Your answer is consistent with the idea that a Jewish state can't be a democratic state. Yes, Israel is a state that makes its own laws, and it can allow Jews to immigrate but not extend the same privilege to other groups...and that is not a democratic policy.
The right of return for those who left in 1948 is based on the principle and th…
Your answer is consistent with the idea that a Jewish state can't be a democratic state. Yes, Israel is a state that makes its own laws, and it can allow Jews to immigrate but not extend the same privilege to other groups...and that is not a democratic policy.
The right of return for those who left in 1948 is based on the principle and the international recognition of the right of those who leave their homes and their land to return to it. What if the US decided that anyone who leaves can't return and the government confiscated their property?!
What "mythical figures" does your uninformed brain believes rules Israel? Israeli leaders are elected by the people, the literal definition of democracy.
Israel's government does not make decisions based on the Torah. I think you're mixing it up with Palestine, which literally states in its Constitution that Islamic Shar'ia laws form the basis of the laws of the state of Palestine.
Of course, no one would ever claim that Palestine is ever even close to a democracy. Islamofascist apartheid theocracy is a much more accurate label.
The modern state of Israel was established in 1948, after the end of British rule in Palestine and the United Nations' decision to partition the land into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs.
Contrary to popular belief, the land on which Israel was founded was not stolen from the Palestinians. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I, when it was awarded to the British as a mandate by the League of Nations. Under British rule, Jewish immigration to the area increased significantly as Jews sought refuge from anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East.
The partition plan was a proposal presented to both Jews and Arabs for consideration. While the Jewish leadership accepted it, the Arab leadership rejected it. When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, neighboring Arab states launched a war against the newly established state of Israel, aiming to prevent its creation and to conquer its territory. The war resulted in Israel's victory and the displacement of many Palestinians who left hoping to return after an Arab victory.
However, those Palestinians and their descendants who remained within the borders of Israel became Israeli citizens. The displacement of Palestinians was not the result of a premeditated plan by Israel, but rather a consequence of the war that they initiated.
Jews have maintained a presence in the land for thousands of years, and the establishment of another Jewish state there has been a long-held aspiration. The establishment of Israel was a fulfillment of this aspiration. Therefore, the land was not stolen from the Palestinians, but rather was part of a larger historical and political process that ultimately led to the creation of the state of Israel.
On the other hand, the descendants of Palestinian refugees are not entitled to a “right of return.” This right only applies to refugees themselves, not to their descendants, according to international law. The right of return is a personal right that applies only to those who were displaced from their homes, and not to subsequent generations.
Moreover, the descendants of refugees have never been displaced themselves, and therefore have no legal or moral claim to the right of return. The right of return is not a matter of inherited rights, but rather a matter of personal rights that are tied to the specific experiences of the individual refugees themselves.
The demand for the right of return has been intentionally created as a non-starter issue, as a political tool by corrupt Palestinian politicians to prevent the implementation of a two-state solution. For decades, they have used this as a way to retain power and prevent their people from enjoying the benefits of statehood.
You have swallowed the new Zionist myths hook line and sinker.
"It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I"
But it was still Palestine, and Zionists from Europe decided it would be a good place to occupy, whether the indigenous population wanted them or not. Zionist literature repeatedly refers to 'Palestine' and the intention to rid it of Arabs using force if necessary, which still continues to this day!
At the time of Jesus, there weren't just Jews, but there were certainly no Arabs.
Jack, this may surprise you to learn, but the vast majority of Jews in Palestine in 1948 weren't Zionists who decided Palestine would be a good place to live, but penniless refugees fleeing the Holocaust who had nowhere else to go.
Winters, just remember what you said: "Jews are THE indigenous population" which is incorrect. In fact DNA evidence has proven conclusively that Palestinians are closer to the ancient Hebrews than are Ashkenazi Jews!
Winters, it may surprise YOU to know that Jews fleeing the Holocaust had plenty of places to go but Zionists insisted they go to Palestine. In fact Ben-Gurion (considered the "founding father" of Israel) said he would rather save just half of German Jewish children by sending them to British Mandate Palestine than all of them by sending them to the UK?
It's as a result of Zionist activities that many Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.
There are other indigenous populations besides the Jews, you're right, but Palestinian Arabs aren't one of them. And DNA evidence has nothing to do with indigenousness. Arabs invaded and colonized Palestine in the 7th century, they cannot ever be considered indigenous.
Does that mean you admit that a significant portion, if not the majority, of Jews from Europe in Palestine were fleeing the Holocaust and were not in fact Zionists intentionally looking to occupy it and force Arabs out?
I never mentioned Arabs, I said PALESTINIANS, and DNA evidence has shown that Palestinians are indigenous. Anyway, how far back does a population have to go before it has a right to its own land? Your arguments are built on straw.
As for where Jews who were fleeing persecution could go, I gave you an example. But Zionists did back in 1948, exactly what they are doing now, as a method of cementing and expanding their occupation, they 'encouraged' Jews from all corners of the world to settle in Palestine.
However, this discussion does not alter the fact that Israel is a racist, apartheid, non democratic State, built on terrorism, which it still inflicts on Palestinians.
Palestinians are Arabs. They freely say so in their state's constitution and declaration of independence. "Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation."
How far back does a population have to go before it has a right to its own land? That's a different question. I'm glad you seem to be admitting Arabs are not indigenous.
Yes, Zionists encouraged indigenous Jews to return to their homeland so they could live. Shame on them.
You continually adopt the Zionist tactic of attempting to deny the existence, and thereby the rights of Palestinians. Whether they are Arabs are not is entirely irrelevant, they are still Palestinians and Palestine, which the Zionists have occupied using murder and force, is still their homeland, just as it is for indigenous Jews from that area. In fact, you may be surprised to know, that indigenous Jews in Palestine objected to the incoming Zionists because they foresaw the havoc which their occupation would cause.
I don't know if you live in Israel but if you get a chance to take a tour with Zochrot the Jewish/Palestinian education organisation it may open your eyes.
Ha! I didn't know we had a comedian in the comments. If you've got nothing constructive to add, then go away. If you can specifically counter anything I've posted with facts, bring 'em on.
Your answer is consistent with the idea that a Jewish state can't be a democratic state. Yes, Israel is a state that makes its own laws, and it can allow Jews to immigrate but not extend the same privilege to other groups...and that is not a democratic policy.
The right of return for those who left in 1948 is based on the principle and the international recognition of the right of those who leave their homes and their land to return to it. What if the US decided that anyone who leaves can't return and the government confiscated their property?!
If it's not a democratic policy, why do numerous democracies have it as a policy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
Israel is not a democracy. Democracy is rule by the people, not by some mythical figures, Israel's a Jewish state, a theocracy.
What "mythical figures" does your uninformed brain believes rules Israel? Israeli leaders are elected by the people, the literal definition of democracy.
Guided by Torah. Rules of Yahweh.
Israel's government does not make decisions based on the Torah. I think you're mixing it up with Palestine, which literally states in its Constitution that Islamic Shar'ia laws form the basis of the laws of the state of Palestine.
Of course, no one would ever claim that Palestine is ever even close to a democracy. Islamofascist apartheid theocracy is a much more accurate label.
The modern state of Israel was established in 1948, after the end of British rule in Palestine and the United Nations' decision to partition the land into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs.
Contrary to popular belief, the land on which Israel was founded was not stolen from the Palestinians. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I, when it was awarded to the British as a mandate by the League of Nations. Under British rule, Jewish immigration to the area increased significantly as Jews sought refuge from anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East.
The partition plan was a proposal presented to both Jews and Arabs for consideration. While the Jewish leadership accepted it, the Arab leadership rejected it. When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, neighboring Arab states launched a war against the newly established state of Israel, aiming to prevent its creation and to conquer its territory. The war resulted in Israel's victory and the displacement of many Palestinians who left hoping to return after an Arab victory.
However, those Palestinians and their descendants who remained within the borders of Israel became Israeli citizens. The displacement of Palestinians was not the result of a premeditated plan by Israel, but rather a consequence of the war that they initiated.
Jews have maintained a presence in the land for thousands of years, and the establishment of another Jewish state there has been a long-held aspiration. The establishment of Israel was a fulfillment of this aspiration. Therefore, the land was not stolen from the Palestinians, but rather was part of a larger historical and political process that ultimately led to the creation of the state of Israel.
On the other hand, the descendants of Palestinian refugees are not entitled to a “right of return.” This right only applies to refugees themselves, not to their descendants, according to international law. The right of return is a personal right that applies only to those who were displaced from their homes, and not to subsequent generations.
Moreover, the descendants of refugees have never been displaced themselves, and therefore have no legal or moral claim to the right of return. The right of return is not a matter of inherited rights, but rather a matter of personal rights that are tied to the specific experiences of the individual refugees themselves.
The demand for the right of return has been intentionally created as a non-starter issue, as a political tool by corrupt Palestinian politicians to prevent the implementation of a two-state solution. For decades, they have used this as a way to retain power and prevent their people from enjoying the benefits of statehood.
You have swallowed the new Zionist myths hook line and sinker.
"It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I"
But it was still Palestine, and Zionists from Europe decided it would be a good place to occupy, whether the indigenous population wanted them or not. Zionist literature repeatedly refers to 'Palestine' and the intention to rid it of Arabs using force if necessary, which still continues to this day!
Jews are the indigenous population. Certainly not Arabs who colonized the region in the 7th century.
Jews before colonisation are AN indigenous population but European Zionists are NOT!
At the time of Jesus, are you trying to say that it was ONLY Jews who lived there?
Are you saying European Zionists aren't Jews?
At the time of Jesus, there weren't just Jews, but there were certainly no Arabs.
Jack, this may surprise you to learn, but the vast majority of Jews in Palestine in 1948 weren't Zionists who decided Palestine would be a good place to live, but penniless refugees fleeing the Holocaust who had nowhere else to go.
Winters, just remember what you said: "Jews are THE indigenous population" which is incorrect. In fact DNA evidence has proven conclusively that Palestinians are closer to the ancient Hebrews than are Ashkenazi Jews!
Winters, it may surprise YOU to know that Jews fleeing the Holocaust had plenty of places to go but Zionists insisted they go to Palestine. In fact Ben-Gurion (considered the "founding father" of Israel) said he would rather save just half of German Jewish children by sending them to British Mandate Palestine than all of them by sending them to the UK?
It's as a result of Zionist activities that many Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.
There are other indigenous populations besides the Jews, you're right, but Palestinian Arabs aren't one of them. And DNA evidence has nothing to do with indigenousness. Arabs invaded and colonized Palestine in the 7th century, they cannot ever be considered indigenous.
Had plenty of places to go? Such as where? Ever heard of the Voyage of the Damned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
Does that mean you admit that a significant portion, if not the majority, of Jews from Europe in Palestine were fleeing the Holocaust and were not in fact Zionists intentionally looking to occupy it and force Arabs out?
I never mentioned Arabs, I said PALESTINIANS, and DNA evidence has shown that Palestinians are indigenous. Anyway, how far back does a population have to go before it has a right to its own land? Your arguments are built on straw.
As for where Jews who were fleeing persecution could go, I gave you an example. But Zionists did back in 1948, exactly what they are doing now, as a method of cementing and expanding their occupation, they 'encouraged' Jews from all corners of the world to settle in Palestine.
However, this discussion does not alter the fact that Israel is a racist, apartheid, non democratic State, built on terrorism, which it still inflicts on Palestinians.
Palestinians are Arabs. They freely say so in their state's constitution and declaration of independence. "Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation."
How far back does a population have to go before it has a right to its own land? That's a different question. I'm glad you seem to be admitting Arabs are not indigenous.
Yes, Zionists encouraged indigenous Jews to return to their homeland so they could live. Shame on them.
You continually adopt the Zionist tactic of attempting to deny the existence, and thereby the rights of Palestinians. Whether they are Arabs are not is entirely irrelevant, they are still Palestinians and Palestine, which the Zionists have occupied using murder and force, is still their homeland, just as it is for indigenous Jews from that area. In fact, you may be surprised to know, that indigenous Jews in Palestine objected to the incoming Zionists because they foresaw the havoc which their occupation would cause.
I don't know if you live in Israel but if you get a chance to take a tour with Zochrot the Jewish/Palestinian education organisation it may open your eyes.
Nonsense
Richard, looking through these posts I can see that your arguments have easily been defeated, therefore if I were you, I'd keep my head down.
Ha! I didn't know we had a comedian in the comments. If you've got nothing constructive to add, then go away. If you can specifically counter anything I've posted with facts, bring 'em on.
As I said, keep your head down, the facts have aready been spelled out to you.
Right, you’ve got nothing. Thought so.
Correct, nothing which could open your Zionist mind.
Truth and facts hurt, don’t they. Tough to rely on antisemitic bullshit.
Easy to tell when Zionists are stumped, they resort to the now meaningless accusations of antiSemitism 🙂