"any argument" ? HAMAS is the one making the argument that it's Islamic Land, consecrated forever. No alternative is acceptable, especially towards anyone else's rights.
True. The problem is that halfordlaes is saying that people here, forumites, are arguing for a Biblical justification of Zionism, and I haven't seen anyone doing that. He's shouting at the pigeons, basically.
A good number of the so-called "Palestinians" had actually emigrated to that region from places like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, in the years up to 1948. The idea that these people had lived in Palestine for generations prior to the establishment of the state of Israel is quite false.
I agree. The Jews are in Israel, and destroying Israel would just be trying to make a right out of two wrongs.
does that mean that they get to form their owe state in Arizona?
„The Jews“ being in Israel is a „wrong.“ Another antisemite outs themselves.
Antizionist, please, not antisemite. It is not the same thing. You know, there are many Jews too, who are antizionists.
You just outed yourself as antigaelic!
Many Jews ? I don't think so.
That depends on how many “many” are. I have known one personally, and in my local newspaper there was recently an article underwritten by a number of Jews (promptly disavowed by the local Jewish community), and in the US there are Jewish religious extremists who do not recognise the state of Israel. But anyway, the point is that being against Israel is not the same as being antisemitic. And I am not even against Israel - as I wrote above: it would be a gross injustice to dissolve Israel and ethnically cleanse the area.
Yes, but that is not really relevant to what I have been writing.
That does not justify taking the land from somebody else. Bad conscience has enabled righting a wrong with another wrong.
They were part of a multi-cultural empire that was partitioned by conquering powers. In your opinion they did not deserve to decide their own fate because they were too slow?
The partition plan was not an attempt to let the locals decide, but an attempt to give them the leftovers after Israel had been formed.
Correct, but with all the hatred that has been generated on both sides, there will be no easy solutions. I certainly have no solution. Perhaps the best one can hope for is not to make the situation worse.
www.miryaminstitute.org
5%. Antisemite.
Jews have been continuously living in the land now called Israel since the 2nd century BCE. When the state of Israel was formed, the Arabs living there were offered full citizenship rights, which those who stayed, now 20% of Israeli citizens, still enjoy.
5% of Jews are antisemite? OK …
That may be so, but the great influx of Jews have not had ancestors in the area for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Very magnanimous. But it is still a state created for Jews and not for the people who already lived in the land.
As I said, this land can hardly be claimed to be “ancestral” when the ancestors haven’t lived there for hundreds of years.
You are again conflating antizionism with antisemitism.
I agree. Isreal has to admit the Palestinain have a right to a homeland, and the Arabs in general have to accept that Isreali is not going anywhere.
Yes.
Yes. They were kicked out and have never really been safe anywhere in the world.
Wrong. Anyone who lived their could have stayed there and become full citizens.
Look up the word "ancestral."
Anti-Zionism is the modern form of antisemitism, and you are a modern antisemite. Guess where I'm sending you?
No, that's the opposite of the truth. Israel was supposed to be all of Mandated Palestine. Then Abdullah, peeved that his brother Faisal had been made King of Iraq, demanded that he be a king too. Tp keep him happy, the British carved off a chunk of Palestine, turned it into a new country called Jordan, and gave it to Abdullah. Then the further partition of Palestine split the remaining mandate- all of which was originally supposed to be a Jewish state- between the Jews and the "Palestinians". Thus, Israel ended up with the leftovers after most of Palestine was given to the Arabs.
This applies equally to the so-called "Palestinians". Many, if not most, of them had not lived there for hundreds of years before 1948. Indeed, a good number of them arrived quite soon before that: the UN definition of a Palestinian, used in the return of the refugees question, is anyone who was living there in 1946. In other words, you only had to have been living there for two years to be considered a "Palestinian". We know, from Ottoman records, that immigrants were arriving in the region all through the C19th and C20th, from as far afield as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and even Nigeria. I do keep saying this, but none of the (totes not antisemitic) "anti-Zionists" and Hamas apologists here will listen: the claim that the "Palestinians" had been living there for generations, whilst the Jews were recent colonists, is simply false.
www.jpost.com
True, The state of Israel was a solution to a problem. A bad solution, as we now know. But as I have said, a solution we have to live with. There is no going back.
Full citizens of a religious state with extremists trying to kick them out, as actually happened for a lot. Question: (I don’t know the answer) Has Israel caught and punished the terrorists who forced most Palestinians out?
Yes, I did. I don’t see anything about having had relatives living in an area more than a thousand years previously gives one a right to settle and create a state unwanted by the people who already lived there.
A concentration camp, probably. You seem to be precisely one of those extremists that can only see things in black and white.
You write as if Jews had a valid claim to the entire area. But you are probably right that the word “leftovers” was not well chosen.
There is an attempt to portray the area as “empty” land, which gives colonists a right to swarm into the place, and also to claim that everybody were immigrants, so millions of Jews arriving in the area have just as much right to the land as everybody else. I still don’t think that the UN did right by setting up the state of Israel.
Unhelpful and one-sided hyperbole. Your bias is showing again.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
And by continuing to engender that hate, you are contributing to the problem, not the solution. You don't think Israel has a right to exist, you don't want Israel to exist, and you are happy to post this on a public forum. How, in your eyes, is this helping to foster a peaceful solution?
You ignore the 1948 boundaries. Also the 1967 boundaries. Also the permanent occupation of remaining Palestinian land in "Judea and Samaria", the name giving away the theocratic nature of the claims made.
Man up to the timelines, as above, and:
www.israelnationalnews.com
www.israelnationalnews.com
I have only criticized the creation of Israel. Now Israel is there, and Jews of course have equal rights and claims to land in Israel, and deserve to live at peace with neighbours - which includes the Palestinians.
Agreed.
You are only reading what you want to read, not what I write. Oh, well …
www.jpost.com
You said you disagreed with the decision to create the state of Israel. So you don't think Israel should exist, and then you wonder why spreading this idea around the internet could possibly be seen as increasing, rather than decreasing, hatred of Israel.
I do understand that some people will twist anything to fit their worldview.
Some people. But not me.
