from infidels, and that, as American evangelicals aspire as they supply bombs, is the real righteous position. Of course!

My money is on peoples from parts of Africa whose ancestors first crossed the region, if more ancient claims are more valid.

What's it going to be?

You might not have noticed, but I provided a defense for the Jews now living there already, as well as the basis for doing so, which you can handily find on your own. Good day.
 
Last edited:
Methinks the preponderance on unaddressed points in the OP and since, as well as in other threads, is revealing of the weakness, and wantonness, of the Zionist position today.


ETA: Ideologies and communities of faith following their own preferred set of precepts are often, as was the case of Zionism for some, including the rabbi I quote at length on this or one of the other threads, are more often than not noble in intent and crafted for honorable outcomes. Unfortunately, along comes another human trait, which is pursuit of power, and as an ideology or some matter of material or spiritual inspiration may yield great influence, it is an excellent vehicle to that power, and voilà. More subtly, it is also an most excellent and subtle trap, driving thought into long-held and increasingly unexamined canon, yielding the confirmation bias of its ardent proponents.

It is for this reason that ideologies, all of them, are the enemy that sleeps within while seeking to strangle from without.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
No, it's you that doesn't understand. The ICC can find individuals guilty of crimes, but not states.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess the French government could send commandos to Israel to arrest Netanyahu and put him on trial for war crimes, if that's what they want.

Is that what Hlafordlaes wants? A coalition of western European states to invade Israel, kill a bunch of Israelis, and take other Israelis to the Hague to put them on trial in their high court?
 
Hercules56 said:
Its in the world's self-interest to stand up against genocide, war crimes & Apartheid.

When we ignore such things they only get worse. We learned that lesson during WW2.

Never Again
Click to expand...

The current leader of Russia has an open and active ICC warrant for his arrest and a trial for war crimes.

Nu?

(The current leader of Israel does not, BTW)
 
ponderingturtle said:
That is as realistic as a secular palestinian state.
Click to expand...

Or, as sensible as a "contiguous PalestineState"

I have still not received any reasoning why the Gaza/N.Sinai proposal for the PalestinianNewState is untenable.
(all responses have been of the variety -- "If it's so great, why don't the Jews move there?" or "Palestinians don't need to accept 'scraps'" or some other platitudes of why it can't be considered, and is insufficient for Palestinian needs. The GazaState can work, once Israel finishes showing the Gazans how badly their entire dynamic of terrorists-in-charge has been for them all)
 
webfusion said:
Or, as sensible as a "contiguous PalestineState"

I have still not received any reasoning why the Gaza/N.Sinai proposal for the PalestinianNewState is untenable.
Click to expand...

Because Israel will not allow it, they have far to many settlers to let that happen.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because Israel will not allow it, they have far to many settlers to let that happen.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's long past time for Palestinians to take the L and embrace peaceful protest.

---

I'm not sayng the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers was a good thing, but you know who has figured out how to not lash out with terrorist violence? The First Nations. Even though their borders and airspace are under total control by the "occupier".
 
dudalb said:
BTW I believe in a Two State solution...the single state is La La Land territory.
Click to expand...

I think we need to start talking about a three state solution. There's no reason Gaza and the West Bank need to be part of the same state, and already they effectively aren't.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because Israel will not allow it, they have far to many settlers to let that happen.
Click to expand...
Unclear whether you meant contiguous state Israel will not allow or the Gaza state into Sinai Israel not allow?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk
 
I'm sure this as been covered but.....

It really doesn't matter what the creation of Israel did in 1948, it matters what to do about it now. I would have been against it 1948, at least knowing what I know now but I'm not for the dissolution of Israel now, which is more or less what the one state solution or right of return for the descendants of Muslim Palestinians would mean.

So, what do we do, I don't ******* know. Every solution I've heard seems untenable and unacceptable to at least one group of folks that currently live there.

Prestige's Israel Jordan solution is less fantastic* than most I think. Maybe a 3 state solution; Israel, Jordan, and Egypt but the Egypt side would need some form of, Israel gets to look at what's going on. Granted, neither Egypt or Jordan are interested in that option

ETA, *, I meant literally less of the realm of fantasy and not less good.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Fair enough. I guess the French government could send commandos to Israel to arrest Netanyahu and put him on trial for war crimes, if that's what they want.

Is that what Hlafordlaes wants? A coalition of western European states to invade Israel, kill a bunch of Israelis, and take other Israelis to the Hague to put them on trial in their high court?
Click to expand...

That's a lovely characterization. Nice shot; properly inflammatory. I realize it is difficult coming to terms.

Come on, boys, you are edging toward where this needs to go. Instead of suggesting the above, tell me why I or anyone should ever have sympathized with the idea of Jews settling in occupied, Western-controlled Palestine when they did. Give me the reason. As what was done is blatantly contradictory with laws passed immediately later, there must be a good reason. Faith-based claims do not count. Historic claims do not count. What counts?

Hlafordlaes said:
Please illustrate a command of a consistent set of principles that should prevail in this discussion of land, its inhabitants, rights, and law. One that does not require special pleading or consist of implicitly accepting judeochristian precepts as having greater authority on religious grounds; i.e., an unstated cultural bias.
Click to expand...
I'll let this be simplified to: Give me the bottom line, brass tacks basis for the settlement of Palestine by Jews.

Hint: There is one.
 
Last edited:
First, modern migration by Jews to the levant, started a generation or two earlier, when the Ottomans control the area. So, why?

Why should you sympathize with anyone moving anywhere, Say, why should you sympathize with Latin Americans settling in the Modern US?
 
ahhell said:
First, modern migration by Jews to the levant, started a generation or two earlier, when the Ottomans control the area. So, why?

Why should you sympathize with anyone moving anywhere, Say, why should you sympathize with Latin Americans settling in the Modern US?
Click to expand...

I've moved to Spain, I'm not advocating it be a 51st state. But this is close, thanks.

ETA: Just answer the question as you've just posed it; there is no trick. What is the answer to the questions in the second line of your post?
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
I've moved to Spain, I'm not advocating it be a 51st state. But this is close, thanks.

ETA: Just answer the question as you've just posed it; there is no trick. What is the answer to the questions in the second line of your post?
Click to expand...

I sympathize with anyone fleeing persecution, I also sympathize with folks that are displaced by such migration.

This is not the Fault of the Jews or Israelis. This is the fault of the numerous countries the fled and England's mishandling of the mandate and transition.

Should we sympathize with Armenians after the Genocide, yes, should we have allowed them to settle somewhere out of control of the Turks, yes. Should we have allowed them to create an ethnostate somewhere where other people already existed, probably not. If they had done that, should we now decide they don't deserve a state anymore, probably not.

But, this is basically a useless question. Israel exists, so "what now?" is the only question that matters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom