• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Israel Destroying Itself With Its Settlement Policy

bomberfox said:
All except the people who were there. Im sure you would be pissed if nobody consulted your country.
Click to expand...
Which country exactly?
The Jews also been there for thousands of years...
I guess it didn't bother you when the British cut almost 80% of the area of the Mandate and created arab country- Transjordan... The concept of Jews living in Israel as they did for thousands of years, way before the arabs of palestine started to call themselvs palestinians,is bother you. And a quick reminder - the arabs of palestine could have a country in 1948 but they chose war instead, not a smart move.

In addition, at that time the Arabs of Palestine saw themselvs as part of big Syria:
- Abd al-Hadi, member of the Palestinian Arab delegation to UK, said - "There is no such country [as Palestine].... Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.... Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
- one of the resolutions of the first Palestine Arab Congress in 1919 was -"We consider Palestine nothing but part of Arab Syria and it has never been separated from it at any stage. We are tied to it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographic bounds."
 
When the Jews returned to their homeland they did not steal land from anyone. They bought land owned by Ottoman landlords, evicted the Palestinians, and created kibbutzim that were more productive than they had been under Muslim ownership and farming.

The Jews did not initiate the use of violence. When they were attacked they fought back and won. The Jews never had any need to initiate the use of violence against Arabs because they could perform better academically and economically.
 
“Is Israel Destroying Itself With Its Settlement Policy?”

Yes, they are. Next question?
 
Unfortunately, this topic got derailed almost immediately by those who wanted to justify the occupation of Palestine rather than answer the question as to whether the occupation is destroying Israel. Perhaps if another thread could be started I might be able to join the debate.
 
Jean-s said:
Unfortunately, this topic got derailed almost immediately by those who wanted to justify the occupation of Palestine rather than answer the question as to whether the occupation is destroying Israel. Perhaps if another thread could be started I might be able to join the debate.
Click to expand...

Yes... It is a pity people responded with more than a YES or a NO.

Try making a poll next time.
 
SmartCat said:
There must be a Jewish land for a Jewish people.

It sounds better in German:

"Es muss ein jüdisches land für ein jüdisches Volk geben."

In Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter XI, "Nation and Race," Adolf Hitler wrote:

"No matter how much the soil, for instance, is able to influence the people, the result will always be always be a different one, according to the races under consideration. The scanty fertility of the living space may instigate one race towards the highest achievement, while with another race this may only become the cause for the most dire poverty and ultimate malnutrition with all its consequences. The inner disposition of the people is always decisive for the way in which outward influences work themselves out. What leads one people to starvation, trains another for hard work."

The truth of Hitler's insight can be seen when we compare what Israel is with what Palestine was before the Jews returned to their patrimony. The Jews occupied a backward, impoverished land and made the desert bloom.
Click to expand...


I tend not to get my moral insights from the likes of Hitler
NO1 said:
Which country exactly?
The Jews also been there for thousands of years...
I guess it didn't bother you when the British cut almost 80% of the area of the Mandate and created arab country- Transjordan... The concept of Jews living in Israel as they did for thousands of years, way before the arabs of palestine started to call themselvs palestinians,is bother you. And a quick reminder - the arabs of palestine could have a country in 1948 but they chose war instead, not a smart move.

In addition, at that time the Arabs of Palestine saw themselvs as part of big Syria:
- Abd al-Hadi, member of the Palestinian Arab delegation to UK, said - "There is no such country [as Palestine].... Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.... Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
- one of the resolutions of the first Palestine Arab Congress in 1919 was -"We consider Palestine nothing but part of Arab Syria and it has never been separated from it at any stage. We are tied to it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographic bounds."
Click to expand...


The Mandate was ended long before the advent of the illegal Israeli settlements and thus has no relevance to them or any discussions such as this one.
 
Evidently no.
 
Apocalypse said:

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Sometimes things are just popular because people have a reasonable enough grasp of what is right and what is wrong. Even international law, forged by many astute minds, holds that the settlement of an occupied territory by citizens of the occupying power is illegal. Anywhere else the support for this would be overwhelmingly obvious but the state of Israel has such a good PR system going and so many people willing to support its actions, regardless of the legality and despite the sometimes nefarious reasoning behind it, wrong is somehow morphed into right
 
Even some Israeli scholars say that Israel made a BIG mistake in annexing the West Bank. It should have returned it to Jordan.
 
TheParser said:
Even some Israeli scholars say that Israel made a BIG mistake in annexing the West Bank. It should have returned it to Jordan.
Click to expand...

I think the West Bank should have been annexed immediately after Israel's victory in the Six Day War of 1967, and ethnically cleaned.
 
TheParser said:
Even some Israeli scholars say that Israel made a BIG mistake in annexing the West Bank. It should have returned it to Jordan.
Click to expand...


That's true and is also no a surprise. Many Israeli legal/history scholars/commentators have voiced their opinions stating that the Greater Israel project has serious ramifications that impact negatively on Israel and its people. In fact I would say there is a more honest debate within Israeli circles about such things than there is in the US and for obvious reasons.
 
oneworld2 said:
Sometimes things are just popular because people have a reasonable enough grasp of what is right and what is wrong. Even international law, forged by many astute minds, holds that the settlement of an occupied territory by citizens of the occupying power is illegal. Anywhere else the support for this would be overwhelmingly obvious but the state of Israel has such a good PR system going and so many people willing to support its actions, regardless of the legality and despite the sometimes nefarious reasoning behind it, wrong is somehow morphed into right
Click to expand...

Feel free to argue with the definition of a logical fallacy.
 
SmartCat said:
I think the West Bank should have been annexed immediately after Israel's victory in the Six Day War of 1967, and ethnically cleaned.
Click to expand...


Both suggestions are illegal which makes your post just another example of the well documented cherry picking of and contempt for international laws and conventions so often displayed on these boards.
 
Apocalypse said:
Feel free to argue with the definition of a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


So of course all the majority of legal scholars are wrong. All the HR's groups that have collected and presented the evidence surrounding planning permission bias are wrong. The argument is well supported because of these facts and that is the foundation of a logical approach, the fact that it's built on solid evidence. Hence my comments are reasonable and it is your own words, evidence free as they have been, that remain on the rocky foundation.
 
TheParser said:
Oh my!
Click to expand...

Indeed!!

The sentiments expressed in that post are a pretty clear example of the moral decline such illegal and obviously unjust adventures as illegal settlement building propagate imo
 
oneworld2 said:
So of course all the majority of legal scholars are wrong. All the HR's groups that have collected and presented the evidence surrounding planning permission bias are wrong. The argument is well supported because of these facts and that is the foundation of a logical approach, the fact that it's built on solid evidence. Hence my comments are reasonable and it is your own words, evidence free as they have been, that remain on the rocky foundation.
Click to expand...

Feel free to continue to argue with the definition of a logical fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NO1
Apocalypse said:
Feel free to continue to argue with the definition of a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Your posts here obviously have no intention of backing the opinions expressed with anything like supporting evidence , so the opinions themselves hold less water than those you object to
 
oneworld2 said:
The Mandate was ended long before the advent of the illegal Israeli settlements and thus has no relevance to them or any discussions such as this one.
Click to expand...
UN preserved all the rights that have been granted to the Jews under the Mandate.
 
oneworld2 said:
Your posts here obviously have no intention of backing the opinions expressed with anything like supporting evidence , so the opinions themselves hold less water than those you object to
Click to expand...
Given the logical fallacies of yours through out this discussion it pretty obvious who's opinion don't hold water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom