So why do people hate Israel? - Page 32




 
--
 
January 17th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider
Correct,
No, it's not correct, as the vast majority of European Jews arriving in Palestine were not covered by the UN acts pertaining to "refugees" as virtually all of them had bypassed or left their first country of safe refuge. They were in fact Displaced Persons, not Refugees.

“Everyone may have the right to seek and to enjoy etc,..." There is no guarantee that they will be given it, and nowhere does it say they have the Right to Enter illegally enter against the wishes of the owners or administrators of that country merely to fulfill a perceived religious obligation. The Germans had been defeated and there was absolutely nothing to prevent them from returning to their previous places of residence. If they felt that they had some right to a homeland (which they did not) it should have been within Germany as they were the instigators of the holocaust, not the Palestinians.

But they were not occupiers, when they originated from several European countries. The British can be viewed as an occupying force.[/quote]They were not the occupiers when they left Europe, but they certainly were when they drove the legitimate owners off the lands that they had farmed for centuries, and they still are when they forcibly occupy and evict people from their homes today, over 60 years later.
The Palestinian mandate was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. They were there only to fill the power and administrative vacuum after the removal of the Turks. At no time did they ever claim to annex Palestine.

There is absolutely no comparison between the British Mandated Administration of Palestine and Israel's 60 year record of disenfranchisement murder and continued theft of land.
January 18th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
No, it's not correct, as the vast majority of European Jews arriving in Palestine were not covered by the UN acts pertaining to "refugees" as virtually all of them had bypassed or left their first country of safe refuge. They were in fact Displaced Persons, not Refugees.

“Everyone may have the right to seek and to enjoy etc,..." There is no guarantee that they will be given it, and nowhere does it say they have the Right to Enter illegally enter against the wishes of the owners or administrators of that country merely to fulfill a perceived religious obligation. The Germans had been defeated and there was absolutely nothing to prevent them from returning to their previous places of residence. If they felt that they had some right to a homeland (which they did not) it should have been within Germany as they were the instigators of the holocaust, not the Palestinians.

But they were not occupiers, when they originated from several European countries. The British can be viewed as an occupying force.
They were not the occupiers when they left Europe, but they certainly were when they drove the legitimate owners off the lands that they had farmed for centuries, and they still are when they forcibly occupy and evict people from their homes today, over 60 years later.
The Palestinian mandate was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. They were there only to fill the power and administrative vacuum after the removal of the Turks. At no time did they ever claim to annex Palestine.

There is absolutely no comparison between the British Mandated Administration of Palestine and Israel's 60 year record of disenfranchisement murder and continued theft of land.[/QUOTE]

So now they were not occupiers, but in an earlier post they were? Yes, prior the existence of the UN they could not be viewed as refugees. This thread is a bit strange, when it change between today and the time period prior WWII
January 18th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider
They were not the occupiers when they left Europe, but they certainly were when they drove the legitimate owners off the lands that they had farmed for centuries, and they still are when they forcibly occupy and evict people from their homes today, over 60 years later.
The Palestinian mandate was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. They were there only to fill the power and administrative vacuum after the removal of the Turks. At no time did they ever claim to annex Palestine.

There is absolutely no comparison between the British Mandated Administration of Palestine and Israel's 60 year record of disenfranchisement murder and continued theft of land.

So now they were not occupiers, but in an earlier post they were? Yes, prior the existence of the UN they could not be viewed as refugees. This thread is a bit strange, when it change between today and the time period prior WWII
I think that perhaps you should read my posts more carefully and be prepared to do some reasoning for yourself taking into account all that has been said on the subject.

Those European Jews who flooded into Israel under the auspices of the Stern gang were certainly occupiers when they reached Israel which is what my post was about. My post is shown below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
The only way you will get peace is to have the European occupiers go back home, where they belong.
This clearly implies that they go home from Israel and they were still Europeans as there was no state of Israel at this time.

Please don't try misquoting or telling me what I have said, I've been playing this game far too long.
--
January 18th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I think that perhaps you should read my posts more carefully and be prepared to do some reasoning for yourself taking into account all that has been said on the subject.

Those European Jews who flooded into Israel under the auspices of the Stern gang were certainly occupiers when they reached Israel which is what my post was about. My post is shown below.
This clearly implies that they go home from Israel and they were still Europeans as there was no state of Israel at this time.

Please don't try misquoting or telling me what I have said, I've been playing this game far too long.
Sorry, my bad. This thread is so odd, I think if we could divide into two threads instead, one about now and one historical? So we can avoid this jumping between these two problems. To be consistent will make the discussion much easier, you have not played the game to be consistent so long or very poorly
January 18th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Mate you are being dragged into a never ending conflict by the end of it you will be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome in that you won't know the good from the bad.

Maybe I can try and untangle things a little bit.

There are those of us who do believe that Israel is a bit of a mirage in that it is a country that legitimises itself through a 2000-3000 year old religious claim to have inhabited the land yet the vast majority of its citizens have literally no connection to the region beyond the last 100 years they are in fact European basically it would be like me reading a travel guide to Sweden and then showing up evicting you while claiming I am within my rights because I agree with the travel guide.

Now I am sure VD will pop up with some dodgy argument about Palestinians not existing so there is no precedent for a Palestinian state that encompasses the whole region but the reality that the Palestinians are not a transplanted people they may not have been called Palestinians they may have been called Syrians, Egyptians, Canaanite's, Hittites, Romans or Ottomans in the past but the fact is they have always been there where as I am pretty sure if you were to follow your average Israeli's history you would find yourself studying predominantly German, Russian and American heritage another words Israelis are a transplanted population occupying Palestinian land.

Now in order to answer the original question Israel is hated because it is a transplanted population occupying someone elses land and rather realising they are interlopers and keeping a low profile they are hiding behind a super power and behaving like their 1933-1945 German predecessors.
January 18th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider
Sorry, my bad. This thread is so odd, I think if we could divide into two threads instead, one about now and one historical? So we can avoid this jumping between these two problems. To be consistent will make the discussion much easier, you have not played the game to be consistent so long or very poorly
You are correct in that almost none of it addresses the actual title of the thread,and of course, I realise am as bad as anyone in going off topic to justify my answers on occasion. To try to stay precisely on topic would leave much open to conjecture and make many answers very hard to ubnderstand. We all have to do it on occasion.
January 18th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You are correct in that almost none of it addresses the actual title of the thread,and of course, I realise am as bad as anyone in going off topic to justify my answers on occasion. To try to stay precisely on topic would leave much open to conjecture and make many answers very hard to ubnderstand. We all have to do it on occasion.
It is easy to get astray from the purpose or the question of a thread (in this case) I have always tried to be focused on the question, but sometimes I walk away too. I am not supportive of what Israel has done, is doing, and so on and so forth. The history is a vital factor, but we cannot let it dictate the to find out a comprehensive solution that satisfy both parties. "It has been bad for so many years so let us continue to act bad". You see the problem, Learn from the past and do something about it. The problem with Israel and its neighbors have so many facets, it is so complex, if we (the world) save one of them, and it does not matter. There is another thing about this conflict, it has not been so open, but its there, the access to water, its there. How to solve that? If this had been easy to solve, the conflict, it had been solved a long time ago.
January 18th, 2012  
zhaldev
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
It's about religion. Kashmir was once moslim land that's why they want it back. The Armenian massacre in the Ottoman Empire was because they (christians) wanted a country on moslim land. Israel is a jewish state on moslim land, it must be removed. The "Palestinian land" part is mostly for media. The Palestinians have had multiple occasions to fight for an independent state but they didn't. Only when there was word of a Jewish state they started to attack. If it was for land they would have attacked settlers. They didn't, they attacked jews praying at the wall and destroy Jewish property from people who were living there for generations.
But Israel and India are not the only countries who have problems with muslim fanatics. Look at Thailand, Nigeria, Sudan. They even fight among themselves like in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and even in Palestine.
Actually Kashmir is wanted by pakistan that's why they attacked when the kashmiris refused to be part of it.The problem with kashmir is not all about religion because there are hindus and buddhists as well.The name of kashmir is J&K i.e Jammu and Kashmir,Jammu part is dominated by Hindus while kashmir is 90% muslim while in laddakh region many are buddhist.

There is very little support to pakistan from kashmiri people say 5 to 10%. and even that is changing with economic boom and positive vibes about growth through out the country, the perception of even hardcore muslims kashmiri people are changing towards India.
January 18th, 2012  
zhaldev
 
 
I was there for a week in december and had a feel of locals myself so I can tell.
Yes there are some nutcases like geelani who's the separatist leader while taking pension from Indian Govt.he should be thrown into jail but with our great democracy don't have the balls to do it.

sorry for off topic comment...
January 18th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Mate you are being dragged into a never ending conflict by the end of it you will be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome in that you won't know the good from the bad.

Maybe I can try and untangle things a little bit.

There are those of us who do believe that Israel is a bit of a mirage in that it is a country that legitimises itself through a 2000-3000 year old religious claim to have inhabited the land yet the vast majority of its citizens have literally no connection to the region beyond the last 100 years they are in fact European basically it would be like me reading a travel guide to Sweden and then showing up evicting you while claiming I am within my rights because I agree with the travel guide.

Now I am sure VD will pop up with some dodgy argument about Palestinians not existing so there is no precedent for a Palestinian state that encompasses the whole region but the reality that the Palestinians are not a transplanted people they may not have been called Palestinians they may have been called Syrians, Egyptians, Canaanite's, Hittites, Romans or Ottomans in the past but the fact is they have always been there where as I am pretty sure if you were to follow your average Israeli's history you would find yourself studying predominantly German, Russian and American heritage another words Israelis are a transplanted population occupying Palestinian land.

Now in order to answer the original question Israel is hated because it is a transplanted population occupying someone elses land and rather realising they are interlopers and keeping a low profile they are hiding behind a super power and behaving like their 1933-1945 German predecessors.
Thanks for the invitation

Two different things here: people and state (country)

True, the Arab Palestinians (or whatever they called themselves) lived there for generations. But some jews too. Jerusalem had almost always a jewish majority. There were also a lot of Arab immigrants, from 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. If you want to evict the immigrated Jews, you also must evict the immigrated Arabs and other immigrants.

Country. The rulers (government or a mandate replacing a government) decide what laws are used, not the people who live there. The rulers decide who is allowed into the country, whether you like it or not. Once you are allowed in you can become a citizen of that country. Again it is up to the rulers to decide what is neccesary to gain citizenship.

Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate (Treaty of Lausanne, signed in 1923) says :
Quote:
“The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”
This means that all the people living in the region Palestine got the same natinonality. That nationality could be achieved by immigrants living for at least 2 years in the region Palestine. You can read more about this here : Palestinian Nationality in the 1917-1925 Period

There are people who believe that the Jews must leave because the Palestinians are the "owners" of the land. That's opinion.
I believe that you must respect the rule of law, whether you like it or not and rule of law is made by the rulers of that country. This is not opinion, this is fact.

In short, almost all people living in the region of Palestine up to the creation of Israel had officially the Palestinian citizenship. After the creation of Israel the inhabitants living in Israel automatically acquired the Israeli citizenship.

Quote:
In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.” As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism