Is there a way to avoid both Christian supersessionism and Christian Zionism?
I was struck by a church that in its order of service stated:
"In Christian liturgy, the term "Israel" does not refer to the modern state of Israel."
Okay, that is fine but then it says
"Israel refers either to the ancient Hebrews or to all people who place their faith in Jesus Christ."
Uh...the latter half of the second is Christian supersessionism.
How about "We affirm God's continual covenant with the Jewish people, but we do not equate the Jewish people with the modern State of Israel."
I don't think there is any way around the fact that "Israel" is sometimes used in Christian liturgy and Christian scriptures to refer to those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. Whether one agrees with this usage or not, this usage is certainly present.
In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group? If yes, where? If no, what then?
One of the problems with the IHRA Definition is that disagreeing with NOprophet's point of view is defined as antisemitic. As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
Adherents of the Muslim faith have a number of countries in various parts of the world which they control as a majority group, or so it seems to me?
In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group? If yes, where? If no, what then?
One of the problems with the IHRA Definition is that disagreeing with NOprophet's point of view is defined as antisemitic. As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
IS were not accepted mainly due to the barbaric way they behaved.
In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group? If yes, where? If no, what then?
One of the problems with the IHRA Definition is that disagreeing with NOprophet's point of view is defined as antisemitic. As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
IS were not accepted mainly due to the barbaric way they behaved.
IS were created by the absurd US invasion of Iraq.
Sorry, but Israel's existence is an act of aggression.
Oh dear!
Will we have to leave home?
The way it was created Galilit. By the UN regardless of the land being far from empty. By America and Russia. For their own imperial reasons. And no, you should not leave home, but you, in your innocence, are a victim of history. The UN did violence to the Palestinian people, did they not? And did the Jewish people, who had just suffered one of ghastliest violences of history, no favours. There need to be two Mandelas.
No idea what you're on about. But you sound very muddled, and as is common, decide the rules about nation formation apply differentially to Israel than, say, Canada, USA, Australia.
I haven't read this thread sine 20 May, so I'm two pages behind. I'm posting this from the Christian Science Monitor, The Respect Project. It is in response to my personal take on the thread title, which is to read it as both a cry of anguish and a plea for hope.
The video is an hour long, and just the audio is relevant. Talking heads stuff. At about the 8 minute mark or so (I have paused at the 11:26 mark to post, they begin talking about Palestine, fanning the embers of hope and locating it in the personal. It was made before the recent ceasefire.
As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
Adherents of the Muslim faith have a number of countries in various parts of the world which they control as a majority group, or so it seems to me?
But according to those attempting to establish the Caliphate, not true Muslims.
Rather as the Chief Rabbinate gets to define who are Jews (see the most recent Leon Rosselson blog linked above.) Which also describes a recent clearance of a village in the Jordanian valley.
Sorry, but Israel's existence is an act of aggression.
Oh dear!
Will we have to leave home?
The way it was created Galilit. By the UN regardless of the land being far from empty. By America and Russia. For their own imperial reasons. And no, you should not leave home, but you, in your innocence, are a victim of history. The UN did violence to the Palestinian people, did they not? And did the Jewish people, who had just suffered one of ghastliest violences of history, no favours. There need to be two Mandelas.
No idea what you're on about. But you sound very muddled, and as is common, decide the rules about nation formation apply differentially to Israel than, say, Canada, USA, Australia.
Muddled in what way? About what? And the colonial imperialism that created those nations over a century and a half before Israel was created as a cold war proxy by both sides justifies the latter how?
Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?
Because the situation is too fucked for any of us to have a clue, frankly. The main struggle is to get some people to realise that the Palestinians have an actual valid ongoing grievance.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?
Maintain the status quo. Nothing else can or will be done. Economic sanctions against Israel for West Bank settlement? With full economic support for an Arab general strike? A la South Africa? America will never do that. The civilized world could nonetheless. But it won't.
Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?
Pray for everyone concerned. Press for the removal of the walls, to allow for freedom of movement and democracy so that everyone is represented in the one country. Compensate those whose grandparents were driven out of their homes.
In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group? If yes, where? If no, what then?
One of the problems with the IHRA Definition is that disagreeing with NOprophet's point of view is defined as antisemitic. As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
IS were not accepted mainly due to the barbaric way they behaved.
IS were created by the absurd US invasion of Iraq.
I disagree. The invasion was done well. The occupation afterwards was badly planed and badly carried out.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Why does it beg the question? Kwesi was asking what should be done now. I was suggesting that the Palestinians should be given some human rights, as per the UN Resolutions.
The UN agreed in 1947 to accept the Palestinian Partition Plan, as I said back here on page 2 (link), so the settlement of Jews was a done deal by then. But the current lands as seized by Israel, the exile of 80% of the Palestinian people who were originally on the land and the theft of land and goods from the Palestinians who lived in the area without recompense have never been agreed by the UN. To list a few of the things listed in the UN resolutions.
Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?
Maintain the status quo. Nothing else can or will be done. Economic sanctions against Israel for West Bank settlement? With full economic support for an Arab general strike? A la South Africa? America will never do that. The civilized world could nonetheless. But it won't.
I wouldn't predict what the United States will do--I assume you are referring to the USA. We had long supported the white regime of South Africa until we didn't. Likewise, we have a growing Muslim population with some now becoming key members of Congress. Besides, the general polls indicate we are moving away from full support of Israel. We had some very large protests across the United States that were pro-Palestine.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?
Maintain the status quo. Nothing else can or will be done. Economic sanctions against Israel for West Bank settlement? With full economic support for an Arab general strike? A la South Africa? America will never do that. The civilized world could nonetheless. But it won't.
I wouldn't predict what the United States will do--I assume you are referring to the USA. We had long supported the white regime of South Africa until we didn't. Likewise, we have a growing Muslim population with some now becoming key members of Congress. Besides, the general polls indicate we are moving away from full support of Israel. We had some very large protests across the United States that were pro-Palestine.
South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?
Well, today the United States Secretary of State meant with the chair of the PLO, Mahmud Abbas. We also are reopening the consulate general in Jerusalem which has been our de facto embassy to the Palestinians. And we have pledged an additional $40 mil to the Palestinians with $5.5 mil going to the people of Gaza, but nothing to Hamas. This brings a total of $360 mil to the Palestinian people since the Biden Administration took over.
I for one would want to cut military aid to Israel which can be used against Palestinian civilians. For instance, Israel was using guided missiles launched from American-built aircraft against the people in Gaza. They claim their targets were Hamas military targets, but it sure seemed most of the strikes impacted more civilians than Hamas.
We stopped funding the Saudi Arabian attacks on the Yemeni people. We should stop Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people.
Gaza is devastated for the fourth time in 13 years and gets 5% of what it needs and that 5% doesn't build more 99% ineffective rockets to throw in four years how?
US $4 bn a year military aid supports America's greatest middle class welfare program, collateral damage (dead brown women and children) is nowhere near high enough to get to CBS Vietnam coverage levels.
America didn't fund Saudi attacks on the Houthi. She, as always, made profit.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
Surely proposing nothing is precisely failing to take responsibility!
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
Surely proposing nothing is precisely failing to take responsibility!
OK, so propose something that doesn't take 125 years of superpower responsibility.
How about imposing a UN protectorate over the region, similar to the Mandate that prevailed before 1947. With a High Commissioner rather like Bosnia.
I couldn't agree more. But the UN would have to have real, permanent teeth. Srebrenica happened under the toothless UN. And it would only be of any use if Israel went back to its '67 borders, and if all Palestinian property dispossessed since '48 were returned within those borders. The Jews would be a minority in the new mandate and would have to have utterly assured protection. Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem would have to have W. European democratic, pluralistic standards at least as good as Albania. Well all right, Bosnia. At least they don't fire missiles at the Serbs. The thing is Israel would still be fractal with a large Arab Muslim minority and Palestinians would still resent Jewish standards of living. The UN and the Jews would have to obtain full social justice, full equality of outcome for all in the region. That is the only basis for peace.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
It is the same with Canada. I live on territory taken via deceptive treaties from indigenous peoples, and in some places without treaties. I'm descended from an immigrant, who fled his country, and where his home was, is controlled by another country which speaks a different language and has no interest to accept me back to live in the family home. So part of my response, is that the "right of return" is not a sensible concept. It is about rights, but is can't happen. Advocating it means advocating violence. There's no end to it. Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Back to my Canadian parallel. The immigrants own houses, have families and live here. We can't go anywhere, there's no-one who wants us, and we're not going to turn the country back into what it was before European settlement. We are trying to reconcile the injustice of this, with money, with supports, but there's no going back to change things, to a time before my progenitors showed up in duress.
We have had a few armed conflicts, and the indigenous people always lose. However, we have seen via Truth and Reconciliation, which is real work, and via some other formal processes such as MMIWI (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry) of the actual genocide and cultural genocide that Europeans brought to Canada. We're trying to muddle through to something better than stealing from one another and being racist and a--holes.
Canada had a pass system until the 1950s sometime, where indigenous people could not leave Reserves without approval. Schools where children were stolen from their parents to extinguish their culture operated until the 1970s and early 1980s. It has taken another 60 years since the pass laws to get to the point that we actually talking about the injustice of it all. The last armed conflict here was 1885. So by that calculation, about 60 years from now, if they don't all start bombing and rocketing again, they may be able to actually talk to each other sensibly. But they'll write their own history.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
If there is no right to dispossess people then presumably any solution that you propose will be careful to ensure that nobody is dispossessed from the land they now occupy ?
Comments
He was definitely his grandson.
Got it in two. Yeah, in the foundation myth, arrogated by Christians.
I don't think there is any way around the fact that "Israel" is sometimes used in Christian liturgy and Christian scriptures to refer to those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. Whether one agrees with this usage or not, this usage is certainly present.
One of the problems with the IHRA Definition is that disagreeing with NOprophet's point of view is defined as antisemitic. As a recent comparison, the world didn't take kindly to Daesh trying to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Syria. If the adherents of the Muslim faith cannot have their own country which they control as a majority group, why is it different for the Jews?
I see no reason not to accept this section of Genesis.
Adherents of the Muslim faith have a number of countries in various parts of the world which they control as a majority group, or so it seems to me?
IS were not accepted mainly due to the barbaric way they behaved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
Me neither. In what regard?
IS were created by the absurd US invasion of Iraq.
No idea what you're on about. But you sound very muddled, and as is common, decide the rules about nation formation apply differentially to Israel than, say, Canada, USA, Australia.
The video is an hour long, and just the audio is relevant. Talking heads stuff. At about the 8 minute mark or so (I have paused at the 11:26 mark to post, they begin talking about Palestine, fanning the embers of hope and locating it in the personal. It was made before the recent ceasefire.
Try Isaac.
But according to those attempting to establish the Caliphate, not true Muslims.
Rather as the Chief Rabbinate gets to define who are Jews (see the most recent Leon Rosselson blog linked above.) Which also describes a recent clearance of a village in the Jordanian valley.
Muddled in what way? About what? And the colonial imperialism that created those nations over a century and a half before Israel was created as a cold war proxy by both sides justifies the latter how?
Because the situation is too fucked for any of us to have a clue, frankly. The main struggle is to get some people to realise that the Palestinians have an actual valid ongoing grievance.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
Maintain the status quo. Nothing else can or will be done. Economic sanctions against Israel for West Bank settlement? With full economic support for an Arab general strike? A la South Africa? America will never do that. The civilized world could nonetheless. But it won't.
Pray for everyone concerned. Press for the removal of the walls, to allow for freedom of movement and democracy so that everyone is represented in the one country. Compensate those whose grandparents were driven out of their homes.
I disagree. The invasion was done well. The occupation afterwards was badly planed and badly carried out.
I have already corrected this silly error
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
The UN agreed in 1947 to accept the Palestinian Partition Plan, as I said back here on page 2 (link), so the settlement of Jews was a done deal by then. But the current lands as seized by Israel, the exile of 80% of the Palestinian people who were originally on the land and the theft of land and goods from the Palestinians who lived in the area without recompense have never been agreed by the UN. To list a few of the things listed in the UN resolutions.
I wouldn't predict what the United States will do--I assume you are referring to the USA. We had long supported the white regime of South Africa until we didn't. Likewise, we have a growing Muslim population with some now becoming key members of Congress. Besides, the general polls indicate we are moving away from full support of Israel. We had some very large protests across the United States that were pro-Palestine.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?
I for one would want to cut military aid to Israel which can be used against Palestinian civilians. For instance, Israel was using guided missiles launched from American-built aircraft against the people in Gaza. They claim their targets were Hamas military targets, but it sure seemed most of the strikes impacted more civilians than Hamas.
We stopped funding the Saudi Arabian attacks on the Yemeni people. We should stop Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people.
US $4 bn a year military aid supports America's greatest middle class welfare program, collateral damage (dead brown women and children) is nowhere near high enough to get to CBS Vietnam coverage levels.
America didn't fund Saudi attacks on the Houthi. She, as always, made profit.
Surely proposing nothing is precisely failing to take responsibility!
OK, so propose something that doesn't take 125 years of superpower responsibility.
I beg your pardon. What might that be?
I couldn't agree more. But the UN would have to have real, permanent teeth. Srebrenica happened under the toothless UN. And it would only be of any use if Israel went back to its '67 borders, and if all Palestinian property dispossessed since '48 were returned within those borders. The Jews would be a minority in the new mandate and would have to have utterly assured protection. Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem would have to have W. European democratic, pluralistic standards at least as good as Albania. Well all right, Bosnia. At least they don't fire missiles at the Serbs. The thing is Israel would still be fractal with a large Arab Muslim minority and Palestinians would still resent Jewish standards of living. The UN and the Jews would have to obtain full social justice, full equality of outcome for all in the region. That is the only basis for peace.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
It is the same with Canada. I live on territory taken via deceptive treaties from indigenous peoples, and in some places without treaties. I'm descended from an immigrant, who fled his country, and where his home was, is controlled by another country which speaks a different language and has no interest to accept me back to live in the family home. So part of my response, is that the "right of return" is not a sensible concept. It is about rights, but is can't happen. Advocating it means advocating violence. There's no end to it. Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Back to my Canadian parallel. The immigrants own houses, have families and live here. We can't go anywhere, there's no-one who wants us, and we're not going to turn the country back into what it was before European settlement. We are trying to reconcile the injustice of this, with money, with supports, but there's no going back to change things, to a time before my progenitors showed up in duress.
We have had a few armed conflicts, and the indigenous people always lose. However, we have seen via Truth and Reconciliation, which is real work, and via some other formal processes such as MMIWI (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry) of the actual genocide and cultural genocide that Europeans brought to Canada. We're trying to muddle through to something better than stealing from one another and being racist and a--holes.
Canada had a pass system until the 1950s sometime, where indigenous people could not leave Reserves without approval. Schools where children were stolen from their parents to extinguish their culture operated until the 1970s and early 1980s. It has taken another 60 years since the pass laws to get to the point that we actually talking about the injustice of it all. The last armed conflict here was 1885. So by that calculation, about 60 years from now, if they don't all start bombing and rocketing again, they may be able to actually talk to each other sensibly. But they'll write their own history.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do. Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:
" 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "
The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the options seem to be either a 1-state solution or a 2-state solution.
If there is no right to dispossess people then presumably any solution that you propose will be careful to ensure that nobody is dispossessed from the land they now occupy ?
No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.