(05-15-2015 07:53 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 07:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Remember that there are Palestinian Christians too.

---

The Palestinian notion of statehood is a fact today. Much of the world is moving to that realization. And there are plenty in Israel that understand that too. But Bibi....not so much.

Don't worry, the Christians won't be around long. Islam has discovered its own "final solution" for that problem.

The Palestinians don't even want a two state solution. They just want Israel driven into the sea.

This.

Is it the Palestinians that want that, or the outside agitators?

Both. And either way, Israelis lose assets and it won't be enough for the muslims. Not to mention neither side is going to give up Jerusalem. It is in both Holy books. Just remember, Islam comes from the bastard son. The Jews have legitimacy.

(05-15-2015 07:57 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 07:53 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 07:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Remember that there are Palestinian Christians too.

---

The Palestinian notion of statehood is a fact today. Much of the world is moving to that realization. And there are plenty in Israel that understand that too. But Bibi....not so much.

Don't worry, the Christians won't be around long. Islam has discovered its own "final solution" for that problem.

The Palestinians don't even want a two state solution. They just want Israel driven into the sea.

This.

Is it the Palestinians that want that, or the outside agitators?

Both. And either way, Israelis lose assets and it won't be enough for the muslims. Not to mention neither side is going to give up Jerusalem. It is in both Holy books. Just remember, Islam comes from the bastard son. The Jews have legitimacy.

Well, the bastard part is well, anyway, I'm thinking it's more the Iranians, etc that want Israel to disappear and with their money, the Palestianians do as they say.

What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Well that and Old Testament history, if you believe in that.

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Wars that were won after the state was created in 1948. But why would you say that they earned a right to the land? The land was given to them by the British, who took it from Ottomans who took that land from the Europeans who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Romans who took it from the Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians/Egyptians, etc...

I know that the vast majority of the Jews were spread all over the world, and around the late 1800s the zionist movement started and Jews were moving back to the region - like La Razza trying to reoccupy parts of the U.S. to create a greater Mexico.

(05-15-2015 09:56 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Wars that were won after the state was created in 1948. But why would you say that they earned a right to the land? The land was given to them by the British, who took it from Ottomans who took that land from the Europeans who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Romans who took it from the Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians/Egyptians, etc...

I know that the vast majority of the Jews were spread all over the world, and around the late 1800s the zionist movement started and Jews were moving back to the region - like La Razza trying to reoccupy parts of the U.S. to create a greater Mexico.

They successfully defended it. How they got there doesn't change that fact.

But, like I said, they have no inherent right to be there.

Surely you see why that is such a huge distinction.

(05-15-2015 09:56 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:16 AM)miko33 Wrote:  What claim do the Jews have on the land that they currently occupy? Are we not sure that the Palestinians aren't Canaanites?

Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Wars that were won after the state was created in 1948. But why would you say that they earned a right to the land? The land was given to them by the British, who took it from Ottomans who took that land from the Europeans who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Romans who took it from the Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians/Egyptians, etc...

I know that the vast majority of the Jews were spread all over the world, and around the late 1800s the zionist movement started and Jews were moving back to the region - like La Razza trying to reoccupy parts of the U.S. to create a greater Mexico.

Because according to both the jews and the muslims, it is theirs due to God's directive. You can use whatever logic or land deed theory you want, that is what it boils down to and that is why there is no solution.

(05-15-2015 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:56 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Yes, we are sure.

Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Wars that were won after the state was created in 1948. But why would you say that they earned a right to the land? The land was given to them by the British, who took it from Ottomans who took that land from the Europeans who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Romans who took it from the Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians/Egyptians, etc...

I know that the vast majority of the Jews were spread all over the world, and around the late 1800s the zionist movement started and Jews were moving back to the region - like La Razza trying to reoccupy parts of the U.S. to create a greater Mexico.

They successfully defended it. How they got there doesn't change that fact.

But, like I said, they have no inherent right to be there.

Surely you see why that is such a huge distinction.

I get the distinction. Sure they defended it. However, without outside help they couldn't exist long term. Israel exists because the U.S. and the west wants it that way. I get that the ultimate goal was to have a presence in the middle east in order to have influence there. But the U.S. could have just as likely changed the trajectory of other nations within the region. The U.S. had a lot of good will in the area prior to the creation of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%...05_p_285-2

Quote:The United States’ relationship with the Arab League prior to the Second World War was limited. However, the first country to officially recognize the US was Morocco. Moreover, in comparison to European powers such as Britain and France which had managed to colonise almost all of the Arab World after defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the United States was ‘popular and respected throughout the region’.[1] Indeed, ‘Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans’.[2] American missionaries had brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Arab World. In addition to this, the US had provided the Arab states with highly skilled petroleum engineers.[3] Thus, there were some connections, which were made between the United States and the Arab states before the Second World War.

Quote:The first real incident of deterioration between the Arab world and the US was when the US recognized Israel, and supported it in the United Nations. This issue has decreased the US's reputation and role within the Arab streets, hate towards the US increased, and the US was seen as the 'Friend of the Arabs Enemy,' Israel, thus becoming the Enemy.

While this is a Wikipedia link, it was based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/International-Rela...019960827X

The author's credentials: http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/academic-fa...wcett.html

Sorry for this being drawn out, but I question their worthiness to have the land in addition to their claims to the land. Although they won battles against Egypt and Syria to keep the land, it would not have been possible without heavy backing by the U.S. and western Europe. If the rational is that the U.S. recognized them as a means of having an ally (or puppet state) to have a say in middle eastern affairs, then that really was not needed considering the U.S. could have easily leveraged their influence on other middle eastern states. Considering that today the Saudi's and Egyptians are U.S. allies today despite Israel is a testament that it could have been done without recognizing Israel in the first place.

I'm generally pro-Israel, but I don't believe we should bury our heads in the sand and act like peace is going to come about by way of perpetual violence and ineffective policy.

(05-15-2015 10:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I'm generally pro-Israel, but I don't believe we should bury our heads in the sand and act like peace is going to come about by way of perpetual violence and ineffective policy.

Since you can't change the past, the ultimate solution will be a 2 state solution. I agree with your thoughts on it.

(05-15-2015 10:53 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I'm generally pro-Israel, but I don't believe we should bury our heads in the sand and act like peace is going to come about by way of perpetual violence and ineffective policy.

Since you can't change the past, the ultimate solution will be a 2 state solution. I agree with your thoughts on it.

I hope so. Not sure anything is ultimate, though. Even with a two-state solution, would the Palestinians stop there? I'm not sure they would, but it's worth a shot. It's not like Israel and Friends couldn't kick their asses back even further in the Stone Age if they get out of line.

I'm somewhat dichotomous on the subject because at the same time I see Islam as a cancer to the world. A violent, brainwashing cancer that completely envelops tiny little Israel. But the status quo is ineffective. Peace will never come about this way. It's, I believe, possible through policy changes. Not probable, but possible. And possible is better than what we have now.

If Israel has no inherent right to be on the West Bank, then neither do the Palestinians.

Historically, the commitment to create a Jewish state in the area predates the arrival of any significant number of Palestinians (if any at all) in the area. Sinai was the Palestinian homeland, not the West Bank.

(05-15-2015 10:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:56 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 08:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Seriously, what is their claim to that land?

None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Wars that were won after the state was created in 1948. But why would you say that they earned a right to the land? The land was given to them by the British, who took it from Ottomans who took that land from the Europeans who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Romans who took it from the Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians/Egyptians, etc...

I know that the vast majority of the Jews were spread all over the world, and around the late 1800s the zionist movement started and Jews were moving back to the region - like La Razza trying to reoccupy parts of the U.S. to create a greater Mexico.

They successfully defended it. How they got there doesn't change that fact.

But, like I said, they have no inherent right to be there.

Surely you see why that is such a huge distinction.

I get the distinction. Sure they defended it. However, without outside help they couldn't exist long term. Israel exists because the U.S. and the west wants it that way. I get that the ultimate goal was to have a presence in the middle east in order to have influence there. But the U.S. could have just as likely changed the trajectory of other nations within the region. The U.S. had a lot of good will in the area prior to the creation of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%...05_p_285-2

Quote:The United States’ relationship with the Arab League prior to the Second World War was limited. However, the first country to officially recognize the US was Morocco. Moreover, in comparison to European powers such as Britain and France which had managed to colonise almost all of the Arab World after defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the United States was ‘popular and respected throughout the region’.[1] Indeed, ‘Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans’.[2] American missionaries had brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Arab World. In addition to this, the US had provided the Arab states with highly skilled petroleum engineers.[3] Thus, there were some connections, which were made between the United States and the Arab states before the Second World War.

Quote:The first real incident of deterioration between the Arab world and the US was when the US recognized Israel, and supported it in the United Nations. This issue has decreased the US's reputation and role within the Arab streets, hate towards the US increased, and the US was seen as the 'Friend of the Arabs Enemy,' Israel, thus becoming the Enemy.

While this is a Wikipedia link, it was based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/International-Rela...019960827X

The author's credentials: http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/academic-fa...wcett.html

Sorry for this being drawn out, but I question their worthiness to have the land in addition to their claims to the land. Although they won battles against Egypt and Syria to keep the land, it would not have been possible without heavy backing by the U.S. and western Europe. If the rational is that the U.S. recognized them as a means of having an ally (or puppet state) to have a say in middle eastern affairs, then that really was not needed considering the U.S. could have easily leveraged their influence on other middle eastern states. Considering that today the Saudi's and Egyptians are U.S. allies today despite Israel is a testament that it could have been done without recognizing Israel in the first place.

You're preaching to the choir.

I'm not pro-Israel.

It is a nation created by terrorists.

(05-15-2015 01:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 10:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:56 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  None really, just the fact they have won several wars in the 20th century.

Do they have some inherent right to the land? No. Have they earned a right to it? I would say yes.

There is a huge difference though.

Wars that were won after the state was created in 1948. But why would you say that they earned a right to the land? The land was given to them by the British, who took it from Ottomans who took that land from the Europeans who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Romans who took it from the Babylonians/Persians/Assyrians/Egyptians, etc...

I know that the vast majority of the Jews were spread all over the world, and around the late 1800s the zionist movement started and Jews were moving back to the region - like La Razza trying to reoccupy parts of the U.S. to create a greater Mexico.

They successfully defended it. How they got there doesn't change that fact.

But, like I said, they have no inherent right to be there.

Surely you see why that is such a huge distinction.

I get the distinction. Sure they defended it. However, without outside help they couldn't exist long term. Israel exists because the U.S. and the west wants it that way. I get that the ultimate goal was to have a presence in the middle east in order to have influence there. But the U.S. could have just as likely changed the trajectory of other nations within the region. The U.S. had a lot of good will in the area prior to the creation of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%...05_p_285-2

Quote:The United States’ relationship with the Arab League prior to the Second World War was limited. However, the first country to officially recognize the US was Morocco. Moreover, in comparison to European powers such as Britain and France which had managed to colonise almost all of the Arab World after defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the United States was ‘popular and respected throughout the region’.[1] Indeed, ‘Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans’.[2] American missionaries had brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Arab World. In addition to this, the US had provided the Arab states with highly skilled petroleum engineers.[3] Thus, there were some connections, which were made between the United States and the Arab states before the Second World War.

Quote:The first real incident of deterioration between the Arab world and the US was when the US recognized Israel, and supported it in the United Nations. This issue has decreased the US's reputation and role within the Arab streets, hate towards the US increased, and the US was seen as the 'Friend of the Arabs Enemy,' Israel, thus becoming the Enemy.

While this is a Wikipedia link, it was based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/International-Rela...019960827X

The author's credentials: http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/academic-fa...wcett.html

Sorry for this being drawn out, but I question their worthiness to have the land in addition to their claims to the land. Although they won battles against Egypt and Syria to keep the land, it would not have been possible without heavy backing by the U.S. and western Europe. If the rational is that the U.S. recognized them as a means of having an ally (or puppet state) to have a say in middle eastern affairs, then that really was not needed considering the U.S. could have easily leveraged their influence on other middle eastern states. Considering that today the Saudi's and Egyptians are U.S. allies today despite Israel is a testament that it could have been done without recognizing Israel in the first place.

You're preaching to the choir.

I'm not pro-Israel.

It is a nation created by terrorists.

Jeez, you have some bizarre opinions.

If it was so easy as to give them land and sovereignty, wouldn't it be cheaper just to give them an unused island in the Pacific, build infrastructure, and ship them there?

Of course not. They don't want land and sovereignty, want Jerusalem and sovereignty over the holy city. The notion that a 2-state solution will solve anything is beyond ridiculous. It may actually get worse once they can start collecting taxes and amassing an army.

Thanks

(05-14-2015 03:18 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 03:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 12:16 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  A push for peace in the region.

Religions should be for peace and against perpetual war.

Pope Francis is not for the perpetuation of death and violence in that region. He took a stand.

Now, let all the accusations of the Pope's anti-Semitism begin.

Stripping Israel of sovereingty to appease the savages will not yield peace.

The status quo is not yielding peace. Pope Francis is solution-oriented. The rest of the world seems to want the problem to perpetuate itself.

No, Pope Francis is a socialist (and I say this as a Catholic). The Jesuits (and I say this as someone that went to their university) are SJWs that struggle with the existence of good and evil. You want peace there? Destroy the evil, don't cave to it. Israel needs to figure that out themselves before the evil becomes strong enough to destroy the good. There is no solution that any pope, president, or UN council will ever be able to create that will lead to peace.

As long as one side views the other as savages, and as an evil that must be destroyed, there will be war. As long as one side believes that their right to rule is god-given, there will be war. I suspect that many of those who oppose two states in the region do so because they are OK with perpetual war in the region. Apparently, the Pope is not one of those people.