NationStates Jolt Archive


"Another Jew Vs Palestinian for land" thread

Zilam
02-07-2006, 10:08
Palestine is a very interesting word. At one point it was used by the ancient Greeks to refer to the entire south eastern Medditerreanen world(Holman).


Or perhaps we can go by the definition of palestine, which was derived from philishtim, or phillistine. Although there are refrences in the Bible(exodus 15:14,Isaiah 14:29,31, and Joel 3:4)to the land as "palestina", it only applie to the land where the Phillistine people lived, on a coastal strip (Holman).

So with that little tid bit of information, does one think that if the land known as Israel, or as the arab world refers it as, Palestine, should be given to the Israelis or Arabs? Consider the fact that the Greeks refered to the whole south easten Medditerreanen world as palestine at one point. Would that mean giving lebanon to the Palestinians as well? Or might we go by the ancient land of Phillistine, and only give them a designated coastal strip?

My arguement for the land to be given to the Israeli's, or rather the Jews, is the fact that they fought for it the first time, then lost it through fighting, but were able to gather back up and fight for it several more times. That is conquest. Its the same reason that UK has all of its land, or the US its, or any other nation, its land. Now if these so called palestinians were able to win the land, then fine, they deserve it. Again, its the gains of conquest.

However I know that many of you out there hate war and prefer peace. Well i have given you the ancient lands of once reffered to as Palestine(philistim, philistine, etc)

I guess I could be wrong too. After all, its 4 am :D

Discuss, if its coherent :p
Tropical Sands
02-07-2006, 10:28
I think Israel should exercise its legal right outlined in UN Resolution 242 and seize what territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and then let the Palestinians have the rest for a state.
Zilam
02-07-2006, 10:31
I think Israel should exercise its legal right outlined in UN Resolution 242 and seize what territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and then let the Palestinians have the rest for a state.


I have heard many times from Israeli friends and so on, that those claiming to be palestinians aren't actually. They are more then likely like the insurgents in Iraq and just flooding the borders from places like Jordan and Egypt, to wreak havoc on Israel. Do you know if this is true or not?

I mean if thats true, then I would honestly say, and you can quote me, Don't let there be two states, only Israel.
Bodhis
02-07-2006, 10:40
First, when I rule the world, I'm going to build a fence around the holy land and tell everyone that it belongs to no one. People are only allowed in to worship and not to live. The only people that can live there are the top holy leaders of all three Abrahamic faiths.

Second, on land right beside the holy land, I'm going to build a huge theme park divided into three parts: Jesus Land, Muhammad Land, and Moses Land. Rides, games, educational displays, and fun for all! All food stands will offer Kosher meals.

Third, I'm buying everyone in the Middle East A/C and cable TV.

Problem solved.
Zilam
02-07-2006, 10:45
First, when I rule the world, I'm going to build a fence around the holy land and tell everyone that it belongs to no one. People are only allowed in to worship and not to live. The only people that can live there are the top holy leaders of all three Abrahamic faiths.

Second, on land right beside the holy land, I'm going to build a huge theme park divided into three parts: Jesus Land, Muhammad Land, and Moses Land. Rides, games, educational displays, and fun for all! All food stands will offer Kosher meals.

Third, I'm buying everyone in the Middle East A/C and cable TV.

Problem solved.


Wanna get married? :p
Tropical Sands
02-07-2006, 10:49
I have heard many times from Israeli friends and so on, that those claiming to be palestinians aren't actually. They are more then likely like the insurgents in Iraq and just flooding the borders from places like Jordan and Egypt, to wreak havoc on Israel. Do you know if this is true or not?

I mean if thats true, then I would honestly say, and you can quote me, Don't let there be two states, only Israel.

It is true in part. I'm not sure about modern immigration to Palestine, such as that of Iraqi insurgents, but most Palestinians over the last 100 years immigrated and do not have ancestors that lived there any earlier than the Jewish immigrants. The UN created a special definition for a "Palestinian Refugee" just to deal with this fact, that all they had to do was live in Palestine for two years. So a lot of the Palestinian refugees were actually Arabs who immigrated to Palestine, rather than natives to that region.

Jordan and Egypt also traditionally kept large numbers of Palestinian refugees locked up in refugee camps, just like prisons, to use as a political tool against Israel. Thus, Arabs living in those regions were eager to get out of the camps and try to get in Israel for a better life or Palestine for more liberties than they would get in Jordanian and Egyptian camps.
Asadia
02-07-2006, 10:49
I have heard many times from Israeli friends and so on, that those claiming to be palestinians aren't actually. They are more then likely like the insurgents in Iraq and just flooding the borders from places like Jordan and Egypt, to wreak havoc on Israel. Do you know if this is true or not?

That is in no way true, anyone who thinks like that is purely ignorant. The palestinians are the only ones fighting for their cause, although organisations like al quedia take up an Anti-Israel stance, much like many in the middle east, they dont send foreign fighters.
Asadia
02-07-2006, 10:55
In my opinion, Israel, in its current location has no right to exsist. You cannot simply claim land on the basis that your ancestors, 2000 years back lived there. If so, much of the worlds current population would be re-shuffled. The palestinains did nothing to deserve waht they got. Put yourself in their position, your home, and all your belongings are simply taken from you. Your left with nothing, and yet your blamed for fighting back.
The Palestinians suffered, as a consequence of Nazi actions in WW2, the simple solution would have been to establish a Jewish state in Germany.
Tropical Sands
02-07-2006, 11:02
In my opinion, Israel, in its current location has no right to exsist. You cannot simply claim land on the basis that your ancestors, 2000 years back lived there. If so, much of the worlds current population would be re-shuffled. The palestinains did nothing to deserve waht they got. Put yourself in their position, your home, and all your belongings are simply taken from you. Your left with nothing, and yet your blamed for fighting back.
The Palestinians suffered, as a consequence of Nazi actions in WW2, the simple solution would have been to establish a Jewish state in Germany.

Jews didn't claim land based on ancestors or religion. That is just a common myth. A minority of Jews were religious as such.

Nor was Israel formed as a result of WW2. Thats another myth. Israel had been promised to the Jewish people under international law before the war even broke out, and had been planned before the Nazis even existed.

Rather, between the late 19th century and 48, Jews settled in uninhabited land. Arabs were not displaced, except for a small number of fellaheen families (less than 2000). Palestinians didn't get displaced until Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel in 1948. It was a result of these attacks that they had to run with only the clothing on their backs.
Asadia
02-07-2006, 11:13
Israel had been promised to the Jewish people under international law before the war even broke out, and had been planned before the Nazis even existed.

Where did you get such information?
Nonexistentland
02-07-2006, 11:22
Where did you get such information?

The Balfour Declaration, for one, was written in 1917 and declared a "sovereign Israeli state in British mandated Palestine."
Bleaarg
02-07-2006, 11:38
I think Israel should exercise its legal right outlined in UN Resolution 242 and seize what territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and then let the Palestinians have the rest for a state.

I sincerely doubt Israel could actually justify anything it did by quoting UN resolutions. Not without blushing anyway. There are quite a collection of UN Resolutions against Israel over its past actions. See http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

It is also interesting to note the number of UN resolutions against Israel that have been blocked by its favourite arms supplier, Uncle Sam and to a lesser extent the UK.

I'd be interested to know more about your information regarding the formation/creation of an Israeli (or Jewish?) state prior to the Nazis existing, Tropical Sands - give us a clue!
Zolworld
02-07-2006, 11:42
Jews didn't claim land based on ancestors or religion. That is just a common myth. A minority of Jews were religious as such.

Nor was Israel formed as a result of WW2. Thats another myth. Israel had been promised to the Jewish people under international law before the war even broke out, and had been planned before the Nazis even existed.

Rather, between the late 19th century and 48, Jews settled in uninhabited land. Arabs were not displaced, except for a small number of fellaheen families (less than 2000). Palestinians didn't get displaced until Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel in 1948. It was a result of these attacks that they had to run with only the clothing on their backs.

I dont have a problem with Israel as it is, but i do have a problem with what they are doing in Gaza and the rest of the 'occupied' land. That creating a secure border thing is bullshit. Secure from what? From retaliation for invading gaza to create a secure border. if they just stopped attacking the land surrounding their country they would be secure.
Demented Hamsters
02-07-2006, 11:54
I have heard many times from Israeli friends and so on, that those claiming to be palestinians aren't actually. They are more then likely like the insurgents in Iraq and just flooding the borders from places like Jordan and Egypt, to wreak havoc on Israel.
That strikes me as the sort of responce one would make when faced with an unpalatable truth and is looking for a way to justify it.
"Hey we can take their land, cause they're not really Palestinians - just a bunch of terrorists out to attack Israel"

I propose the whole thing get settled the fairest way possible: With a game of paper rock scissors.
Winner takes the lot.
Gravlen
02-07-2006, 12:06
I think Israel should exercise its legal right outlined in UN Resolution 242 and seize what territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and then let the Palestinians have the rest for a state.
How do you figure that Resolution 242 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement) gives them rights to seize any territory? It doesn't as far as I can tell.
Che_Land_of_Peace
02-07-2006, 12:36
My arguement for the land to be given to the Israeli's, or rather the Jews, is the fact that they fought for it the first time, then lost it through fighting, but were able to gather back up and fight for it several more times. That is conquest. Its the same reason that UK has all of its land, or the US its, or any other nation, its land. Now if these so called palestinians were able to win the land, then fine, they deserve it. Again, its the gains of conquest.



Haha funny, how 'bout the fact that palestinians don't have the US as their 'Big Brother helpin' like Israel does? :mp5:
Nodinia
02-07-2006, 16:42
Palestine is a very interesting word. At one point it was used by the ancient Greeks to refer to the entire south eastern Medditerreanen world(Holman).


Or perhaps we can go by the definition of palestine, which was derived from philishtim, or phillistine. Although there are refrences in the Bible(exodus 15:14,Isaiah 14:29,31, and Joel 3:4)to the land as "palestina", it only applie to the land where the Phillistine people lived, on a coastal strip (Holman).

So with that little tid bit of information, does one think that if the land known as Israel, or as the arab world refers it as, Palestine, should be given to the Israelis or Arabs? Consider the fact that the Greeks refered to the whole south easten Medditerreanen world as palestine at one point. Would that mean giving lebanon to the Palestinians as well? Or might we go by the ancient land of Phillistine, and only give them a designated coastal strip?

My arguement for the land to be given to the Israeli's, or rather the Jews, is the fact that they fought for it the first time, then lost it through fighting, but were able to gather back up and fight for it several more times. That is conquest. Its the same reason that UK has all of its land, or the US its, or any other nation, its land. Now if these so called palestinians were able to win the land, then fine, they deserve it. Again, its the gains of conquest.

However I know that many of you out there hate war and prefer peace. Well i have given you the ancient lands of once reffered to as Palestine(philistim, philistine, etc)

I guess I could be wrong too. After all, its 4 am :D

Discuss, if its coherent :p

A massive oversimplification, which essentially would mean we let some crude form of social darwinism flourish. Thus, there would be no aid to a beleagured Israel, as if they were good enough, they'd survive. Likewise Poland, Kuwait etc.


I think Israel should exercise its legal right outlined in UN Resolution 242 and seize what territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and then let the Palestinians have the rest for a state.

Only bit in that resolution that mentions Israel specifically tells them to withdraw. And theres the whole 'inadmissability' of land gained by conquest thing......


I have heard many times from Israeli friends and so on, that those claiming to be palestinians aren't actually. They are more then likely like the insurgents in Iraq and just flooding the borders from places like Jordan and Egypt, to wreak havoc on Israel. Do you know if this is true or not?.

Given the amount of security around the area, doesnt this strike you as unlikely?


Palestinians didn't get displaced until Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel in 1948. It was a result of these attacks that they had to run with only the clothing on their backs.?.

...because these attacks permitted and facilatated their expulsion by elements in the Israeli movement. And once they were gone, there was no getting back in. You left that bit out. As usual.
Zilam
02-07-2006, 19:18
Haha funny, how 'bout the fact that palestinians don't have the US as their 'Big Brother helpin' like Israel does? :mp5:


When was the last time America sent a single soldier to help fight off an invasion by the Arab countries?
Zilam
02-07-2006, 19:19
Jews didn't claim land based on ancestors or religion. That is just a common myth. A minority of Jews were religious as such.

Nor was Israel formed as a result of WW2. Thats another myth. Israel had been promised to the Jewish people under international law before the war even broke out, and had been planned before the Nazis even existed.

Rather, between the late 19th century and 48, Jews settled in uninhabited land. Arabs were not displaced, except for a small number of fellaheen families (less than 2000). Palestinians didn't get displaced until Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel in 1948. It was a result of these attacks that they had to run with only the clothing on their backs.


That is exactly what I have always heard, and read.
Fooneytopia
02-07-2006, 19:37
When was the last time America sent a single soldier to help fight off an invasion by the Arab countries?

Helping a country militarily doesn't necessarily mean you've sent soldiers over to help fight.
Nodinia
02-07-2006, 19:50
That is exactly what I have always heard, and read.

And theres ne'er a bit of truth in it. Settlers bought some land, and leased some, and as funding came in gradually expanded. However by 1947 only about 7% of the land was Jewish owned. Choosing what source you like, go look up what amount of acres/dunums was under Jewish/settler ownership in 1946/47 and work out what percentage it was of the total area of the Palestine mandate. You shouldnt get less that 6% or more than 8%. If thats not the case get back to me.

Then came the war, and undercover and using the excuse of this there were expulsions. If you read the "Beginning of the Palestinian Refugee problem" by Benny Morris you'd see he says the exact same thing. He differs entirely in his conclusions based on this from my position, I might add, and thinks that all expulsions were actually justified anyway.
Zilam
02-07-2006, 19:55
Helping a country militarily doesn't necessarily mean you've sent soldiers over to help fight.


Well one can argue we inadvertantly help out the Pali's too, by buying soo much oil from the mideast, then those mideastern countries send the money to the palestinians, helping to fund them.
The Azraelis
03-07-2006, 03:11
Well one can argue we inadvertantly help out the Pali's too, by buying soo much oil from the mideast, then those mideastern countries send the money to the palestinians, helping to fund them.

Exactly, and also, America and other western nations sent funds over to the Palestinian peoples (meager as they were). Only since Hamas was elected has those funds been cutoff. So we actually did help out the Palestinians.
[NS]Liasia
03-07-2006, 03:18
Isn't it Israel vs Palestine, not Jews vs palestine?
Ginnoria
03-07-2006, 03:29
Those in the pro-Israel camp, take note (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48976).
Kroisistan
03-07-2006, 04:12
I'm sorry, but conquest doesn't confer right - not over people, not over land, not over anything.

At most, conquest is a sometimes legitimate means of securing one's rights. But rights to something come from a legitimate claim on that thing, not simply the ability to take it. Example - I have the power to rape a woman, but that certainly doesn't give me a green light to engage in such a despicable act.

I still support the existance of Israel, but I do so because the Jews have a historical claim to the land, are backed by International law, were already living in the area in significant numbers, and didn't forcibly displace many at all to found their state. Plus they've been through hell for the past 2000 years, and quite frankly deserve an independent state where they can be safe.
Brunswick VIII
03-07-2006, 04:46
It would certainly be an interesting world today if the Pro-Jewish Japanese lobby in the 1930s had secured the deal for citizenship of Jews in Japan, giving them a 'homeland' in Manchuria. We may have even seen a Jewish state take part in the Second World War, on the side of Japan, and therefore, Germany. Uh oh!

In regards to Israel:

Israel as a right to exist and protect its borders.
Palestine also has a right to exist and protect its borders.
Placement of the 'security barrier' however must be changed to be fair to those Palestinian civilians who have been dispossessed from community/work/school because of it.
All Jewish settlements built in recent decades must be removed.
There must be an international denouncement of pre-emptive Israeli actions and vice versa.


And I guess other things.. blah.
Nodinia
03-07-2006, 08:45
It would certainly be an interesting world today if the Pro-Jewish Japanese lobby in the 1930s had secured the deal for citizenship of Jews in Japan, giving them a 'homeland' in Manchuria. We may have even seen a Jewish state take part in the Second World War, on the side of Japan, and therefore, Germany. Uh oh!

In regards to Israel:

Israel as a right to exist and protect its borders.
Palestine also has a right to exist and protect its borders.
Placement of the 'security barrier' however must be changed to be fair to those Palestinian civilians who have been dispossessed from community/work/school because of it.
All Jewish settlements built in recent decades must be removed.
There must be an international denouncement of pre-emptive Israeli actions and vice versa.


And I guess other things.. blah.

Seems well balanced, honest and reasonable to me.
Intelocracy
03-07-2006, 09:10
I suggest it isn't conquest but occupation that confers rights.
Basically anyone born in a country has a "right to be there" or a "vote" if you like.
Anyone who has lived in a country for a considerable length of time has a similar (if slightly lesser) right to be there.

What this means is that Palestinians could have rightly refused to allow Israelis to come just before or just after WWII similarly Jews could rightly have refused to allow Arabs to settle there throughout the period BUT now that they ARE there (and have had children in particular) you cant automatically get rid of them.
So I suggest you draw a line that puts as many people who want to be Israeli on one side and as many people as possible who want to be Palestinian on the other. (Totally ignoring anything the UN or anyone else has ever said)

What you could do then is offer a nice financial incentive for families to move from one side to the other (In particular settlers where there location clearly creates a flashpoint).
Kradlumania
03-07-2006, 10:40
My arguement for the land to be given to the Israeli's, or rather the Jews, is the fact that they fought for it the first time, then lost it through fighting, but were able to gather back up and fight for it several more times.

Remind me when this was? Seems to me they couldn't defend it from the Romans, and since then it has been occupied by Christians and Muslims pretty solidly for 2,000 years. So, remind me when the Jews won Israel back?
Akh-Horus
03-07-2006, 10:51
Israel isn't "Jew" it is Zionist which the founder of it was actually anti-semetic and lot's of jew's don't even agree with Zionist.

For example: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Get your facts right.
Tropical Sands
03-07-2006, 10:57
Israel isn't "Jew" it is Zionist which the founder of it was actually anti-semetic and lot's of jew's don't even agree with Zionist.

For example: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Get your facts right.

Actually groups like that primarily represent the extreme minority of religious Jews. I recall reading a poll in JPost or Ynet the other day that said a small majority (50 something percent) of Jews worldwide don't have any attachment to Israel, while virtually all the rest said they supported Israel. It isn't true that "lots of Jews" don't agree with Zionism, if we define lots as a substantial percentage.

And Zionism has no single founder. Which early Zionist do you claim was anti-Semitic?