Does Israel Have The Right To Exist?

[Solitaire]

Land ownership didn't entitle the Jews to start a country. Power did. Just like the way any other country started. Might makes right then, still does today.

I find it true, but disappointing.
Why do I look for another form of justification? I don't really know.

I guess the real question should be "Should the rest of the world allow the Palestinians to waste their national resources to get their A's kicked some more?" or should we allow the Jews to handle it, in a more traditional, and more permanent way?

I think it's an illusion. A few palestinian terrorists cause death and destruction in Israel but on the small scale. The israeli military responds by killing a few more terrorists in Palestine, but they don't drive the rest of the palestinians out. They do not appear to be at war with each other in any signification way.

 

[webfusion]

And the Arab League in 2002 and now again have offered full recognition of Israel in return for Israel going back to 1967 borders and acceptance of the right of return.

There were no "borders" of Palestine in 1967 -- the entire area was on tenterhooks, and the only thing which Israel could point to regarding boundries were the 1949 Cease-Fire Lines (Rhodes Armistice) which were routinely crossed by terrorists, supported in their ouright murderous violence by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, whose Armed Forces also gathered to attack en-masse.

Are you are thinking that the Israelis need to accept the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines now, in 2007, with HAMAS making it clear that they are not interested in these 1949 Lines, but want the entire land 100%, and are willing to wage jihad for it? Is that your line of thinking?

Good luck with that, ace.


By the way, your palestinecenter map has some serious problems in the way it calculates the "land ownership" pie charts. I won't waste time or energy telling you what those problems are, but here's a hint:

Look at the TULKARM district.

 

[webfusion]

Maybe some Zionists are against the right of return because of the reality of land ownership pre 1948 and campaigns such as Operation Danny.

you left out a word --- WAR campaigns such as Operations Dani, and Dekel, and Kedem, etc.

Also, you neglected to mention that Ramle is still the home today to a large population of Palestinians.

 

[Solitaire]

Were you unaware of that, Solitaire?

Yes!

That one post contained more information than thousands of hours of television news on the matter.

Why is the small nation of Israel bothering the Arabs who have 21 nations, wealth beyond their wildest dreams, and not shortage of land?

If you look at the area where Israel exists on the Arabian Peninsula then you will see lots of green. By contrast move a hundred miles over into Saudi Arabia and you see lots of brown hot dry desert devoid of life. It's possible that if Israel had formed in the dry desert areas the arabs might not have payed it very much attention.

Also, the arabs had successful empire at one time that spanned throughout the Mediterranean. Now they have not only the loss of that empire but one of their three most holy sites partially controlled by another power. That must weigh upon their minds quite a bit.

 

[webfusion]

Solitaire, your reply to my post was the best response I could possibly imagine, here among those who strive to follow the example set by James Randi, to learn, to educate, to explore truths. Thank you for making my day.

In the past 24 hours, the Prime Minister of Israel has been making statements about how he would like to pursue a dialogue and meet with the Saudis and explore ways to implement the Arab League proposals.

Also, in the past 24 hours, the palestinian governement spokesperson issued a statement (about the Saudi plan) -- "We stress that we do not and will never recognise the right of Israel to exist on one inch of Palestinian land," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said. "We will not abandon the resistance to the Zionist occupation until the liberation of all Palestinian soil," Barhoum said.

Yet more proof that the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines are not the point of contention. Can anything be clearer than this?

 

[webfusion]

I want to clarify something here ---- When we talk about the conflict today being about "land" it is using the common meaning in the following context:
the conflict will be resolved by a withdrawal to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines (referred to incorrectly as the 1967 Borders)
The Arab League codified that exact concept this past week, by adopting the position that Israel would gain their recognition by relinquishing all lands occupied in 1967. The world is being led to believe that the "land dispute" which is at the root of the problems involves the 1967 Occupation. When we hear the words "land dispute" this is the plainly understood context. Always, over and over, we are told that the conflict revolves around "The Occupation" and the Palestinian Arabs want back the land that was "theirs" before June 6, 1967. And now, I say it once more --- the Arab-Israeli dispute is not about land occupied in 1967.

Edited to add link:
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

 

[webfusion]

Now they have not only the loss of that empire but one of their three most holy sites partially controlled by another power. That must weigh upon their minds quite a bit.

The holy site in question, Haram al_Sharif, is controlled and in the posession of the Islamic WAQF.

 

[The Atheist]

It's like my kids fighting over where to sit at the dinner table. The table is huge, with 5 empty seats, but they have to fight over the same seat.

Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Chechnya...

Just face, humans hate each others' guts, you snivelling little piece of dingo faeces!

If there were only two people alive and each agreed to which hemispehere they would inhabit for the rest of their lives, how long do you think it would be before one shot the other one to have the whole lot?

(And by the way, my frigging kids do just that too - two kids, six seats, so fight over ONE of them... Humans.)

 

[Mycroft]

Work with me here. My thesis is that Palestine/Israel is at the heart of the Arab Jewish conflict contrary to webfusion's claims. I asked for evidence and you link me to a guy who's main problem is with Zionism?

<sigh>

You're not the only fellow to try to white-wash this guy as "only anti-Zionist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#The_Holocaust

 

[a_unique_person]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel

Project Israel. Camera comes to Wikipedia. I wonder if they'll ever get around to documenting both sides of the argument with as much diligence and research? My guess is no.

<sigh> Hey, I can do that too.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

T

Are you are thinking that the Israelis need to accept the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines now, in 2007, with HAMAS making it clear that they are not interested in these 1949 Lines, but want the entire land 100%, and are willing to wage jihad for it? Is that your line of thinking?

Good luck with that, ace.

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. I do know that if things go along as they have, there will never be peace for Israel or the Palestinians or their neighbors most likely for that matter.

I must say that it pains me to see both the Palestinians and Israelis engaging in horrible atrocities against each other over this.

 

[webfusion]

a_u_p, thanks for that new link. It may not be to your liking, but does provide a valuable resource.

tituobagnikniht syas

I do know that if things go along as they have, there will never be peace for Israel or the Palestinians or their neighbors most likely for that matter.

Unsupported opinion. The facts show that Israel does negotiate in good faith, and achieved land-for-peace terms with hostile neighbors (more hostile than the palestinians, for sure).

 

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p, thanks for that new link. It may not be to your liking, but does provide a valuable resource.

tituobagnikniht syas

Unsupported opinion. The facts show that Israel does negotiate in good faith, and achieved land-for-peace terms with hostile neighbors (more hostile than the palestinians, for sure).

It depends, doesn't it? What does the map of Israel look like?

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Unsupported opinion. The facts show that Israel does negotiate in good faith, and achieved land-for-peace terms with hostile neighbors (more hostile than the palestinians, for sure).

So you're okay with a land for peace deal? What's up with expanded settlements in the West Bank?

What is your solution? What is the deal Israel is offering and when did they offer it?

 

[webfusion]

Am I okay with a land-for-peace deal? Sure, it has worked in the past with Jordan and Egypt, it should work with the Palestinians. The solution, since you ask, is for the palestinians to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and eliminate their threatening tone from the discussions. That is the deal Israel is offering. It's the same deal that the major International players on the world scene have asked for.

 

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by webfusion:
a_u_p, thanks for that new link. It may not be to your liking, but does provide a valuable resource.

a_u_p replies: It depends, doesn't it? What does the map of Israel look like?

You are asking what does the map of Israel look like on that WIKI Project_Israel website?
I did not see one.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are asking what does the map of Israel look like on that WIKI Project_Israel website?
I did not see one.

No, what does the current official Israel map look like. My guess is identical to Palestinian map of Palestine.

 

[Thunder]

Israel should return to the 1967 borders with minor adjustments agreed upon by both parties. Jerusalem should be shared. the 1st generation of refugees should be allowed to return.

and thats that.

 

[Hawk one]

Based on the posts made around #20, I have finally found the solution:

Force the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to watch old Eurovison Song Contests until they both agree to settle all things peacefully. Strap them up Clockwork Orange-style if you have to.

I give the most extreme and war-happy proponents on either side about 1 hour and 15 minutes of the entire 1984 run before breaking down and becoming so peaceful that Dalai Lama will envy them.

 

[The Atheist]

I give the most extreme and war-happy proponents on either side about 1 hour and 15 minutes of the entire 1984 run before breaking down and becoming so peaceful that Dalai Lama will envy them.

SEVENTY FIVE MINUTES?

I'll take the unders on that.