Israel going in?

[TedKennedy]

No disagreement here.

Im not tracking with you. could you explain this?

Well, if Jews were a race, wouldn't setting up a Jewish-only country at the expense of all others, be a tad racist?
Of course, the Jews there are comprised of many races, and many of the Jews that inhabit Israel profess no religion at all.
So that opens up another can of worms.

 

[uncle money bags]

Originally there was a Jewish population that lived side by side with Palistinians(arabs) and Christians. Is was supposed to just be the Nation of Israel, yet it morphed into the Jewish State of Israel. At one time Palistinians and Christians had a role in Govt, they actually got to participate and have representation. Today that isnt the case.

When a person can look past the propaganda and rhetoric we can better understand the plight of Israeli's.....not Jews or Palastinians.

I dont think the answer is a 2 state affair.....rather a return to the Nation of Isreal where the Govt represents all 3 religions and all citizens.

First, not everyone who holds my opinion is merely a victim of propaganda and rhetoric. I may very well be wrong, but I do attempt to not let my "wrongness" be attenuated by based on a preconceived notion or personal bias. I do want to understand the situation better, as convoluted as it is.
Do you have a reference that explains how the government is set up to deny the rights of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish? Just looking at the members of the Knesset and their affiliations seems to favor my argument that "other than Jew" have representation. Also, were not the Inhabitants of the disputed territories offered Israeli citizenship and by and large rejected it because they dont want to recognize Israel's claim to sovereignty. If you choose to not participate, then how to you represent, except by violence?

Well, if Jews were a race, wouldn't setting up a Jewish-only country at the expense of all others, be a tad racist?
Of course, the Jews there are comprised of many races, and many of the Jews that inhabit Israel profess no religion at all.
So that opens up another can of worms.

See, I dont get the whole Jewish race any more than I would a Christian or Muslim race. That is where I was confused. Religions arent races to me.
So, similarly, I am confused by a Jew who professes no religion.

 

[ignerntbend]

So, what your saying is that there was an Israeli state way back then. Interesting, not the sort of thing i expected from you.


.

They were riding high for years after the Canaanite Genocide.

 

[Billybob]

So, what your saying is that there was an Israeli state way back then. Interesting, not the sort of thing i expected from you.


I have. Considering your point about the distinction of an Israeli state and a Jewish state; it is my understanding that the state if Israel was always meant to be a Jewish state. There is no doubt that Bibi is more of a hardliner than some of his predecessors. The people of Israel put his government in place for that reason. They realize that capitulation in the face of Hamas/PA is not a viable solution for peace. It is interesting to me that people criticize Israel for occupying land they took in response to being attacked, like in the West bank. Yet nothing is said when they invade Gaza to defeat the military forces of Hamas et al, and then leave when the work is done.


What did Netenyahu say that was incorrect? It seems to me not enough people tell Obama where to shove his opionions.

Again Israel was not attacked, they lied. Then they claimed a pre-emptive strike was needed, in retrospect that claim is disputed even by some in the Israeli Gov. at the time.

Following that there are also issues in the Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories which will one day have to be addressed.

It's well known many want to claim religion/chosen people as a reason for supporting Israel, do genetics or actions support that? if so then it should be taken care divinely of without our financial support. Others claim a legal right of sorts, if so then let the courts work it out, where's the faith, where's the rule of law?
And if neither of those reasons can stand strict scrutiny then maybe there needs to be more discussion and some need to remember the lesson learned some years ago about Lebensraum, alleged superiority and social Darwinism.


Though Israel had struck first, Israel initially claimed that it was attacked first. Later it claimed that its attack was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion of Israel by the Arab countries.[6] ...

After the war, Israeli officials admitted that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt.[18][19] Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister who attended the June 4th Cabinet meeting, called into question the idea that there was a "danger of extermination" saying that it was "invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."[20][21] Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21] Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the war, later wrote in his autobiography that Nasser's assurances he wasn't planning to attack Israel were credible: "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war." [22] Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has written that while the exact origins of the war may never be known, Israel's forces were "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke one".[23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controv...Combat_support

 

[uncle money bags]

Again Israel was not attacked, they lied. Then they claimed a pre-emptive strike was needed, in retrospect that claim is disputed even by some in the Israeli Gov. at the time.

I was referring to 1948. Although they took more land in 67, which is the argument you have made, and will probably not be adequately explained to our satisfaction
Following that there are also issues in the Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories which will one day have to be addressed.
I agree. Which of the nations involved are signatories to the convention?

It's well known many want to claim religion/chosen people as a reason for supporting Israel, do genetics or actions support that? if so then it should be taken care divinely of without our financial support. Others claim a legal right of sorts, if so then let the courts work it out, where's the faith, where's the rule of law?
And if neither of those reasons can stand strict scrutiny then maybe there needs to be more discussion and some need to remember the lesson learned some years ago about Lebensraum, alleged superiority and social Darwinism.
Those are not arguments made by me. ever.

Though Israel had struck first, Israel initially claimed that it was attacked first. Later it claimed that its attack was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion of Israel by the Arab countries.[6] ...
the next few sentences...
Israel's position is that, facing economic strangulation and the imminence of war on three fronts, with hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and hundreds of tanks massed on its borders, and given that shipping had been blockaded in the Straits of Tiran(90% of Israeli oil passed through the Straits of Tiran.[7] ), a casus belli in itself, and especially in light of the social and economic impossibility of maintaining her civilian army call-up indefinitely, she felt she had little choice but to initiate preemptive action.

After the war, Israeli officials admitted that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt.[18][19] Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister who attended the June 4th Cabinet meeting, called into question the idea that there was a "danger of extermination" saying that it was "invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."[20][21] Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21] Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the war, later wrote in his autobiography that Nasser's assurances he wasn't planning to attack Israel were credible: "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war." [22] Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has written that while the exact origins of the war may never be known, Israel's forces were "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke one".[23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controv...Combat_support

We can speculate all we want, but it is just that. I wont base my opinion on merely that when we have the benefit of time to consider other possibilities.

My words are in blue.

 

[Billybob]

My words are in blue.

They took much more land after the 67 war and there is no question that Israel struck first and then lied to justify it. Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister and Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister said what they said, and they were there, as opposed to a military historian you quoted speaking in retrospect.

The U.S. said...
Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21]

So some would contend it's just who's adequate explanation one wants to accept.

Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

If not religious/heritage or legal then what claim do you support for Israel's right to take what they have or their right to exist outside the parameters of the Balfour Declaration? Just because they have and at this time can? If so then why wasn't Germany justified in taking what they wanted and were able to? Are factions involving the illegals on our Southern border who want part of America justified if they can pull it off?

The issue of the Straits of Tiran and legal rights to Eilat supporting it are questionable at best...

since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council.(another unlawful taking of land?) Other than that we're again confronted with the question of who has rights to what and why.

 

[Billybob]

First, not everyone who holds my opinion is merely a victim of propaganda and rhetoric. I may very well be wrong, but I do attempt to not let my "wrongness" be attenuated by based on a preconceived notion or personal bias. I do want to understand the situation better, as convoluted as it is.
Do you have a reference that explains how the government is set up to deny the rights of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish? Just looking at the members of the Knesset and their affiliations seems to favor my argument that "other than Jew" have representation. Also, were not the Inhabitants of the disputed territories offered Israeli citizenship and by and large rejected it because they dont want to recognize Israel's claim to sovereignty. If you choose to not participate, then how to you represent, except by violence?


See, I dont get the whole Jewish race any more than I would a Christian or Muslim race. That is where I was confused. Religions arent races to me.
So, similarly, I am confused by a Jew who professes no religion.

The Jews claim a bloodline from the Bible as a race, some opinions do vary(of course they're just considered haters). Other than that it's pretty clear that some at different times have claimed religion as a right or justification of things even when they didn't follow it's tenants.

 

[Billybob]

And you would be correct, except Obamais the president of the country financing Israel's invasion.
Kinda like I tell my boys how to live, as long as I'm paying the bills. You want to tell me to GTH, pay your own way.

It's long been said that "the hand that gives is above the hand that takes".

 

[uncle money bags]

They took much more land after the 67 war and there is no question that Israel struck first and then lied to justify it. Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister and Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister said what they said, and they were there, as opposed to a military historian you quoted speaking in retrospect.

The U.S. said...
Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.[21]

So some would contend it's just who's adequate explanation one wants to accept.

Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

If not religious/heritage or legal then what claim do you support for Israel's right to take what they have or their right to exist outside the parameters of the Balfour Declaration? Just because they have and at this time can? If so then why wasn't Germany justified in taking what they wanted and were able to? Are factions involving the illegals on our Southern border who want part of America justified if they can pull it off?

The issue of the Straits of Tiran and legal rights to Eilat supporting it are questionable at best...

since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council.(another unlawful taking of land?) Other than that we're again confronted with the question of who has rights to what and why.

Perhaps I am not understanding the question. What are the parameters of the Balfour Declaration relevant to borders of Israel? Also, how does that reconcile with the declaration being reneged upon by Britain in 1939?

The Jews claim a bloodline from the Bible as a race, some opinions do vary(of course they're just considered haters). Other than that it's pretty clear that some at different times have claimed religion as a right or justification of things even when they didn't follow it's tenants.

They can say it all they want. dont make it so.

 

[Billybob]

Perhaps I am not understanding the question. What are the parameters of the Balfour Declaration relevant to borders of Israel? Also, how does that reconcile with the declaration being reneged upon by Britain in 1939?


They can say it all they want. dont make it so.

As Lurker stated The Balfour Declaration was to set up the state of Israel, which Israel changed to a Jewish nation, the U.N. partition set borders later for Israeli and Pali states. Neither of them liked it and problems started at which time we took sides instead of letting things work themselves out.

It may not make it so, but whether anyone wants to admit it or not it's what's all of this has been justified with for some time now.