NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

That is an argument that will take volumes to explain.

One could argue the 47 resolution was an illegal act. But there are many factors to consider.

Palistine has not existed as a province for about 600 years.
Jews had been living in Jeruselum and other places until 1928 when a major revolt by the Arabs chased them out.

There is no simple answer as that area has a long contorted history which both sides think they are right.

A major step has to be a viable state for the Palistineans. What they have is a crap hole.

The settlements have to go. Many Israelies don't support the settlements.

The "freedom fighters" have to go as well. Nothing will be solved by their help. Especially Hamas and Hezbolah whose goal is the destruction of Israel.

I don't have a solution myself.....

------------------------
Correction I said nation when I should have said province......

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

ok I won't

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

You do know that Palestine WAS NOT and has NEVER Been a country?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

And how did you derive that the land belongs to the Palestinians? Obviously the UN believed that Israel has a right to exist. The Palestinians have a right to exist too but if the people that are fighting for "Palestinian Liberation" continue to blow up schools, Jewish Religous sites, Buses, etc. they will never get a country of their own.

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

What was the UN thinking then! Now I know why I don't like the UN. They can't do anything right (sarcastic and partly true)

Did you know that Israel recognized the Arab nations? Yes they did. Upon creation of the Jewish State, they immediately recognized all the arab nations in the region. They wanted to live in peace with them.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

THey do deserve a homeland. If it shouldn't happen ever again, then why isn't anyone doing anything about Sudan? Why didn't the UN step in when it was happening in Bosnia? As for the Land, the Brits set it aside for the Jews and the UN created the state of Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

I won't but you should also state something in there about the UN since this could turn into a bash the UN thread.

It's Turkish land! Yeah... but then the stupid wimpy tea-sipping English twats (I have English family, so, :p) stuck their nose in where it wasn't welcome during World War I.

I think the UN recently said something about the resolution to divide Palestine being a bad idea.

A lot of countrys are illegal and shouldn't be there, America, Austrailia etc Most of the land was stolen.

I found a cartoon at http://cagle.slate.msn.com about this issue. Is it really important if Israel exists or not compared to other issues in the world?

I think the Jews have a perfect right to at least some of the area: - the Arabs invaded the area shortly after the so-called prophet Muhammad lived and persecuted the Jews and Christians already there. As a result, they left. The Arabs thought they could just crush all opposition to their plans for world domination and then the oppressed peoples would be gone and could be forgotten about: - but this hasn't happened with the Jews. They regrouped and are back with a vengeance and the Arabs cannot handle this.

My conclusion is that they should be allowed at least some of the land; not all, as some Jews willingly accepted the culture of the Islamic terrorist invaders and were thereby assimilated, meaning that the population currently there has at least a partial right to the land.

However, I disagree that the area should be mostly taken up by a Jewish state. Ideally, I would say that there should be a state with an automatic right of abode for both Christians and Jews or there should be two separate states; one Jewish and one Christian. I say this because both religions have their roots in the area. On the other hand, the only claim that Muslims have to the area is that they staged a brutal invasion in the 7th century and persecuted the Jews and Christians living there.

Kryozerkia, one thing you seem content to neglect is that the Arabs were quite willing to accept the assistance of the English (lead by Thomas Edward Lawrence) when they staged their revolt against the Turks. If the English had pulled out immediately after the end of WWI, we would have seen what happened in Iraq in 2003: - a power vacuum. At least with the mandates system, somebody was definitely in control of the country, reducing the possibility of a power vacuum.

Why did the Turks have any more right to the land than the Jews? After all, they invaded it as well. Yes, according to the Old Testament, the Jews invaded after 40 years of wandering in the desert, but as the previous inhabitants have all disbanded (e.g. the Philistines, the Canaanites etc), it means that the Jews are the only group left with an ancestral right of abode, meaning that they have the most right to the land.

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

Just my take on the biblical "promise", but I don't think the UN giving away someone else's land is what God had in mind. And I agree, choosing land smack in the middle of Arab territories was an extremely bad idea, but that is where Jerusalem is. It's as important to the Jewish faith (and many Christians, too) as Mecca is to the Muslims. I think the bigger problem is the continued efforts of the Israelis to expand. And for the record, I am not anti-semetic in the slightest, I just don't like Israeli politics.

I agree with you, the issue of the Israel being a country or not is long past any worth of debate, nothing will change. What would be nice to see is the UN slap sanction's on Israel for effectively invading what is Palistine.

The 'sercurtiy wall' is laughable. "Yes were protecting ourself's by stealin you're land.

On an interesting note, the wall stop's the Palistinian's gettin access to any of the West bank aquifer's, thus stopping them from getting, what is in esence their water.

The Israeli government has got to stop it's supressive anti araibic politic's

I think the Jews have a perfect right to at least some of the area: - the Arabs invaded the area shortly after the so-called prophet Muhammad lived and persecuted the Jews and Christians already there. As a result, they left. The Arabs thought they could just crush all opposition to their plans for world domination and then the oppressed peoples would be gone and could be forgotten about: - but this hasn't happened with the Jews. They regrouped and are back with a vengeance and the Arabs cannot handle this.


Actually from my readings the Prophet did not persecute all Jews and Christians. The Jews that were executed died because they fought with the enemy. A Jewish tribe also voted for the exectution.

The Christians were told as long as they followed the laws and paid a tax they would be left alone.

Why else would the Church of the *just blanked on the name* remained intact?

Also, if you look in the the writings of the Christians that were living in the region when it fell, they wrote that life under the Muslim was actually better then the Christians. Far less corruption.

But that was a different era. You can't compare the Muslims of that era with the ones of today.

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

Even if this had been illegal back then, what do you want to do nowadays? Smash Israel?
The founding of Israel is history. And even if it was not right, trying to turn back time and i.e. expelling the Israelis would be even less right.
Give the Palestinians their own state, help them to build up a working infrastructure and take care of all those damn hardliners and extremists on BOTH Sides to ensecure peace. That's the way to go.

The division of Palestine after WWII actually gave the state of Israel very little. More or less nothing of the road and railroad infrastructure, very little water access (as far as fresh water goes), a couple of villages and the city of Jaffa, which has now been annexed by it's Jewish suburb Tel Aviv. Quite a bit of dessert was included of course, but that really wasn't taken from anyone as it wasn't used by anyone. The whole of the trans-jordan territory, the west bank and the Gaza (both of which were bigger than they are now) all went to the Arabic population, as did the parts bordering to Lebanon if I'm not mistaken.

Since then though, Israel has expanded it's territory through wars; wars that others have started with the intent of destroying Israel btw, so who's fault is that? Sure, Israel was 'given' the land by the British and the UN, but so what? Poland and France were given parts of Germany after WWII, maps were redrawn all over the place, the middle east is no exception to that.

Before the division of Palestine there were Arabs, Jews and Christians living in the territory. After WWII however there was a notion that Nation-states was the way to go, something that had been artificially set up already after WWI in parts of Europe and a quite different paradigm than had been in place before, where smaller nations was preferably seen within multicultural empires. Therefor the reinvention of the state of Israel was perfectly logical and no more a breach of international law than any other border realignment of the time. Was it wise? That's a completely different question.

None of this deminishes the fact that Israel is now breaking a number of international laws in its handling of the occupied territories, but again, that's a completely different question.

The whole thing worries me. Now, I'm not anti-semetic, but forstly, why should i even have to say that? I should not be forced to watch out because i might be called anti-semitic. Secondly, the Jew's don't belong in Israel. I have a few friends who are Jews, and even they agree that they shouldn't be there; it's just creating more problems than it's fixing. In all honesty, I think putting them there was a way of an extremely anti-jewish, but also really guilty-feeling Europe of getting rid of them, while at the same time giving them what they wanted (which is a land of their own).

Myself, I believe firmly in the separation of Church and state, so either way, I'm totally against the idea of a State that is based around any sort of religion. Which i guess is a problem; it means I'm against most nations in the world, but look at what problems come about in hardcore religeous states like israel 'palestine' and I think it's painfully obvious why the church and the state should be separated.

I agree with you, the issue of the Israel being a country or not is long past any worth of debate, nothing will change. What would be nice to see is the UN slap sanction's on Israel for effectively invading what is Palistine.

The 'sercurtiy wall' is laughable. "Yes were protecting ourself's by stealin you're land.

1) The country was owned by Britain who agreed to give Israel the land. Its as if America was invaded by Mexico and then Mexico gave it to Canada. The only invasions in that region were by the Jordanians and co. When the UN AND the country agree to give you the country then its not an invasion.

2) We ARE protecting ourselves because since the wall was built only 3% of suicide bombers get through. You know the Be'er Sheba bus bombings, the suicide bombers came from Hebron, a city where the wall hadn't reached yet.

I agree that it may protect Israel from attack. However the fact is the wall is built (in some parts) actually in Palistine. This mean's that Palistinian's have to cross Israeli military checkpoints to get to there own land.

And if you superimpose a geographical map of the region over the area of the wall. You'll notice (if you know any geology) that the wall put's all of the West bank aquifer's (water table's) on the Israeli side, effectivly stopping the Palistinian's getting easy access to what is in some case's there water.

The sucide attack's are horiable, but conversly so are the Israeli military operation's that frequently go over the boarder and occupy Palistinian town's for day's at a time.

The bottom line is Israel has annexed land from Palistine, in an illegal act, for this there should be UN sanction's.

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

Well it's unique as a founding as most countries just beat the hell out of each other until one of them had right of conquest.
America was stolen from the Native Americans 'illegally', Britain was a contested area for years and taken over a few times before deciding it wasn't going to have that anymore and wasn't invaded again. Germany was formed through political deciet and subterfuge and the Balkans were divided up between various victorious and powerful countries.
The reason why Israel stands out is because it's more recent and so far is the only UN influenced founding, although the more powerful countries of the time oversaw the division of the Balkans.

I just love the way certain people refer to various countrys as being "illegal".
Just whose laws are you refering to when you say "illegal" anyway?
As I have previously said, I think Illegal is the wrong term, It's not like you can have Interpol go arrest a country. :D

[Doncastonia #1]
First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

Blah blah blah.... The answer is yes and no.

International law is (other than a weirdly nonsensical term) inherently formed of contigencies of convenience to those in power at a particular time.

There is no, and can never be, a "body" to enforce these so-called laws, other than collections of individual nations, and individual nations will always and only do what is in their own interests.

It was "convenient" to form Israel when it was formed. Thus,... it was formed.

The question of "legality" is utterly irrelevent to the issue.

As for the "wall"...

The wall should be extended fully around "palestinian areas", sealed, and filled with water to the top. OK,... just kidding. Only filled with water to the depth of three feet.

I just love the way certain people refer to various countrys as being "illegal".
Just whose laws are you refering to when you say "illegal" anyway?
As I have previously said, I think Illegal is the wrong term, It's not like you can have Interpol go arrest a country. :D

That's why I put it in speech marks.
Legality is down to what you can enforce.
Barbarian law presides in international affairs.

The bottom line is Israel has annexed land from Palistine, in an illegal act, for this there should be UN sanction's.
Did you even think before typing that? The UN gave us Israel, and you want them to place sanctions on us?:)

You really need to sort out your apostrophes. It's really quite distressing.

Also, is it me, or is there a thread on this topic every two minutes? Guys, there's a whole other world out there. A big one. Israel is really very very very small. Slightly bigger than Devon.

Let's get over it, eh?

You really need to sort out your apostrophes. It's really quite distressing.

Also, is it me, or is there a thread on this topic every two minutes? Guys, there's a whole other world out there. A big one. Israel is really very very very small. Slightly bigger than Devon.

Let's get over it, eh?

Is Devon illegal?
Devon has been found to be in possession of large numbers of cows that have been outlawed by UN rulings and large numbers of caravans which could be deployed as mobile command centres within minutes to control a bovine attack.
Devon itself has not been recognised by the UN as out of 100 members, only 3 could even point to it on a map, let alone draw the outline.
Even its origin is shrouded in deceit and aggression as it annexed many lands from Cornwall and indeed has its eye on the Isle of Wight even now.
Suspicions regarding ambitions towards the Isle of Wight were confirmed recently by the Isle of Wight Spectral Forces.
It is also known to manufacture large quantities of a secret substance known as 'Ambrosia custard'. When this was analysed, only one conclusion could be drawn; 'Devon knows how they make it so creamy'.

Should the international community arrest Devon?

I think the Jews have a perfect right to at least some of the area: - the Arabs invaded the area shortly after the so-called prophet Muhammad lived and persecuted the Jews and Christians already there. As a result, they left. The Arabs thought they could just crush all opposition to their plans for world domination and then the oppressed peoples would be gone and could be forgotten about.

Source?

We ARE protecting ourselves because since the wall was built only 3% of suicide bombers get through. You know the Be'er Sheba bus bombings, the suicide bombers came from Hebron, a city where the wall hadn't reached yet.

You naive little thing.. You really have faith in that statistic you just posted?

The terrorists are just that... terrorists. If their aim is to instigate violence and commotion, they will find other ways to get through. The wall will never hinder any terrorist actions against Israel. There are hundreds of ways they can get around it. It's not like before the wall was made, security was a second priority and the West Bank/Israel border was insecure.

And if you really believe that before the wall it was easier to get into Israel, then I pity you.

Nobody would have objected if you buillt the wall on the Green Belt. The current plan for the wall is a blatant landgrab, pure and simple. Tear it down, and build it on the Green Belt. As for the settlers, sucks to them I guess. They don't technically reside in Isreal. Let them pack up and get the hell out of the West Bank/Gaza. And please don't whine about the lack of security in Israel, or the "I lost a relative.. Do you know what that means?.." shit, because its nothing compared to the number of relatives we've lost.

I think other posts explain the moral implications pretty well. Logically speaking there is always trouble when a third party invites some group of people to occupy the home of another group of people, especially when there are cultural and religious tensions. Scribbling on the map any you want has nothing to do with that. As far as a solutions goes, i think buldozing Jerusalem, taking away the Midenet's weapons and subsidies and leaving them to sort it out with their neighbors is a good start.

Grammer has never been my forte!

Yes you're right it is very difficult to say an act is 'illegal'. Prehaspe the better question would have been was it 'morally right'? (here goes morality again!)

I think that the issue that most people agree on is the fact that the security wall is a way of taking more land from Palistine.

As for the fact of some other countries being 'illegal' then yes most are. But don't you think that as a whole the human race should have 'grown up' a little more by now? America was invaded by the European's, which can easily be said as being a imoral act. However the Israel situation is different. In the way it came about.

Thanks for listening to be ramble

Alasdair

Grammer has never been my forte!

Yes you're right it is very difficult to say an act is 'illegal'. Prehaspe the better question would have been was it 'morally right'? (here goes morality again!)

I think that the issue that most people agree on is the fact that the security wall is a way of taking more land from Palistine.

As for the fact of some other countries being 'illegal' then yes most are. But don't you think that as a whole the human race should have 'grown up' a little more by now? America was invaded by the European's, which can easily be said as being a imoral act. However the Israel situation is different. In the way it came about.

Thanks for listening to be ramble

Alasdair

Of course we haven't grown up.
We're still the same creatures that invaded America and when it boils down to it we still have the same mentality as we have throughout all of our more recent evolution.
A species that had to drive another branch of its genetic family extinct just to survive isn't best adapted to being forgiving as it's never really been a great survival trait in humans.

Grammer has never been my forte!

Yes you're right it is very difficult to say an act is 'illegal'. Prehaspe the better question would have been was it 'morally right'? (here goes morality again!)

I think that the issue that most people agree on is the fact that the security wall is a way of taking more land from Palistine.

As for the fact of some other countries being 'illegal' then yes most are. But don't you think that as a whole the human race should have 'grown up' a little more by now? America was invaded by the European's, which can easily be said as being a imoral act. However the Israel situation is different. In the way it came about.

Thanks for listening to be ramble

Alasdair

Actually it is morally right. I'll use Kant's moral theory.
I can will to give Isreal that land because they were a harrased and down trodded people during Holocuast. They needed a land for safety.
Thus as long as I can will this to others then it is morally right.
If another ethnic people go through a holocaust and need a place to live in relative safety, I would give them somewhere too.

Thus it is proven that it is morally right.

You can use Utilitarianism: Giving Isreal the land has given produced more happiness than loss by Palestinians. Thus that leads to morally right.

So By which defination do you mean morally right? It is so by those two.

Actually it is morally right. I'll use Kant's moral theory.
I can will to give Isreal that land because they were a harrased and down trodded people during Holocuast. They needed a land for safety.
Thus as long as I can will this to others then it is morally right.
If another ethnic people go through a holocaust and need a place to live in relative safety, I would give them somewhere too.

Thus it is proven that it is morally right.

You can use Utilitarianism: Giving Isreal the land has given produced more happiness than loss by Palestinians. Thus that leads to morally right.

So By which defination do you mean morally right? It is so by those two.

Land for the Incans and Aztecs?
Land for the Native Americans?
Manhattan maybe as they were cheated out of it.

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

I have to disagree. In 1947 there was no such nation as "Palestine".

Land for the Incans and Aztecs?
Land for the Native Americans?
Manhattan maybe as they were cheated out of it.
Don't worry in 2020, Native Americans will get their land back when the revolt and take it back from the pale face. I maybe 10 years off but it will happen.
Incas and Aztecs are gone can't help them.

Don't worry in 2020, Native Americans will get their land back when the revolt and take it back from the pale face. I maybe 10 years off but it will happen.
Incas and Aztecs are gone can't help them.

They're not gone.
They still exist as tiny communities.

i think that Israel is already illegal to americans. it seems that we have already began to hate the country that hurt us, but hasn't there been other countries that have hurt us as well and we still help them. we are tring to build a government in a country that has it's own plans. i am scared to see what will happen in the future if we succeed at tranforming a country. i don't thin that a country is illegal, but i do think that people will discriminate against their religious beliefs.

You naive little thing.. You really have faith in that statistic you just posted?
There are hundreds of ways they can get around it.

And please don't whine about the lack of security in Israel, or the "I lost a relative.. Do you know what that means?.." shit, because its nothing compared to the number of relatives we've lost.
But why did you lose relatives? Did Israel start the trouble? If you answer yes then it'll be MY turn to pity you.
Just for you, a timeline of attacks, i've posted a few of them.
http://www.standforisrael.org/terror2.asp

"June 1, 2001 -- A suicide bomber kills 21 Israelis and wounds more than 100, mostly teenaged immigrants from the former Soviet Union, at a Tel Aviv beachside disco. The bombing comes days after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a unilateral Israeli cease-fire."

Nice, so we declare a cease-fire and you attack us.

"March 27, 2002 -- In an attack that serves as the impetus for Operation Defensive Shield, a suicide bomber strikes a Netanya hotel during a Passover seder, killing 29 mostly elderly Israelis. The attack is the deadliest of the intifada."

Heroes to the last, targeting elderly people in the middle of a religious holiday.

"May 8, 2002 -- A bomber sets his sights on Israel's young, blasting a pool hall in the Tel Aviv suburb of Rishon le- Zion, killing 15."

You gave up on attacking the elderly, now you're attacking kids.

"Nov. 21, 2002 -- 11 people are killed in a suicide bombing aboard a crowded Jerusalem bus. Many of the passengers are schoolchildren."

Yet again, this time schoolchildren. I've heard adults can put up a fight and we can't have that now can we. [sarcasm/]

"June 11, 2003 -- A Palestinian bomber dressed as a fervently Orthodox Jew blows himself up on a bus, killing 17. The attack comes a week after the "road map" peace process is launched at a summit in Aqaba, Jordan, with the leaders of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States."

Well, we can't have peace now can we? Someone do something. I know, lets kill civilians:rolleyes:

"Aug. 19, 2003 -- A bombing on a Jerusalem bus kills at least 20, including several children on their way home from a Bar Mitzvah celebration. More than 100 are wounded. The bombing takes place on the eve of a planned transfer of several West Bank cities to Palestinian Authority control, and in the midst of a "cease- fire" declared by Palestinian terror groups."

Killing 13 year olds, what a hero he was. So we were giving cities back to the PA!!! Quick lets organise a suicide bombing to stop anything that might, heaven forbid lead to peace! And you declared a cease-fire and then broke it... what honourable men.

Damn You!! I am jewish and i take offence to that! Before Isreal it was Cannan. There never was a palastine! There was Cannan, Isreal, Babalon, Assyria, Turky, British, and finaly Isreal. Palastine never existed! NAZI BITCHES!!!

Damn You!! I am jewish and i take offence to that! Before Isreal it was Cannan. There never was a palastine! There was Cannan, Isreal, Babalon, Assyria, Turky, British, and finaly Isreal. Palastine never existed!

Sorry, but it did. It was a province of Rome.

Sorry, but it did. It was a province of Rome.
Phillistine not Palestine and they were never independent is what my hyperactive friend is trying to say, I think:).

Damn You!! I am jewish and i take offence to that! Before Isreal it was Cannan. There never was a palastine! There was Cannan, Isreal, Babalon, Assyria, Turky, British, and finaly Isreal. Palastine never existed! NAZI BITCHES!!!
I'd suggest toning down the language a bit!
Israel not Isreal!
Palestine not Palastine!

Sorry, but it did. It was a province of Rome.

(Bolding Is mine)

Check your definitions.

Last time I checked, a Province is different than being a sovereign Country. On any world map, not once did I see the NATION of Palestine.

It may have been a province but a Provence is attached to a nation that is sovereign much like a state is related to a sovereign nation.

Thus a SOVEREIGN NATION of Palestine has NEVER existed.

You could back away from this, as it is set upon such a large scale, and examine it from a different perspective.

On a smaller scale this is done throughout cities & towns of several countries.

The basic idea was assumably agreed upon as an act to benefit a victimization and not one to create conflict.

Although prejudice is the biggest issue surrounding that resoultion , most of the educated thinkers of that time presented their option in hopes that people would evolve above their own bigotry.

(Bolding Is mine)

Check your definitions.

Last time I checked, a Province is different than being a sovereign Country. On any world map, not once did I see the NATION of Palestine.

It may have been a province but a Provence is attached to a nation that is sovereign much like a state is related to a sovereign nation.

Thus a SOVEREIGN NATION of Palestine has NEVER existed.

I agree. Refer back to Survo's statement, however, and you will see that the presence or absence of sovereignity was not a condition.

Israel is not illegal for the following reasons...

first, it is recognized, with full diplomatic representation by most nations of the world

secondly, it has a UN ambassador and is treated as a nation state by the UN,as well as the World Court...

THEREFORE.....

irregardless of your views of the foundations of the state, the simple fact is that through recognition and practice, it is treated as a legal soveriegn state therefore it is one.....

should the Arab Palestinians be able to create such a situation, they would have a legal state too.... (they kind of have the first part, but not the second part yet)

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's
Alasdair

Actually, it was. Palestine wasn't actually it's own country, it was a British mandated territory (an aftermath of imperialism). They basically got sick of having to take care of it since it was a hotbed for violence and conflict (ant-semitism and riots between Jews and Arabs was persistent), and they turned the area over to the U.N. Which decided to resolve the whole conflict by dividing the whole area into two areas: Israel and Palestine.

Now for my opinion.
Okay, they decided to split the area up into two countries, I can understand that solution. It's concievably feasible that peace would ensue or that violence would die down a little. However, the U.N. mandate to divide the two states is perhaps the most nonsenical thing man has ever contrived. In the original, and implemented plan "Israel" was three completely isolated land masses inside of Palestine. You just have to ask, "What were they thinking?"

I agree. Refer back to Survo's statement, however, and you will see that the presence or absence of sovereignity was not a condition.

When it comes to world affairs my friend, sovereignty is a condition. Since there was no state of Palestine, the UN sat up the NATION of Israel there.

so, umm, are we discussing legality or morality?

In order to determine the leagality of anything, you need to referance is to a set of rules. the legality, or lack thereof, of any action, is subjective to whatever man-made set of laws we use.

For instance, if I choose to say "F@#k S@#t L@%@@e Y#@@(o B!@%#d", the act would probably be illeagal, under the forum laws, and some overzealous mod will come here and say that my words were illegitimate and that I should edit my post or find my account in trouble.

Who then had the right to say that Israel was leagal or illeagal?

I can only think of two bodies who was authorised to make the law in pre-israel palestine. The first is the british, and the second, who was above the brits and gave them the mandate, was the UN. So, if the UN had the authority to make the law, it's decisions were not illeagal.

Ofcourse, it's quite possible that some unrelated nation would make up a law that Israel is an abomination, and Israel can very well be illeagal in that perspective. I can make up a law myself saying that hebron should be ruled by the KKK, and by that law the current regime would be very much in violation oft he law. it would not have any more weight than that, though.

so, umm, by what law is israel illeagal anyway?

I agree with you, the issue of the Israel being a country or not is long past any worth of debate, nothing will change. What would be nice to see is the UN slap sanction's on Israel for effectively invading what is Palistine.

The 'sercurtiy wall' is laughable. "Yes were protecting ourself's by stealin you're land.

On an interesting note, the wall stop's the Palistinian's gettin access to any of the West bank aquifer's, thus stopping them from getting, what is in esence their water.

The Israeli government has got to stop it's supressive anti araibic politic's

Why is the argument against Israel always, "They stole the land from the Palistinians."? If you are referring to the war (1960's[ish]) where the surrounding arab countries attacked Israel in a planned offensive in an attempt to annhialate the jewish state, I think you need to review your history because when the Israeli's kicked the crap out of the arabs, and pushed them back farther than before, it's the arabs faults for not having the intelligence to keep control of their own land. Call it spoils of war, but the Israeli's rightfully won those lands, and can do what they wish with it.

btw: as some have already said, there is no Palistinian state, partly because nobody else wanted the wretched.

It is rather funny to me that the jews are the chosen ones of God, and yet everybody wants them blown off the face of the earth. Also, the "promised land" is a burnt dirty wasteland.

First of all please do not take this post as being anti-semitic in anyway.

The simple question that I ask is:

Who here agree's with me that, the UN resoultion in 1947 that took land away from Palistine and used it to form the new nation of Israel was an illegal act?

My reason's for this are simple.

1. The land belonged to Palistine, it was not the UN's to give or was it the Jew's right to have it. (I'm sorry but no matter how strong you're religious belief's are, just because a Holy Book promises you that land does not mean it's your's, if so then I should start a religion and write a book promising some prime real estate to my followers.)

2. It was a stupid area to put the Jew's homeland in. Putting a Jewish nation surrounded by Arab nation's was bound to distablise the region.

Now I know that some will say that the Jew's deserved a homeland after the horrific treatment that they went through in WW2. A kind that in my mind, should never be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. But for this reason alone it was NOT in the UN's power to give bits of Palistine to the Jew's to form Israel.

Nb: Please do NOT use this thread as an excuse to start an anti-semitic argument, in my opinion racism is not big nor intelligent, it's sick. This is just for debating an issue.

Alasdair

Hence why the United Nations has nothing to do with "uniting" nations.