1 edit
@sonhouse saidLMFAO...what "president" does it set? washington? Jefferson?
Well, that reparation deal has president. There was recently a return of really valuable pieces of art Nazi's ripped out of Jewish homes in WW2 and after decades of law suits that Jewish family got their art work back.
Of course that was not land or houses but still, it sets president.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIgnore the message and hit on a misspell.
LMFAO...what "president" does it set? washington? Jefferson?
Really DEEP debate technique.
@no1marauder saidBen-Gurion and the Israeli founders were secularists, regardless of what baby-kissing lines they may have included in their documentation to woo the religious Jews from around the world to support their cause.
Yet Israel's Declaration of Independence talks about Jews creating the "Book of Books", the laws of the prophets and appeals to the Almighty.
This is from AI, but it's also true:
While David Ben-Gurion was a key figure in the secular Zionist movement and did not practice traditional religious rituals, he also didn't explicitly identify as a secularist. He often spoke of a personal belief in God, though his concept was more aligned with a philosophical, non-interventionist deity, similar to Spinoza's view. Ben-Gurion prioritized pragmatism and political expediency, particularly in the early years of the state of Israel, sometimes accommodating religious groups to ensure unity and stability.
Ben-Gurion would have been flabbergasted by the concept that God gave him the right or duty to do anything.
@spruce112358 saidmake us
Nope. Jews have been the aggressors since the beginning. Get off Arab land. 😆
@sh76 saidThe notion that Israel can control WB and Gaza but deny those people political representation is repugnant to God. 😆
Ben-Gurion and the Israeli founders were secularists, regardless of what baby-kissing lines they may have included in their documentation to woo the religious Jews from around the world to support their cause.
This is from AI, but it's also true:
While David Ben-Gurion was a key figure in the secular Zionist movement and did not practice traditional religious rituals, he a ...[text shortened]... ion would have been flabbergasted by the concept that God gave him the right or duty to do anything.
Stop it. Or God will smite thee. 😆
@AThousandYoung saidWhy? Genetic testing has now shown that the majority of Palestinians are descendants from ancient Israelites - ". On balance it is fair to state that Palestinians are in fact ethnically Israelite." https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dammi-israeli-the-genetic-origins-of-the-palestinians/
You traded that key for the keys to Judah. Notice I have always supported Israel's claim to the West Bank.
What gives the People of Israel, who are mostly descended for recent returnees to the area (last 100 or so years) a better claim to territory than those who have always lived there?
@no1marauder saidI didn’t say anyone should be expelled. Give those people Israeli citizenship or let them move to Ashdod.
Why? Genetic testing has now shown that the majority of Palestinians are descendants from ancient Israelites - ". On balance it is fair to state that Palestinians are in fact ethnically Israelite." https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dammi-israeli-the-genetic-origins-of-the-palestinians/
What gives the People of Israel, who are mostly descended for recent returnees to the area (last 100 or so years) a better claim to territory than those who have always lived there?
@AThousandYoung saidThat's non-responsive to my question.
I didn’t say anyone should be expelled. Give those people Israeli citizenship or let them move to Ashdod.
What gives recent returnees a better claim to the West Bank than those who have been there for thousands of years? Surely not because the former call themselves "Jews" and the latter do not?
@Sleepyguy saidYou mean because Iran was kicking Israel's ass.
Well, true of course, and Trump told you why he changed his mind. He realized regime change would lead to chaos, and I'm very glad he figured that out.
Maybe you might consider the possibility that he simply meant what he said?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidIt was not non responsive and again I did not suggest anyone have property taken away or have anyone removed.
That's non-responsive to my question.
What gives recent returnees a better claim to the West Bank than those who have been there for thousands of years? Surely not because the former call themselves "Jews" and the latter do not?
If the West Bank were recognized as part of Israel that alone would in no way give the land to Ashkenazim.
All I have suggested were land swaps just as the UN plan you seem in favor of recommends. Judah for Ashdod/Ashkelon and some additional area. Why this land swap?
Because it will remove the historic Biblical argument about which country administers what land and it will prevent the ridiculous split Palestine map that everybody knows is doomed to failure.
Why should the West Bank be independent of Israel? Because Jordan occupied it briefly?
@no1marauder said
Why? Genetic testing has now shown that the majority of Palestinians are descendants from ancient Israelites - ". On balance it is fair to state that Palestinians are in fact ethnically Israelite." https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dammi-israeli-the-genetic-origins-of-the-palestinians/
What gives the People of Israel, who are mostly descended for recent returnees to the area (last 100 or so years) a better claim to territory than those who have always lived there?
On balance it is fair to state that Palestinians are in fact ethnically Israelite."
Sounds like a good reason for them to be Israelis to me.
@no1marauder saidLet me get this clear - are you suggesting that self-determination should be based on how long a person's ancestors have lived in a place? As in people who have "only" occupied land for say 2 generations don't get self-determination?
That's non-responsive to my question.
What gives recent returnees a better claim to the West Bank than those who have been there for thousands of years? Surely not because the former call themselves "Jews" and the latter do not?
I would suggest analogous situations but you will evade those by declaring them "whataboutisms" so there's no point in trying that approach.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThousands of years? If you are going with time, then the Jews were there longer than the Arabs. If you want to go with legality, then the legality was established by the UN and the British between in 1918 and 1948, resulting in the Partition Plan. You rather Self-determination ? This concept which took shape in that same period and by a UN charter in 1945 it was ratified and the principle was incorporated into international law, but the full application was solidified in the 1960s particularly with the rights of colonial territories. Israel was already established as a nation and accepted by the international community, by this time.
That's non-responsive to my question.
What gives recent returnees a better claim to the West Bank than those who have been there for thousands of years? Surely not because the former call themselves "Jews" and the latter do not?
From Google :
The concept of self-determination, as a right of peoples to choose their own government, has roots in the American and French revolutions and the rise of nationalism.
President Woodrow Wilson championed self-determination as part of his Fourteen Points, advocating for the creation of independent states for various nationalities.
While not fully established in international law after WWI, it became a political principle guiding the post-war international order.
The UN Charter, ratified in 1945, incorporated the principle of self-determination into international law, though its full development as a legal right took place in the 1960s.
UN General Assembly resolutions, particularly Resolution 1514 (XV) on decolonization in 1960, solidified the right to self-determination, especially in the context of colonial territories.
1 edit
@AThousandYoung saidSelf- determination should be based on the wishes of the inhabitants assuming that the present population hasn't been determined by artificial border drawing to accommodate ethnic cleansing.
Let me get this clear - are you suggesting that self-determination should be based on how long a person's ancestors have lived in a place? As in people who have "only" occupied land for say 2 generations don't get self-determination?
I would suggest analogous situations but you will evade those by declaring them "whataboutisms" so there's no point in trying that approach.
Of course, remedies must take into account equitable principles.