Israel

[ChrisJG777]

you honestly believe that these terrorists will leave Israelis Alone?

I believe a State of Palestine is in the best interests of Israel. 

yeah, because, historically, Israelis allowing Gentiles to divide up the land of Jacob has worked so well for Israel....right?!

You're not still using the religious argument, are you? 

no, rather I'm using recorded history...far be it from me to attempt to use a religious argument on a bunch of idiots.

---

No person with the slightest shred of common sense is going to buy that!

1Cor 1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

---

  Furthermore, creating a state almost exclusively for a particular religious group is just wrong on so many levels.

you mean - wrong on so many politically correct levels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately for you the only idiots here are actually the ones who buy the rubbish you're currently spouting.  This "Land of Jacob" you speak of, whatever the case may be it most certainly doesn't exist any more and now that patch of land it supposedly occupied is under different management now.  Ancient Israel is gone, trying to revive it will only create a whole plethora of problems, which it already has done.  If you forcibly evict a bunch of people from their homes, expect some of them to get violent, and expect all of them to be absolutely pissed off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You really must be a complete twit for thinking that you can preach Bible texts at me!  It won't work, seriously, so just drop it, now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has political correctness got to do with it?  Nothing, that's what.  You know for well creating a state for the sole use of one group (racial, religious or otherwise) is effectively imposing a form of apartheid on that area.





Grief, the trouble with arguing with narrow-minded imbeciles is that there are very few rational ways to get back at them!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This "Land of Jacob" you speak of, whatever the case may be it most certainly doesn't exist any more and now that patch of land it supposedly occupied is under different management now.

which was all prophesied

---

 Ancient Israel is gone, trying to revive it will only create a whole plethora of problems, which it already has done.  If you forcibly evict a bunch of people from their homes, expect some of them to get violent, and expect all of them to be absolutely pissed off.

which was all prophesied

---

You really must be a complete twit for thinking that you can preach Bible texts at me!  It won't work

which was all prophesied

---

What has political correctness got to do with it?  Nothing, that's what.  You know for well creating a state for the sole use of one group (racial, religious or otherwise) is effectively imposing a form of apartheid on that area.

yes, there will be an eternal "apartheid":  Luke 16:26 "between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us"...Rev 22:14 "Blessed are those who have the right to go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

I don't know about you, but I want to be on the inside, not on the outside.

---

Grief, the trouble with arguing with narrow-minded imbeciles is that there are very few rational ways to get back at them!

stop being a pawn 

[ChrisJG777]

This "Land of Jacob" you speak of, whatever the case may be it most certainly doesn't exist any more and now that patch of land it supposedly occupied is under different management now.

which was all prophesied

---

 Ancient Israel is gone, trying to revive it will only create a whole plethora of problems, which it already has done.  If you forcibly evict a bunch of people from their homes, expect some of them to get violent, and expect all of them to be absolutely pissed off.

which was all prophesied

---

You really must be a complete twit for thinking that you can preach Bible texts at me!  It won't work

which was all prophesied

---

What has political correctness got to do with it?  Nothing, that's what.  You know for well creating a state for the sole use of one group (racial, religious or otherwise) is effectively imposing a form of apartheid on that area.

yes, there will be an eternal "apartheid":  Luke 16:26 "between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us"...Rev 22:14 "Blessed are those who have the right to go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

I don't know about you, but I want to be on the inside, not on the outside.

---

Grief, the trouble with arguing with narrow-minded imbeciles is that there are very few rational ways to get back at them!

stop being a pawn 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Show me where all these events were "Prophesied". The means in which (modern) Israel came is absolutely disgraceful, verging on downright evil in places.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your self-righteous, obnoxious, Bible thumping ways do not endear you to me, for one thing I am an Atheist so naturally I don't buy a single word of it (and if I have to go Richard Dawkins on you, I will).  Just don't try to use Biblical arguments on me- oh wait, you can't, because you don't know any other form of debate (I will retract that statement if you can prove otherwise).  If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you will cease and desist in citing religious scripture of dubious accuracy, reliability and plausibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You stop being a complete dick.  You think I'm a pawn for thinking for myself and not blindly following some scripture like you?  You're dumber than I thought.  It's people like you that really turn me off religion (Christianity in particular), and its people like you who give it (religion, Christianity) a bad name.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll just sit back and shake my head disapprovingly at you.  Besides, it's not to hard to see that I'd have a better time discussing this with a brick wall, they provide more stimulating and intelligent responses anyway.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Show me where all these events were "Prophesied". The means in which (modern) Israel came is absolutely disgraceful, verging on downright evil in places.

Read the bible.  The reformation of Israel in the last days is a common theme throughout scripture.  But, its current reformation is not complete, Jesus must first return.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your self-righteous, obnoxious, Bible thumping ways do not endear you to me

It’s “self-righteous” to want to be saved?!  How so?

---

… for one thing I am an Atheist so naturally I don't buy a single word of it (and if I have to go Richard Dawkins on you, I will).  Just don't try to use Biblical arguments on me- oh wait, you can't, because you don't know any other form of debate (I will retract that statement if you can prove otherwise).  If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you will cease and desist in citing religious scripture of dubious accuracy, reliability and plausibility.

Just because you only accept the logic of the world, don’t expect me to revert back to using the world’s logic.  But, just for you, I will give it a shot:  if your worldly logic was so accurate, why is it constantly rewriting it’s conclusions?

You stop being a complete dick.  You think I'm a pawn for thinking for myself and not blindly following some scripture like you?  You're dumber than I thought.  It's people like you that really turn me off religion (Christianity in particular), and its people like you who give it (religion, Christianity) a bad name.

I’m sorry bold unapologetic truth turns you off, but I’m sure you can find many Christian denominations who’ll water down the bible to your liking, though I think you'll find my interpretation to be much more in agreement with the text.

---

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll just sit back and shake my head disapprovingly at you.

That’s not surprising, they did the same to Jesus because what he preached was “too harsh” for their comfort.  Understand stand, I am not seeking your approval.

---

  Besides, it's not to hard to see that I'd have a better time discussing this with a brick wall, they provide more stimulating and intelligent responses anyway.

I’m sure you and the brick wall will find a lot in common. 

But, seriously, have you ever read the bible?

[??????????]

God gave us this land, now we want to give it away to these monsters?

God given land my arse!  You know for well that land actually belongs to the Palestinians, and if anything its the Israeli government who're the monsters for being arrogant enough to deny that!

But, seeing as Israel isn't going anywhere soon, its government could have the good sense to withdraw back to the intended 1948 boundaries and accept and recognise the presence of a fully independent Palestinian state.  For one thing, Israel's Arab neighbours might be somewhat less pissed off at the aforementioned.

[Хahar 🤔]

God gave us this land, now we want to give it away to these monsters?

God given land my arse!  You know for well that land actually belongs to the Palestinians, and if anything its the Israeli government who're the monsters for being arrogant enough to deny that!

But, seeing as Israel isn't going anywhere soon, its government could have the good sense to withdraw back to the intended 1948 boundaries and accept and recognise the presence of a fully independent Palestinian state.  For one thing, Israel's Arab neighbours might be somewhat less pissed off at the aforementioned.

That makes as much sense as defending Andrew Jackson's removal of the Indians because there were plenty of other places to go to.

[??????????]

Jackson was right o/c but that's for another thread.

[bgwah]

God gave us this land, now we want to give it away to these monsters?

God given land my arse!  You know for well that land actually belongs to the Palestinians, and if anything its the Israeli government who're the monsters for being arrogant enough to deny that!

But, seeing as Israel isn't going anywhere soon, its government could have the good sense to withdraw back to the intended 1948 boundaries and accept and recognise the presence of a fully independent Palestinian state.  For one thing, Israel's Arab neighbours might be somewhat less pissed off at the aforementioned.

That makes as much sense as defending Andrew Jackson's removal of the Indians because there were plenty of other places to go to.

He was talking about the "Unjust Occupation of Palestinian Land," not Muslim land, and merely mentioned that it might improve relations with Arab (not Muslim) neighbors, but good job being an idiot.

Here's a much better map:

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That map is extremely dishonest as there was no "Palestinian land" (a term that's a little too emotionally loaded for my tastes, but it's the one used) in the period 1949-1967; the Gaza strip was occupied by Egypt, while the West Bank and East Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan. And the first map is misleading as well; it's either land-ownership or estimates of the largest group, not formal boundaries.

But, of course, the point is not to enlighten, the point is propaganda.

[bgwah]

That map is extremely dishonest as there was no "Palestinian land" (a term that's a little too emotionally loaded for my tastes, but it's the one used) in the period 1949-1967; the Gaza strip was occupied by Egypt, while the West Bank and East Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan. And the first map is misleading as well; it's either land-ownership or estimates of the largest group, not formal boundaries.

But, of course, the point is not to enlighten, the point is propaganda.

I noticed that as well and would have preferred a simple 1967 borders map. Nevertheless the general idea--the increasingly diminishing Palestinian land--is shown well by the series of maps.

[dead0man]

Yeah, you may know it's dishonest propaganda, but the general idea of the propaganda is what you were after here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah, you may know it's dishonest propaganda, but the general idea of the propaganda is what you were after here.

Well it's nowhere near as dishonest as the first map, which is based on what has to be one of the ten dumbest strawmen I have ever seen.

[dead0man]

The old "your side does it too" retort.  Way to go with one of the classics brother.

[bgwah]

Yeah, you may know it's dishonest propaganda, but the general idea of the propaganda is what you were after here.

A minor disagreement I may have with the description of one of the four maps is hardly enough for me to warrant it as "dishonest propaganda" and waste my time trying to find or create a similar series of maps without the minor problem to please a bunch of know-it-all, self-righteous douchebags on the internet.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I could live with the "1949-1967" boundaries for a Palestinian State.  One of my major concerns is with having an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but I don't think I need to worry too much about that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I could live with the "1949-1967" boundaries for a Palestinian State.  One of my major concerns is with having an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but I don't think I need to worry too much about that.

Why is an undivided Jerusalem so important? That's ultra-nationalism if you insist on having any non-Jewish areas.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, you may know it's dishonest propaganda, but the general idea of the propaganda is what you were after here.

A minor disagreement I may have with the description of one of the four maps is hardly enough for me to warrant it as "dishonest propaganda" and waste my time trying to find or create a similar series of maps without the minor problem to please a bunch of know-it-all, self-righteous douchebags on the internet.

Minor disagreement? The Jews made up about a 3rd of the population before the creation of the Israel state, so the first map suggesting they were 5% of the population is not "minor." I'd say it is basically a complete lie. Then, the Palestinians were the ones who rejected the UN proposal and opted for war, attacking the newly-founded Israel state. THey lost the war and thus some of the land. Then they tried to destroy Israel again in 1967 but lost again and lost more land.

So it is misleading in the sense that it suggests that Israel expanded into these territories when it was rather failed expansion attempts from the Arab side.

Israel has actually ceded land peacefully, and enormous chunks at that  (Sinai, Gaza and parts of the West Bank) something which the Palestinians have never done.

[GMantis]

Minor disagreement? The Jews made up about a 3rd of the population before the creation of the Israel state, so the first map suggesting they were 5% of the population is not "minor." I'd say it is basically a complete lie. Then, the Palestinians were the ones who rejected the UN proposal and opted for war, attacking the newly-founded Israel state. THey lost the war and thus some of the land. Then they tried to destroy Israel again in 1967 but lost again and lost more land.

So it is misleading in the sense that it suggests that Israel expanded into these territories when it was rather failed expansion attempts from the Arab side.

Israel has actually ceded land peacefully, and enormous chunks at that  (Sinai, Gaza and parts of the West Bank) something which the Palestinians have never done.

The map doesn't suggest that, it indicates that they had a high population density and lived in a few concentrated areas. WHich is confirmed by other sources:

The 1947 proposal unfair was blatantly unfair to the Palestinians. In only made sense after the expulsion of most Arabs from the Israeli area and the settlement of immigrant Jews.
In 1967 Israel attacked first, unless your definition of agressor is different than mine.
What area could the Palestinians cede? They have already lost most of the land that once was theirs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

... the Palestinians were the ones who rejected the UN proposal and opted for war, attacking the newly-founded Israel state. They lost the war and thus some of the land. Then they tried to destroy Israel again in 1967 but lost again and lost more land.

So it is misleading in the sense that it suggests that Israel expanded into these territories when it was rather failed expansion attempts from the Arab side.

Israel has actually ceded land peacefully, and enormous chunks at that  (Sinai, Gaza and parts of the West Bank) something which the Palestinians have never done.

Partition became necessary in 1947 because the Zionists wouldn't accept a one-state solution, and the activities of Zionist terrorists made Britain unwilling to continue running the mandate.

Israel has never ceded land, though it has returned some of its occupied territories.

[pogo stick]

"Aw.. poor Palestinians your not evil, you just elect terrorists to office and let them throw missiles and bombs into Israel for no good reason. Your not bad, society made you bad!  Israel is bad  beucase they stole so much land!"

This Stupid liberal foreign policy will not bring peace, It'll bring more oppression on the Jews and Israel.

If Muslims can't let Jews have a tiny strip of land, then the Muslims don't deserve any land!

[Хahar 🤔]

"Aw.. poor Palestinians your not evil, you just elect terrorists to office and let them throw missiles and bombs into Israel for no good reason. Your not bad, society made you bad!  Israel is bad  beucase they stole so much land!"

This Stupid liberal foreign policy will not bring peace, It'll bring more oppression on the Jews and Israel.

If Muslims can't let Jews have a tiny strip of land, then the Muslims don't deserve any land!

Please leave this thread.

[GMantis]

"Aw.. poor Palestinians your not evil, you just elect terrorists to office and let them throw missiles and bombs into Israel for no good reason. Your not bad, society made you bad!  Israel is bad  beucase they stole so much land!"

This Stupid liberal foreign policy will not bring peace, It'll bring more oppression on the Jews and Israel.

If Muslims can't let Jews have a tiny strip of land, then the Muslims don't deserve any land!

That land is not the land of all Muslims, but of its local inhabitants and for them it's not a tiny strip of land - it's all the land they have.
And what right do the Jews have on the land, anyway? Beside the "promised land" nonsense.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

"Aw.. poor Palestinians your not evil, you just elect terrorists to office and let them throw missiles and bombs into Israel for no good reason. Your not bad, society made you bad!  Israel is bad  beucase they stole so much land!"

This Stupid liberal foreign policy will not bring peace, It'll bring more oppression on the Jews and Israel.

If Muslims can't let Jews have a tiny strip of land, then the Muslims don't deserve any land!

That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted, and that includes what Stark posts.

[Gustaf]

Minor disagreement? The Jews made up about a 3rd of the population before the creation of the Israel state, so the first map suggesting they were 5% of the population is not "minor." I'd say it is basically a complete lie. Then, the Palestinians were the ones who rejected the UN proposal and opted for war, attacking the newly-founded Israel state. THey lost the war and thus some of the land. Then they tried to destroy Israel again in 1967 but lost again and lost more land.

So it is misleading in the sense that it suggests that Israel expanded into these territories when it was rather failed expansion attempts from the Arab side.

Israel has actually ceded land peacefully, and enormous chunks at that  (Sinai, Gaza and parts of the West Bank) something which the Palestinians have never done.

The map doesn't suggest that, it indicates that they had a high population density and lived in a few concentrated areas. WHich is confirmed by other sources:

The 1947 proposal unfair was blatantly unfair to the Palestinians. In only made sense after the expulsion of most Arabs from the Israeli area and the settlement of immigrant Jews.
In 1967 Israel attacked first, unless your definition of agressor is different than mine.
What area could the Palestinians cede? They have already lost most of the land that once was theirs.

Yeah, Israel made the first official move.

Here is a quote from the Syrian Minister of Defence from May 1967:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

President Nasser of Egypt said: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

So it isn't as if it was a random act of agression. The Arab countries said they were going to destroy Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers from Sinai, mobilized their armies and positioned them at the border. Then Israel decided to strike first. I really don't think that makes them the agressor of the war. 

But since the Palestinians started out with a lot more land they have had the opportunity to cede it.

Besides, there were a lot of immigration expected to come to Israel from Jews, meaning that they would need more land than their part of the population indicated at the time. In addition, a large part of the Jewish land was desert land that wasn't of much use to anyone and was sparsely populated.

Anyway, it is amusing how the left, normally so pro-immigration, thinks that it was ok for Palestinians to demand an end to immigration and expulsion of all Jews from their territory. Or that the harassed immigrants should not have had any right to land outside of the ghettos where they had been forced to concentrate by a hostile indegenous population.

Exchange Jews for Mexicans and you have a perfect Minuteman-argument!

Basically, I never understood what the underlying principle of the anti-Israel position is. Emotionally, yeah, I definitely get it. I can feel those kinds of things too at times. But intellectually, I don't get it. The Palestinian or Arab side has almost never been in the right in any given turn in the conflict.

Stark is actually one of the few people whose anti-Israel stand is consistent with his overall views.

[GMantis]

Yeah, Israel made the first official move.

Here is a quote from the Syrian Minister of Defence from May 1967:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

President Nasser of Egypt said: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

So it isn't as if it was a random act of aggression. The Arab countries said they were going to destroy Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers from Sinai, mobilized their armies and positioned them at the border. Then Israel decided to strike first. I really don't think that makes them the agressor of the war. 

That is true to an extent. Then again, Israel wasn't exactly peaceful before the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war#Background

But since the Palestinians started out with a lot more land they have had the opportunity to cede it.

Why should they cede land?

Besides, there were a lot of immigration expected to come to Israel from Jews, meaning that they would need more land than their part of the population indicated at the time. In addition, a large part of the Jewish land was desert land that wasn't of much use to anyone and was sparsely populated.

Anyway, it is amusing how the left, normally so pro-immigration, thinks that it was ok for Palestinians to demand an end to immigration and expulsion of all Jews from their territory. Or that the harassed immigrants should not have had any right to land outside of the ghettos where they had been forced to concentrate by a hostile indegenous population.

Nice for admitting that the Partition plan was unfair to the Arabs. It was supposed to be a division to accommodate the current population division, not what population there might be in the future. Using the same argument, it could be argued that Israel should cede to the Palestinians not only the whole West Bank, but also parts of Israel to accommodate their much higher birth rates.
As for immigration, you shouldn't generalize. I might have left wing views, but I believe that a country should have the right to determine who has the right to immigrate. Especially if the immigrants plan on taking over the country. Palestine, not being a sovereign country, was not given the opportunity to do this, which is why the Jewish settlement was such a great injustice.
Of course, I'm certain that you have nothing against a Muslim takeover of Sweden by the same method.
Finally, considering that Israel occupies (according to all international organisations) Palestinian territories, I don't think there could be any doubt in the rightfulness of the Palestinian demand for independence.