Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. Let’s track down until we find the direct descendants of the first humans to step foot in that land. That doesn’t make it right to conquer, but we aren’t talking about punishing conquerors and returning property to the people kicked out. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel.
If you are the child of a conquering invader who has appropriated someone’s land, do you in fact have a right to remain there? Yes, though if the rightful owner of a piece of land can be tracked down the land should be returned. No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
What gives you the right to live in a country if being born there doesn’t give you that right?I’ve never met a single person capable of answering these questions at all, probably because the whole concept of race is invented, but you’re welcome to try. No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory.
But even that is arbitrary. If you are the child of a conquering invader who has appropriated someone’s land, do you in fact have a right to remain there? Yes, though if the rightful owner of a piece of land can be tracked down the land should be returned. Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. Now after losing that land they want it back.
The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else’s property. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. But it is an uncomfortable fact. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i’d think not. That is where the problem lies. But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.
We are talking about the grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who migrated to Israel after a complicated political move. The implications of that argument are both racist and absurd. More than likely, the ‘original’ inhabitants were conquerors, too.
But it is an uncomfortable fact. Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i’d think not. People have homes and swaths of land they own with as much legitimacy as anywhere on the planet, because all ‘ethnicities’ have homelands they killed people to get. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i’d think not. Originally Posted by SowZ37 Originally Posted by exchemist Originally Posted by cosmictraveler One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else’s property. As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. But I still have the right to live in the country. That is where the problem lies.
Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone. More than likely, those people were not the first inhabitants of that land. If a given swath of land or artifact is old enough that the actual owners can’t be found, sure, giving it to whoever identifies with those people makes sense. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. It is evil and nonsensical to tell someone they no longer have a country just because their parents were conquerors. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be.
Now after losing that land they want it back. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else’s property. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. If you are the child of a conquering invader who has appropriated someone’s land, do you in fact have a right to remain there? You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be.
Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. Originally Posted by exchemist Originally Posted by SowZ37 Originally Posted by exchemist Originally Posted by cosmictraveler One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group. Originally Posted by SowZ37 Originally Posted by exchemist Originally Posted by SowZ37 Originally Posted by exchemist Originally Posted by cosmictraveler One of the unique features ofJudaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group. Now after losing that land they want it back. That’s highly debatable. As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. That is where the problem lies.
Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. So let’s kick them out. The entire premise that an ethnicity owns something doesn’t make sense.
Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone. Saying the children of Israelis who were born in Jerusalem don’t have a right to be there but people who’ve never stepped close to the city, but their grandparents have, doesn’t make any sense. I can imagine a good case made that both children have equal claim to the land. But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
Heritage/ethnicity is an arbitrary concept. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. That’s highly debatable. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else’s property.
Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. How many generation back, exactly, until the ownership of a land leaves one ethnicity and transfer to another?
I want an exact number. That is where the problem lies. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. Unless you are arguing heritage gives someone a right to live in a country, and someone’s skin color or ‘race’ owns something. But how could you justify kicking the former out and keeping the latter there without entirely racist reasons?Israel exists and that fact can’t be ignored. That’s highly debatable. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA.
But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve. But it is an uncomfortable fact. Then give me the reason why, after we’ve gone far back enough, those people have a legitimate claim over that land. Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis. But it is an uncomfortable fact.
No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion.