IF Holocaust happened in Germany, why palestinian pays for?

[OscarB63]

And I doubt the Palestinains are ready to accept anything that does not include the destruction of the Israeli state.

yeah, that has always been the biggest hurdle to compromise in the region. Hard to compromise with someone who's publically stated position is that you don't have the right to exist and should be wiped off the map

 

[spanky]

I think it might include the repatriation after the Babylonian captivity but is more encompassing. "He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth." and especially noteworthy: In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to bring back the remnant of his people.

Lost the argument? Who's arguing? Not me.

So Isiah was referring only to two of the twelve tribes of israel?

 

[Fallenangel]

Hey,
I read through these 20 pages...and i found the same things that always amaze me i.e;
A. Everybody knows the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - these people just forget to ask the Palestinians and the Israelis, what THEY think of that supposed solution.
B. As one of my favorite ME commentators Yevgeny Satanovsky says - "Palestinian rights supporters from around the world are prepared to fight for these rights literally until the last Palestinian."

Anyways, these are my 2 cents, now back to studying Schechter's function....
Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[Red_Dave]

Why can't Palestinians accept a two-state-solution and let the past be past? One state for the Israelis and one state for the Palestinians. Sounds like a reasonable solution, doesn't it?

Who says they don't? Fatah's only precondition has been an end to settlement expansion, this is hardly unreasonable, if the Israelis are to demonstrate good faith in a two state solution then they should stop expanding into the place where the second state is going to be. The stance of Hamas is less accommodating but one has to remember that they suffered a 100% rise in population as a result of the 1948 and 6 day war, and this will affect any future ability to sustain themselves as a province.

 

[Smeagol]

So Isiah was referring only to two of the twelve tribes of israel?

Not sure except that along with the dozens and dozens of other Biblical predictions on a future regathering o the Jewish people to their ancient homeland might offer some understanding to the question asked in the OP.

 

[spanky]

Not sure except that along with the dozens and dozens of other Biblical predictions on a future regathering o the Jewish people to their ancient homeland might offer some understanding to the question asked in the OP.

Well, Judah comprised only 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. Israel was overrun and decimated by the Assyrians (with collusion and approval of Judah) and it's inhabitants scattered to the winds.

So when Isiah talks about Judah, is he referring to the 2 and not the 12?

 

[clownboy]

Who says they don't? Fatah's only precondition has been an end to settlement expansion, this is hardly unreasonable, if the Israelis are to demonstrate good faith in a two state solution then they should stop expanding into the place where the second state is going to be. The stance of Hamas is less accommodating but one has to remember that they suffered a 100% rise in population as a result of the 1948 and 6 day war, and this will affect any future ability to sustain themselves as a province.

The longer the Palestinians dick around with preconditions and requiring shows of good faith the more impossible a recognised and viable country of Palestine becomes. Make the peace, set borders, get international recognition, then, any further development becomes invasion.

 

[Red_Dave]

The longer the Palestinians dick around with preconditions and requiring shows of good faith the more impossible a recognised and viable country of Palestine becomes. Make the peace, set borders, get international recognition, then, any further development becomes invasion.

Surely not expanding into the territory you ostensibly wish to cede to someone is a show of good faith also. A demilitarized state with settlements an IDF presence would simply be the current set up but with international recognition. Iraq had international recognition and that didn't mean that it was'nt the U.S that was running the country.

 

[Smeagol]

Well, Judah comprised only 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. Israel was overrun and decimated by the Assyrians (with collusion and approval of Judah) and it's inhabitants scattered to the winds.

So when Isiah talks about Judah, is he referring to the 2 and not the 12?

LOL. What "2" tribes are you referring to?

 

[ilia786]

Dude, that's not an "idea". This is what happened.
With that phrase, you are virtually saying that you don't care about reality.

so what is the point if British give those lands to a group i people? i give half of your country to a other group of people, could i? maybe if i had enough money and power to rule your country like British had. it's your point and to me it can be a real reason to established a country in Palestine. maybe it's work for you, i'm ok with that

 

[ilia786]

Yes, clearly irrational since that horse has long ago left the barn. It's over, there isn't going to be a return to some vague notion of what Palestine was. Israel exists and it's not going away no matter how many answers you disregard, no matter how much you wonder, or suppose, or fish for answers.

i''m not predicting future. we're talking about what is wrong or right.

the only people have right for those lands are the ones who lived there, not the ones who come there 50 years ago and throw old residents out with guns and money. how can it possibly be irrational?

 

[Hyena]

so what is the point if British give those lands to a group i people? i give half of your country to a other group of people, could i? maybe if i had enough money and power to rule your country like British had. it's your point and to me it can be a real reason to established a country in Palestine. maybe it's work for you, i'm ok with that

Again, the difference is that my country is an independent one, Palestine was/is not.
That's the point that you still don't want to understand.

 

[ilia786]

They were offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza in 2000. I assume if they were ready to finally stop attacking Israelis, they could have a similar deal anytime.

what is like that? half of their lands?
are you ready to give away half of your country because the one who occupied those lands have more money and power?

 

[ilia786]

Again, the difference is that my country is an independent one, Palestine was/is not.
That's the point that you still don't want to understand.

so you can go out and get people lands till they make a flag or something?

 

[Hyena]

so you can go out and get people lands till they make a flag or something?

How can you claim that it was "their" land if no independent palestinian state existed?
Just because they lived in? And what about Jews who always lived there? If both want to became independend why only the arabs are allowed to?

 

[spanky]

How can you claim that it was "their" land if no independent palestinian state existed?
Just because they lived in? And what about Jews who always lived there? If both want to became independend why only the arabs are allowed to?

How many Jews lived in Palestine in 1850?

 

[ilia786]

How can you claim that it was "their" land if no independent palestinian state existed?
Just because they lived in? And what about Jews who always lived there? If both want to became independend why only the arabs are allowed to?

a: do you have stronger source to give people the right of their lands?

b: why do you separate Arabs and Jews? there aren't any Arab jew?

c: why not, people of Palestine include Arab, Egyptian, Jews, Muslim, Christian any races who lived there, established a country and all of them contribute to it, Palestinian never claim to established an Arab country or Muslim country or anything like that.

 

[spanky]

LOL. What "2" tribes are you referring to?

Judah and Benjamin.

 

[StringBean]

How can you claim that it was "their" land if no independent palestinian state existed?
Just because they lived in? And what about Jews who always lived there? If both want to became independend why only the arabs are allowed to?

Are you morally agreeable to western Europeans invading North America and stealing the Native Americans' land outright?

They didn't have "flags" or "nations" so it's all gravy?

 

[Hyena]

How many Jews lived in Palestine in 1850?

Do you mean Ottoman Empire maybe?

a: do you have stronger source to give people the right of their lands?

Again, the Brits who were in rule there did it. Why it cannot get into your mind?
You speak only by slogans!!!

b: why do you separate Arabs and Jews?

Because they are 2 different peoples. They were living toghether in the same region but this doesn't make them the same.

there aren't any Arab jew?

Yeah, and they got kicked out from the countries where they were living from centuries without any reason. But it seems nobody give a damn about them.

c: why not, people of Palestine include Arab, Egyptian, Jews, Muslim, Christian any races who lived there, established a country and all of them contribute to it, Palestinian never claim to established an Arab country or Muslim country or anything like that.

Sure.. the arabs were so frindly that they made riots even when the Jewish immigration started to increase. They don't even wanted more Jews around.

Are you morally agreeable to western Europeans invading North America and stealing the Native Americans' land outright?

They didn't have "flags" or "nations" so it's all gravy?

So are you saying that USA have no right to exist?

 

[ilia786]

Do you mean Ottoman Empire maybe?


Again, the Brits who were in rule there did it. Why it cannot get into your mind?
You speak only by slogans!!!

OK, no problem, you think Brits had more rights than those people who lived there for years to those lands. why you become angry, it's your logic and people will judge, thanks for answering my questions. we're done

 

[clownboy]

i''m not predicting future. we're talking about what is wrong or right.

the only people have right for those lands are the ones who lived there, not the ones who come there 50 years ago and throw old residents out with guns and money. how can it possibly be irrational?

Yes, you are. YOU said, "knowing what we know now". That's called hindsight, look it up.

And your description of how the country was formed and populated is false, not to mention, longer than 50 years ago. But I'd venture to guess pretty much every modern country, with the possible exception of North Korea has large percentages of citizenry that didn't have ancestors present in their country 100 years ago.

But since those nomadic peoples didn't have a country after the fall of the Ottomon Empire, your complaint is moot.

 

[clownboy]

what is like that? half of their lands?
are you ready to give away half of your country because the one who occupied those lands have more money and power?

You'd have to have a country first for that complaint to be anywhere close to legitimate.

 

[Hyena]

OK, no problem, you think Brits had more rights than those people who lived there for years to those lands.

I'm not saying that anyone has more rights than others, I just said the Brits had the power do what they did. But you still refuse to accept what has happened.

why you become angry, it's your logic and people will judge, thanks for answering my questions.

I'm not angry, I simply cannot believe how you pretend to be right by totally ignoring history and also admitting you don't even care about that. (as you did in a previous post)

we're done

I agree.

 

[clownboy]

Are you morally agreeable to western Europeans invading North America and stealing the Native Americans' land outright?

They didn't have "flags" or "nations" so it's all gravy?

Since most of the tribes did not believe the land could be owned, difficult to "steal" what no one claims ownership over. Besides that, different time in the world, not yet fully divided up and the rule of the day was you get to keep what you can hold.