• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel's Legal Founding [W:89]

CJ 2.0 said:
Oh my god man.

UNHCR.

UNRWA.

Please.
Click to expand...

UNRWA job is to provide various services that protect the well being of Palestinian refugees. A Palestinian refugee define by UNRWA means that those individuals are eligible for services provided to them. Even under the UNHCR Palestinians Refugees are considered refugees...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh Nope nope nope. Thats not my position
This issue, like the Palestinian refugee issue is horribly complicated.
1.)We need to look at this in the historical context.
2.)The UNHCR has twice stated the Jews who have fled from these countries are refugees and are "considered prima facie within the mandate of this office"
https://books.google.com/books?id=y...cie within the mandate of this office&f=false
http://www.unhcr.org/3d464c954.pdf "I refer to our recent discussion concerning Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries in consequence of recent events. I am now able to inform you that such persons may be considered prima facie within the mandate of this Office"
3.)Some say that this is politically motivated: “You can definitely be a refugee and be fleeing persecution and then end up showing up [in Israel],” says Diana Buttu, an international human rights lawyer and former adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team, adding that that’s not the real issue. “I think what’s driving it is: (1) they want to completely eliminate the issue of the right of return, (2) ... they want to create this idea of homelands and that the only place you can flee to is your homeland.”.. The implication, she says, is that Palestinians in the future could only return to the part of historical Palestine designated as a Palestinian state –and not inside Israel proper, where many of them lived before 1948." Israel scrambles Palestinian 'right of return' with Jewish refugee talk - CSMonitor.com
4.)My personal opinion is yes, if the Jews who fled were "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country", then yes they are considered refugees UNHCR - Refugees And if they want to return to their homeland, then they have a right to. However, I'm wiling to wager that most of these refugees will not return becuase 600,000 of the 800,000 went to Israel (aka, what they claim their "homeland).
Click to expand...
I didn't say it's your stance, I just pointed out the reality.
1&2. Irrelevant, the Jews that expelled from Arab countries wont return to the country where their life were at risk.
3. No, stop prevent from these people to assimilate and work and move on, many of them want to live outside the camps, work in different jobs and living just as other Lebanese or syrian citizen.
4. see - 1.
The life of the "refugees" which by the way their kids are "refugees" and so on, will be so much better if someone will close UNRWA due to the reason they are doing the opposite of what they truly need to do.
 
NO1 said:
I didn't say it's your stance,
Click to expand...
Im sorry. I thought that what your second half of your comment was implying.
1&2. Irrelevant, the Jews that expelled from Arab countries wont return to the country where their life were at risk.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I would say its pretty relevant because its the UNHCR's position... One of the main international agencies that handles refugees.

3. No, stop prevent from these people to assimilate and work and move on, many of them want to live outside the camps, work in different jobs and living just as other Lebanese or syrian citizen.
Click to expand...
And I agree. The poll I have posted several times here shows that only about 10% of Palestinian refugees will actually follow their right of return and return to modern day Israel..

4. see - 1.
The life of the "refugees" which by the way their kids are "refugees" and so on, will be so much better if someone will close UNRWA due to the reason they are doing the opposite of what they truly need to do.
Click to expand...
How would it be "better"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Im sorry. I thought that what your second half of your comment was implying.

:shrug: I would say its pretty relevant because its the UNHCR's position... One of the main international agencies that handles refugees.
Click to expand...
So what? If the UNHCR says the Palestinian refugees have the right to return its mean that Israel should welcome in 8 milion refugees?


And I agree. The poll I have posted several times here shows that only about 10% of Palestinian refugees will actually follow their right of return and return to modern day Israel..
Click to expand...
Nope, Palestinians refugees won't return, it's time to realize it.


How would it be "better"?
Click to expand...
Very simple, UNRWA established due to the reason the Arab countries didnt want to give the refugees citizenship, so if someone will close UNRWA and let the UNHCR to be in charge, they will try to assimilate the refugees in their countries. The Arab countries has responsbility about this problem and they should resolve it.
 
NO1 said:
So what? If the UNHCR says the Palestinian refugees have the right to return its mean that Israel should welcome in 8 milion refugees?
Click to expand...
I mean this is the context we were having this discussion in...
Also there is 5 million Palestinian refugees that are available to receive UNRWA assistance and only about 10% of those refugees have indicated they would exercise their right to return to modern day Israeli territory.


Nope, Palestinians refugees won't return, it's time to realize it.
Click to expand...
They wont?

Very simple, UNRWA established due to the reason the Arab countries didnt want to give the refugees citizenship, so if someone will close UNRWA and let the UNHCR to be in charge, they will try to assimilate the refugees in their countries.
Click to expand...
1.)Umm UNRWA has very little to nothing to do with most Arab countries unwillingness to assimilate Palestinian refugees in their country. UNRWA simply provides services to Palestinian refugees. They cannot force a country to assimilate a refugee population.
2.)Simply closing UNRWA is not going to make Arab countries assimilate their Palestinians refugees. I mean what evidence do you have here?
3.)Jordan has assimilated their Palestinians
4.)UNHCR and UNRWA work together http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/2010011791015.pdf

The Arab countries has responsbility about this problem and they should resolve it.
Click to expand...
I would agree. But doesn't Israel as well, or are they off scot-free?
 
Hi! NO1

You are not alone with your views:

In early January this year, The UN General Assembly approved a draft resolution "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources" (document A/70/480).

It was adopted by 164 to 5 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu).
UN Supports Sovereignty for Palestine and Slams Israel | Dissident Voice

Calm
 
NO1 said:
No, not at all. I'm talking about much more fundamental things.

1. The Arabs are not the native people they came after the Muslim conquest in the 7th century and the Ottomans unlike the Indians.
2. The Jews didn’t have motherland that sent them to Israel unlike the Americans.
3. The Jews didn’t treat the Arabs as the Americans, Spanish and other treated the native Indians, not even close. The opposite is true the Jews suffered a lot from Arabs attacks. The worst thing the Jews did is just buying land fairly from Arabs. You can't compare the horrible things that the imperialists and the colonialists did to the Indians to the Jews, you just can't.
4. The Jews has a long history in that land, there is many history evidences for that, they return to their homeland. Can you say it the same for Americans?
5. Jews came to Israel because its their homeland the didn’t interested in any kind natural resources unlike the Americans. Just the opposite Israel made the desert a heaven by its own hands.
Click to expand...

1. Stating the Arabs are not native is like stating we should give Native Americans all the land back that we took from them. Land gets taken over in conquest and war. Deal with it.
2. The Jewish people were constantly nomadic for a large percentage of recorded history, sure they might have had a land that they knew as "home" but most of them never have or never will live there.
3. The Jews have historically done horrendous things to groups in that area. I mean, you only need to read the Old Testament to see how their leaders talked about foreign groups and how they were supposed to kill every living being including animals of other civilizations.
4. Arabs have had a long history as well in that land. Civilzation didn't start based on the Bible(which is probably where you are basing this).
5. Israel isn't a horrible desert like you make it out to be. Perhaps you should learn something about geogrpahy.

Seems like you don't know much information about the area, or you are purposely providing falsehoods.
 
ajn678 said:
1. Stating the Arabs are not native is like stating we should give Native Americans all the land back that we took from them. Land gets taken over in conquest and war. Deal with it.
2. The Jewish people were constantly nomadic for a large percentage of recorded history, sure they might have had a land that they knew as "home" but most of them never have or never will live there.
3. The Jews have historically done horrendous things to groups in that area. I mean, you only need to read the Old Testament to see how their leaders talked about foreign groups and how they were supposed to kill every living being including animals of other civilizations.
4. Arabs have had a long history as well in that land. Civilzation didn't start based on the Bible(which is probably where you are basing this).
5. Israel isn't a horrible desert like you make it out to be. Perhaps you should learn something about geogrpahy.

Seems like you don't know much information about the area, or you are purposely providing falsehoods.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Israel that you're claiming what he's saying are falsehoods?
And it really ain't falsehoods, Israel for example was mostly desert (and a significant part of it still is) back before the Jewish immigration to it had begun, so I have no idea what you're talking about here.
 
Apocalypse said:
Have you ever been to Israel that you're claiming what he's saying are falsehoods?
And it really ain't falsehoods, Israel for example was mostly desert (and a significant part of it still is) back before the Jewish immigration to it had begun, so I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Click to expand...

I have a very good friend from Israel, I know how the country is. The majority of the nation that people live in is not desert, even if part of the nation still is. But I see you have literally no proof of what I said was wrong, so there's really no reason to respond any further since you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
ajn678 said:
I have a very good friend from Israel, I know how the country is.
Click to expand...

I'd still argue that people who actually live there like NO1 are a bit more likely to be more familiar with the country, correct?

The majority of the nation that people live in is not desert, even if part of the nation still is. But I see you have literally no proof of what I said was wrong, so there's really no reason to respond any further since you have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You think I cannot notice that you've now changed the wording to "the majority of the nation where people have lived in was not desert"? Hysterical. Indeed at least you are correct that there is no reason to respond, what needed to be said was already said in my previous post.
 
Apocalypse said:
I'd still argue that people who actually live there like NO1 are a bit more likely to be more familiar with the country, correct?



You think I cannot notice that you've now changed the wording to "the majority of the nation where people have lived in was not desert"? Hysterical. Indeed at least you are correct that there is no reason to respond, what needed to be said was already said in my previous post.
Click to expand...

I think he has a very clouded view on how his nation came to exist. I also believe what he stated is clearly biased in regards to his first hand experience in the nation. Often times, it takes an outsider to show you where things are faulty, and not only is the initial video garbage, his "facts" that he listed are most entirely false.
 
ajn678 said:
I think he has a very clouded view on how his nation came to exist. I also believe what he stated is clearly biased in regards to his first hand experience in the nation. Often times, it takes an outsider to show you where things are faulty, and not only is the initial video garbage, his "facts" that he listed are most entirely false.
Click to expand...

Clearly I think you're horribly wrong here.
But let's not just call it, let's examine what NO1 said and see whether it's right or wrong;

1. The Arabs are not the native people they came after the Muslim conquest in the 7th century and the Ottomans unlike the Indians.
Click to expand...

When you're saying on a people that they're "native" to a land it's not like saying on an individual that he's native to a land. An individual is native if he's born there, a people are native to the land if they were created in that land as a people, and thus it is their homeland. The Arab people are known to have come from the Arab Peninsula which is mostly Saudi Arabia these days. They are not native to the lands of Israel and the Palestinian territories just as they aren't to the lands of North Africa (Egypt, Morocco, Libya, etc.). They have arrived there through conquest.

This statement is factually true.

2. The Jews didn’t have motherland that sent them to Israel unlike the Americans.
Click to expand...

In here he refers to the homeland of the Jewish people, meaning the land where the Jewish people have become a people. This is the land of Israel historically speaking. Jews have immigrated to Israel (that already had a Jewish community in it by the way) from France, Poland, Britain, Germany, etc. Is it true to say that France is the homeland of the Jewish people? That Poland is? No, there is only one homeland for each people and for the Jewish people that is Israel. Again we need to learn the difference between an individual being native to a land and a people being native to a land. A Jewish immigrant from France is native to France as he was born there, but the Jewish people are native only to the land of Israel and cannot form a state in France claiming it to be their homeland, they can only do so in the land of Israel which is their historical homeland.

This statement is factually true.

3. The Jews didn’t treat the Arabs as the Americans, Spanish and other treated the native Indians, not even close. The opposite is true the Jews suffered a lot from Arabs attacks. The worst thing the Jews did is just buying land fairly from Arabs. You can't compare the horrible things that the imperialists and the colonialists did to the Indians to the Jews, you just can't.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely and indisputably true and I see no reason to even discuss it as it grants legitimacy to horrible views.

This statement is factually true.

4. The Jews has a long history in that land, there is many history evidences for that, they return to their homeland. Can you say it the same for Americans?
Click to expand...

Indeed it is indisputable that Jews have a history in the land and there are enough findings on the historical and archeological level that prove beyond any doubt the existence of several Jewish nations in the land(Judea Kingdom, Israel Kingdom, etc.). Furthermore a Jewish community has always existed, for over 3,000 years, in the land.

This statement is factually true.

5. Jews came to Israel because its their homeland the didn’t interested in any kind natural resources unlike the Americans. Just the opposite Israel made the desert a heaven by its own hands.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Jewish people haven't immigrated to the land for oil or any other natural resource the land has had, it was a failed land as Mark Twain described it back in the early 19th century and the only reason any Jewish person was interested in going there is because he felt a national connection with the land of his ancestors.

This statement is factually true.

Now if you believe otherwise do provide an explanation and not just the horribly mistaken "you guys live in Israel so you probably don't know it" line of argument.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I mean this is the context we were having this discussion in...
Also there is 5 million Palestinian refugees that are available to receive UNRWA assistance and only about 10% of those refugees have indicated they would exercise their right to return to modern day Israeli territory.



They wont?


1.)Umm UNRWA has very little to nothing to do with most Arab countries unwillingness to assimilate Palestinian refugees in their country. UNRWA simply provides services to Palestinian refugees. They cannot force a country to assimilate a refugee population.
2.)Simply closing UNRWA is not going to make Arab countries assimilate their Palestinians refugees. I mean what evidence do you have here?
3.)Jordan has assimilated their Palestinians
4.)UNHCR and UNRWA work together http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/2010011791015.pdf


I would agree. But doesn't Israel as well, or are they off scot-free?
Click to expand...
UNRWA should not even established, the Arab stats should have take care these people instead of using the refugees to their own goals. Once UNRWA will cease to exist these countries will have to take care to the refugess right?
 
NO1 said:
UNRWA should not even established, the Arab stats should have take care these people instead of using the refugees to their own goals. Once UNRWA will cease to exist these countries will have to take care to the refugess right?
Click to expand...

Well technically the host countries of where the refugee camps are must have an agreement with UNRWA and UNRWA does not itself run camps, has no police powers or administrative role, but simply provides services in the camp... So the host countries themselves are already "taking care of the refugees" in part... But no, there is nothing to really show that simply dissolving UNRWA will mean that these countries will take care of the refugees even more than they already are
 
HowardBThiname said:
This is unfortunately very true.

Israel's pressure on the Arab people living in Gaza, the West Bank and Golan is the RESULT of the necessity for Israel to defend itself. Israel reacts to the the attacks against it -- it does not start skirmishes with peaceful people.

Israel does react strongly, but it must to deter the constant attacks.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, not one of those who totally support Israel would tolerate the way the Palestinians have been and are treated if they were in their shoes.

We rebelled against England for far less than the Palestinians endured BEFORE they started acting out. And our tactics were considered war crimes/terrorism.

Israel HAS recently admitted its founding and early behavior was less than fair/perfect. In time they may act accordingly.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
1. No. Israel has no responsibility to fundamentally weaken its security position with an enemy that has no intention of making peace in order to assuage those in the US that would sell out the Israelis in a second for their own self-interest.

2. No, if Israel went "all out for peace", like, say, offering the Palestinians independence on 95%+ of the WB and all of Gaza in exchange for the Palestinians ending their conflict against the Jews, that would not help. Since it has already been offered and the response was a 5 year long terrorist war where the key tactic was to sneak bombers past soldiers to massacre civilians. And your point originally was about "simmering tensions in the region". that's just the standard (and wrong) view that Israel is the linchpin to stability in the middle east, which is such an obvious fiction (and now is especially obvious in light of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya etc) that it is really nothing more than the standard "if it wasn't for the Jews everything would be great" nonsense morphed into another form.

3. By paying attention.
Click to expand...

So you would quietly accept armed men raiding your home at gunpoint, proving to your children that you can't keep them safe? Tore down your home to make way for a settlement? Destroyed your villages well?

Israel routinely provokes and then cries when the targets of that provocation act out against it.

Terrorize my children at gunpoint and you make an enemy of me. I personally wouldn't use that abuse to excuse a terrorist act of my own. Unless you killed my child. Then I can't say.

I AM saying that Palestinian terrorism isn't the simple "evil people attacking the totally innocent" that the propaganda suggests.

Having seen the Israelis start **** when the Palestinians have been "quiet" suggests cynical manipulation of the situation for PR purposes. If the bombers stopped bombing, the world would make Israel treat them better. Including giving their dirt back. So provoking some usually ineffective rocket fire might be considered an acceptable risk, to keep American military/financial support if nothing else. (Not saying they ARE doing this, but I have seen Israel provoke when the Palestinians were keeping their radicals in check. There must have been some reason.)
 
CJ 2.0 said:
The 2 peace treaties they have signed are continuing to succeed quite well.

Cause what matters when it comes to Israel being at peace or at war is the intention of its adversaries. When Israel's adversaries want peace, there is peace (see Egypt, Jordan). When they don't, there is no peace (see the Palestinians and their rejection of independence to launch a suicide bomb war against Israel's civilian population).

Cause Israel wants peace but it takes two to tango.

And the Palestinians clearly have no interest in peace.
Click to expand...

None of you would accept the conditions the Palestinians were subjected to BEFORE they adopted terrorism.

Occupation is an act of war. Against civilians.

So at the end of the day, Israel claims the right to make war on civilians by occupation, yet condemns making war against ITS civilians by terrorism.

So its the degree, the tactics, that they object to. The war they make is OK, the war they get back is not.
 
What if...? said:
None of you would accept the conditions the Palestinians were subjected to BEFORE they adopted terrorism.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that the occupation predates Palestinian terrorism and you're horribly wrong at that, it's the other way around.
Furthermore the occupation would not exist and would have no justification if not for Palestinian terrorism.

Occupation is an act of war. Against civilians.
Click to expand...

The act of war came before it.

So at the end of the day, Israel claims the right to make war on civilians by occupation, yet condemns making war against ITS civilians by terrorism.
Click to expand...

Comparing self-defense from terrorism with the very acts of terrorism is wrong and immoral.
 
What if...? said:
So you would quietly accept armed men raiding your home at gunpoint, proving to your children that you can't keep them safe? Tore down your home to make way for a settlement? Destroyed your villages well?
Click to expand...

Israeli soldiers don't like risking their lives walking into houses of families in hostile territories where their lives are threatened and they are exposed to attacks, they do so because it's their job to search and eliminate threats to Israeli civilians' lives and that is a nobel cause, hardly the act of evil you try to describe it as.

Additionally, what you describe as "not accepting" is really Palestinian acts of terrorism, and that is immoral and wrong even if the situation was as you described it. There is no excuse for terrorism, never.

Israel routinely provokes and then cries when the targets of that provocation act out against it.
Click to expand...

Israel doesn't cry, Israel has every right to oppose acts of terrorism directed against innocents who are citizens of the state and I don't know what your expectation is. Israel doesn't provoke anything, it acts to secure the safety of its citizens.

Terrorize my children at gunpoint and you make an enemy of me. I personally wouldn't use that abuse to excuse a terrorist act of my own. Unless you killed my child. Then I can't say.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd claim as Israeli soldiers don't terrorize anyone, they protect and defend their nation against the threat of Islamic terrorism.

I AM saying that Palestinian terrorism isn't the simple "evil people attacking the totally innocent" that the propaganda suggests.
Click to expand...

The only propaganda here is suggesting that terrorism isn't evil people attacking the totally innocent. It absolutely is.

Having seen the Israelis start **** when the Palestinians have been "quiet" suggests cynical manipulation of the situation for PR purposes. If the bombers stopped bombing, the world would make Israel treat them better. Including giving their dirt back. So provoking some usually ineffective rocket fire might be considered an acceptable risk, to keep American military/financial support if nothing else. (Not saying they ARE doing this, but I have seen Israel provoke when the Palestinians were keeping their radicals in check. There must have been some reason.)
Click to expand...

In no given second in the last 80 years or so have the Palestinians "kept their radicals at check", and I have no idea what "starting **** when Palestinians have been quiet" even refers to.
You seem to enjoy claiming anyone would understand the Palestinians and their terrible acts were they to walk in their shoes yet you seem unable of doing the same and walking in the shoes of Israeli citizens when you're even calling the rocket fire "ineffective", something you'd probably avoid doing had it been your close one who got murdered by one of those fired by Palestinian terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
You seem to believe that the occupation predates Palestinian terrorism and you're horribly wrong at that, it's the other way around.
Furthermore the occupation would not exist and would have no justification if not for Palestinian terrorism.



The act of war came before it.



Comparing self-defense from terrorism with the very acts of terrorism is wrong and immoral.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna say that the violations of the original UN authorization, the planned land grabs and deliberate expulsions, etc., were the first "acts of war". Conflating Arab residents with foreign combatants to justify the refusal to allow them to return fits too neatly with the stated goals of creating an artificial permanent Jewish majority for me to believe it was coincidence.

I can understand the desire for a homeland. I think the site choice was stupid and the way they went about it earned them some deserved ire. It was abundantly clear they wanted the Arabs gone, from the beginning. And the population at that time was pretty diverse. Arabs, Jews, christians all living together more or less peacefully. Until the Zionist movement. Their every act screamed "this is our place now, y'all gotta go."

People don't like that. The Jews didn't like that.

From a quick perusal of the timeline, ima say it was pretty much tit for tat between groups who were both not playing nice. And a lot of just regular people ground up in spats between states.

So I reject your first point.
 
Apocalypse said:
Israeli soldiers don't like risking their lives walking into houses of families in hostile territories where their lives are threatened and they are exposed to attacks, they do so because it's their job to search and eliminate threats to Israeli civilians' lives and that is a nobel cause, hardly the act of evil you try to describe it as.

Additionally, what you describe as "not accepting" is really Palestinian acts of terrorism, and that is immoral and wrong even if the situation was as you described it. There is no excuse for terrorism, never.



Israel doesn't cry, Israel has every right to oppose acts of terrorism directed against innocents who are citizens of the state and I don't know what your expectation is. Israel doesn't provoke anything, it acts to secure the safety of its citizens.



That's an absurd claim as Israeli soldiers don't terrorize anyone, they protect and defend their nation against the threat of Islamic terrorism.



The only propaganda here is suggesting that terrorism isn't evil people attacking the totally innocent. It absolutely is.



In no given second in the last 80 years or so have the Palestinians "kept their radicals at check", and I have no idea what "starting **** when Palestinians have been quiet" even refers to.
You seem to enjoy claiming anyone would understand the Palestinians and their terrible acts were they to walk in their shoes yet you seem unable of doing the same and walking in the shoes of Israeli citizens when you're even calling the rocket fire "ineffective", something you'd probably avoid doing had it been your close one who got murdered by one of those fired by Palestinian terrorists.
Click to expand...

Most Palestinian families are powerless and poor. They can no more stop the terrorists than sprout wings and fly.

"Whadaya gonna do?" doesn't wash.

Doesn't matter why you bust down my door and point guns at my children and tore our home apart. You ****ing kicked in my door and pointed guns at my children and tore our home apart! If I did it to you you would despise me. Might want to terrorize YOUR family the way you JUST DID mine.

If I tore down YOUR house because it was built without a permit I refused to issue, you would hate me. And might want to destroy MY home.

Its so simple y'all must simply not want to think about it.
 
What if...? said:
Most Palestinian families are powerless and poor. They can no more stop the terrorists than sprout wings and fly.

"Whadaya gonna do?" doesn't wash.
Click to expand...

How is that even relevant to the existence of a terror threat that requires actions to be taken so to secure the safety of civilians from said terrorism?

Doesn't matter why you bust down my door and point guns at my children and tore our home apart. You ****ing kicked in my door and pointed guns at my children and tore our home apart!
Click to expand...

Of course it does, if your child had just slitten the throat of a three months old baby simply because he was born to Jewish parents. You're making no sense with your claim that terrorists should be left alone.

If I did it to you you would despise me. Might want to terrorize YOUR family the way you JUST DID mine.
Click to expand...

It's natural to despise, but not to murder some random innocent just because he's Jewish and I'm pissed off that soldiers came looking for terrorists in my home as they should have.
Also for the second time terrorism is never justified. Never. As long as you don't recognize this simple fact in no universe can it be claimed that your position comes close to being moral.

If I tore down YOUR house because it was built without a permit I refused to issue, you would hate me. And might want to destroy MY home.
Click to expand...

Actually my house would clearly get demolished if I build without a permit from the local authority just as yours probably would. Again a perfect example of a senseless remark here and I simply don't understand the logic that drives you to make such absurd claims.

Its so simple y'all must simply not want to think about it.
Click to expand...

I want to think about everything, you should, too, probably.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
I'm gonna say that the violations of the original UN authorization, the planned land grabs and deliberate expulsions, etc., were the first "acts of war".

Conflating Arab residents with foreign combatants to justify the refusal to allow them to return fits too neatly with the stated goals of creating an artificial permanent Jewish majority for me to believe it was coincidence.
Click to expand...

And clearly you'll be wrong. The first actual act of war was the invasion to Jewish territories and that's a given fact. Buying land legally or reacting in self-defense when invaded is not an act of war.

I can understand the desire for a homeland. I think the site choice was stupid
Click to expand...

That's a very stupid thing to say considering the fact Jews have no other homeland. Any other decision would simply not make any sense.

and the way they went about it earned them some deserved ire. It was abundantly clear they wanted the Arabs gone, from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Believe whatever you may, when judged by history what truly happened is that the newly created Jewish democracy had accepted the existence of an Arab state alongside it, and not the other way around.

So I reject your first point.
Click to expand...

With no logical justification.
 
Apocalypse said:
And clearly you'll be wrong. The first actual act of war was the invasion to Jewish territories and that's a given fact. Buying land legally or reacting in self-defense when invaded is not an act of war.



That's a very stupid thing to say considering the fact Jews have no other homeland. Any other decision would simply not make any sense.



Believe whatever you may, when judged by history what truly happened is that the newly created Jewish democracy had accepted the existence of an Arab state alongside it, and not the other way around.



With no logical justification.
Click to expand...

"Palestinians" didn't invade.

They ran away from the fighting like civilians always do.

And Israel didn't let them come back.

And I don't agree that the world should have to put up with the nonsense it does so that people can create an artificial permanent majority state for themselves at others' expense.

The early Israelis had a chance to assimilate in that area. Others had. But they were dicks. Obviously planning to run the other people there out.

And the Israelis did not accept the borders they were allotted. They grabbed whatever extra they thought they deserved right off the bat.

You cannot deny that there are and always have been Israelis who believe they are entitled to all of "historic" Israel and have been working to get it from before day one.

Israel was born of original sin. They have sorta acknowledged it. They made the bed they lie in. From the choice to its implementation to its maintenance. They **** with the Palestinians relentlessly, like a little girl pestering her brother till he hits her so she can tattle.

I believe the evidence of my senses and history. States misbehave. I am not one of those who rails against the president for apologizing for our past misdeeds. We DID do some bad things. Everybody knows it. Admitting it allows us to move forward.

And just as an aside, y'all are genetically the same as the people you are occupying. All of this is just a continuance of the "we know what jahweh REALLY wants" nonsense the world has been dealing with for millennia.

All this strife trying to please a deadbeat dad.

And I hope the native Americans don't find a superpower strong enough to back them in taking back America. According to Israel they would have the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom