Israel: Whose land is it really ?

CerealKiller wrote:

CdK,

Do you think if Israelis agreed to 1967 borders that would make Arab militants happy enough to stop wanting to kill Jews ?

And thanks, that was a good summary.

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

CerealKiller wrote:
CdK,

Do you think if Israelis agreed to 1967 borders that would make Arab militants happy enough to stop wanting to kill Jews ?

And thanks, that was a good summary.

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

They should take up soccer.

0 Replies

Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah
To give you an idea of what to expect, this is where the head of Hezbollah is coming from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Nasrallah

"Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[4][5] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[6], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[7] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[8] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[9] Interviewed by CNN, Nasrallah expressed Hezbollah's reluctance to fight America, however, declaring readiness to respond if "someone launches an attack [...] We will not take rejection or humiliation.

0 Replies

I suppose any land belongs to whoever conquers it and is strong enough to hold on to it. That's the lesson of history.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

So only Arab militants are killing Jews? How about Jews killing Arabs, militant and otherwise. If you continuously oppress people they will only hate and kill you. That's the part of the whole issue that people like to conviently forget. You can't treat people like animal or subhuman and expect them to reciprocate that treatment with love. That is not reality.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

So only Arab militants are killing Jews? How about Jews killing Arabs, militant and otherwise. If you continuously oppress people they will only hate and kill you. That's the part of the whole issue that people like to conviently forget. You can't treat people like animal or subhuman and expect them to reciprocate that treatment with love. That is not reality.

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

real life wrote:

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

So only Arab militants are killing Jews? How about Jews killing Arabs, militant and otherwise. If you continuously oppress people they will only hate and kill you. That's the part of the whole issue that people like to conviently forget. You can't treat people like animal or subhuman and expect them to reciprocate that treatment with love. That is not reality.

When Israel became a nation in 1948 recognized by the U.N and almost all Arab nations declared war and attacked Israel.....Tell me.... was that because of all the Arabs that were being killed by Jews just prior to that event or what?

How about some history in a nutshell?

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:
real life wrote:

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

So only Arab militants are killing Jews? How about Jews killing Arabs, militant and otherwise. If you continuously oppress people they will only hate and kill you. That's the part of the whole issue that people like to conviently forget. You can't treat people like animal or subhuman and expect them to reciprocate that treatment with love. That is not reality.

When Israel became a nation in 1948 recognized by the U.N and almost all Arab nations declared war and attacked Israel.....Tell me.... was that because of all the Arabs that were being killed by Jews just prior to that event or what?

How about some history in a nutshell?

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html

Well how would you like it if people came in and uprooted you and took your house and gave it to someone else and told you to live in the attic?

Please spare the people

0 Replies

Re: Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah

ragman(orig) wrote:

To give you an idea of what to expect, this is where the head of Hezbollah is coming from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Nasrallah

"Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[4][5] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[6], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[7] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[8] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[9] Interviewed by CNN, Nasrallah expressed Hezbollah's reluctance to fight America, however, declaring readiness to respond if "someone launches an attack [...] We will not take rejection or humiliation.

Lets see, which is more dangerous, the talking or the doing. While the militants are talking Israel is doing. So the focus should be on those who are talking, but not on those who are actually doing.

You all are delusional.

0 Replies

Mindonfire: .... and Hezbollah is NOT doing? wake up!

The Israelis are fighting for their very lives! Have you ever done that?

How about the right of a nation to DEFEND itself. Since when is self-defense illegal? You don't see it as self-defense but that nation does. Be surrounded with 100 million sworn enemies and see what your choices are. Like it or not, that is their response to being threatened. Find fault fine, but come up with a solution to keep that nation from being constantly attacked througout their history.

What's the use! Wasting energy here. Scrolling past.

0 Replies

Who does the land belong to?
As in all countries, as in all of history, the land belongs to those that can both keep it and develop it (agriculture; industry; economy; laws; government; etc.).
Israel being the case in point, the reason there is no Palestinian State is because the Arabs called Palestinians have not been able to develop their land.
Now, if one is inquiring who the land of Israel belongs to in a religious sense of the idea, then a similiar answer would apply - the ascendant or more tenacious religion of the region would have the better claim.
In that case, currently, the land would belong to the Muslims. Again, it is their lack of any ability to enact Laws and stability that keeps them from be able to grasp "the land."
Morally?
Well, that would have to fall to the Israelis today. They are far more reluctant to murder; more prone to civilize; more eager to create peace; than are their rather murderous and uncivil neighbors.

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Mindonfire wrote:
real life wrote:

Hi Cereal,

Arab militants seem only to be happy when they do kill Jews. That is why they are known as Arab militants.

They did not stop killing Jews when Israel was at the 1967 borders ( for those of you who don't remember, they were at those borders ---- in 1967. There was another war shortly after that in 1973.) , so what makes us think that if Israel was at the 1967 borders that it would make ANY difference at all?

Others more knowledgable than I may hold different opinions, but I don't see it happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

So only Arab militants are killing Jews? How about Jews killing Arabs, militant and otherwise. If you continuously oppress people they will only hate and kill you. That's the part of the whole issue that people like to conviently forget. You can't treat people like animal or subhuman and expect them to reciprocate that treatment with love. That is not reality.

When Israel became a nation in 1948 recognized by the U.N and almost all Arab nations declared war and attacked Israel.....Tell me.... was that because of all the Arabs that were being killed by Jews just prior to that event or what?

How about some history in a nutshell?

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html

Well how would you like it if people came in and uprooted you and took your house and gave it to someone else and told you to live in the attic?

Please spare the people

You don't have an answer and you think that only Arabs were uprooted?

please....

Were all those nations that attacked Israel 'uprooted'?

Nope.

Do spare us.

0 Replies

ragman(orig) wrote:

Mindonfire: .... and Hezbollah is NOT doing? wake up!

The Israelis are fighting for their very lives! Have you ever done that?

How about the right of a nation to DEFEND itself. Since when is self-defense illegal? You don't see it as self-defense but that nation does. Be surrounded with 100 million sworn enemies and see what your choices are. Like it or not, that is their response to being threatened. Find fault fine, but come up with a solution to keep that nation from being constantly attacked througout their history.

What's the use! Wasting energy here. Scrolling past.

What is Hezzbollah able to do? Have you looked at the disparity in numbers of those killed by Israel and those killed by Hamas and Hezbollah? Who has the most advanced weapons and machinery? Who has nuclear weapons? Who has the most money? And so you expect us to believe that Hezzbollah is more dangerous than Israel? Keep feeding that propaganda to the ignorant masses. People who have half a brain are able to see past the bull.

Secondly, self defense is not an excuse for wiping out a whole country. No matter how hard you try, you can't justify killing all those people just for the kidnapping of two soldiers. Do you know how many Palestinians and Lebanese that Israel have killed? Do you know how many leaders that they have kidnapped? Please spare us with the crying.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Who does the land belong to?
As in all countries, as in all of history, the land belongs to those that can both keep it and develop it (agriculture; industry; economy; laws; government; etc.).
Israel being the case in point, the reason there is no Palestinian State is because the Arabs called Palestinians have not been able to develop their land.
Now, if one is inquiring who the land of Israel belongs to in a religious sense of the idea, then a similiar answer would apply - the ascendant or more tenacious religion of the region would have the better claim.
In that case, currently, the land would belong to the Muslims. Again, it is their lack of any ability to enact Laws and stability that keeps them from be able to grasp "the land."
Morally?
Well, that would have to fall to the Israelis today. They are far more reluctant to murder; more prone to civilize; more eager to create peace; than are their rather murderous and uncivil neighbors.

Well you can't develope a land if you have no monetary support. How can you develop a land if people keep bulldozing your homes and your produce fields? It's easy to develop your land if you have support from the richest and most powerful country in the world.

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

Secondly, self defense is not an excuse for wiping out a whole country. No matter how hard you try, you can't justify killing all those people just for the kidnapping of two soldiers. Do you know how many Palestinians and Lebanese that Israel have killed? Do you know how many leaders that they have kidnapped? Please spare us with the crying.

Mindonfire: I feel that I've responded adequately to your comments and will not respond here again. I will say that your arguments are disingenuous. You seem to want to state here erroneously that the Israeli retribution for the kidnapping of the 2 soliders is why Israel is responding the way that they are. That is wrong. This is war against a sworn enemy that repeatedly chooses to attack. My perception is that all your arguments are apparently part of a staged propaganda campaign or misguided bias.

Scrolling past

0 Replies

Ragman_orig wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

Secondly, self defense is not an excuse for wiping out a whole country. No matter how hard you try, you can't justify killing all those people just for the kidnapping of two soldiers. Do you know how many Palestinians and Lebanese that Israel have killed? Do you know how many leaders that they have kidnapped? Please spare us with the crying.

Mindonfire: I feel that I've responded adequately to your comments and will not respond here again. I will say that your arguments are disingenuous. You seem to want to state here erroneously that the Israeli retribution for the kidnapping of the 2 soliders is why Israel is responding the way that they are. That is wrong. This is war against a sworn enemy that repeatedly chooses to attack. My perception is that all your arguments are apparently part of a staged propaganda campaign or misguided bias.

Scrolling past

If our arguments are propaganda, then please tell us what category does your arguments fall under?

0 Replies

Interesting reading; craven

I find it kind of funny someone says they are scrolling past after reading and responding each time.

0 Replies

Ragman_orig wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

Secondly, self defense is not an excuse for wiping out a whole country. No matter how hard you try, you can't justify killing all those people just for the kidnapping of two soldiers. Do you know how many Palestinians and Lebanese that Israel have killed? Do you know how many leaders that they have kidnapped? Please spare us with the crying.

Mindonfire: I feel that I've responded adequately to your comments and will not respond here again. I will say that your arguments are disingenuous. You seem to want to state here erroneously that the Israeli retribution for the kidnapping of the 2 soliders is why Israel is responding the way that they are. That is wrong. This is war against a sworn enemy that repeatedly chooses to attack. My perception is that all your arguments are apparently part of a staged propaganda campaign or misguided bias.

This was in my paper yesterday, and much of it is counter to what you are promoting here (staged probaganda campaign or misguided bias).
It gives a better view of the truth, as well as some positive opinion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1839282,00.html

0 Replies

@CerealKiller,

The use of the name “Palestine” to attempt to negate Israel as the name for the land is misleading, since there has never been an indigenous “Palestine” / Arab sovereign state in the land of Israel.

The name “Palestine” was an attempted rename of the land of Israel / Judah imposed by the Romans, a name later resurrected for the British Mandate. Both Roman and British rule, were rule by foreign imperial power. The only valid-name for the land belongs to the Jewish-indigenous sovereign states before the Re-establishment of Israel in 1948, which are “Israel” or “Judah”.

Quote:

“[...] After Roman times the name [“Palestine”] had no official status until after [...] the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain [...]”.

Extract source:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine

The Jewish people are indigenous to their ancestral homeland of Israel, with unbroken presence there from Biblical times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

Israel re-established within the Jewish ancestral homeland: The last indigenous sovereign state (that is, run by the natives rather than a foreign power) in what is now Israel (on which the name “Palestine” was imposed by Roman-occupiers), prior to the RE-establishment of Israel in 1948, was the post-Biblical Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom - Map: Including: West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, capital of (what is now EAST) Jerusalem / “Old City”; between 110 BCE / 754 BH and 63 BCE / 706 BH:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Hasmonean_kingdom.jpg

The reader can view coins from the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_coinage

That Jewish independence came to an end because of a Roman invasion and many, but not all, Jews were expelled to many places including Europe.

While both sides make claims on the land of Israel, the Jewish claim can be verified from abundant objective-evidence, whereas the “Palestinian” Arab false-claim cannot be verified.

Who then are the "Palestinians"?:

The “Palestinian Arabs” dropped the name “Arab” because they do not want you to understand they mostly originate from Foreign-Arab-Migrant-Workers who came to the land of Israel just prior to, and during the British Mandate, to take advantage of higher wages through Jewish returnee-exiles:

Quote:

“[...] most Arabs in British Mandate Palestine were migrant workers and descendants of the 1832-1947 wave of Arab/Muslim immigration from Egypt, the Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, North Africa, Bosnia, India, Afghanistan, etc. While the British Mandate encouraged Arab immigration, it blocked Jewish immigration.”

Extract source:
http://theettingerreport.com/arab-migration-shaped-palestinian-society/

0 Replies

Israel: Whose land is it really ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know