So why do people hate Israel? - Page 61




 
--
 
May 2nd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asef
I said that there were many communities, not that there were many synagogues.
And a Synagogue need not be a huge monumental building. It may be an old factory building.

Jews who live in these countries are allowed to practice their religion.

Algeria
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco
Syria
Tunisia
Yemen

Today, Iran's Jewish population is the second largest in the Middle East, after Israel. Although Jews are occasionally subjected to violence by Palestinian protesters in Syria, the government has taken strict protective measures, including arresting assailants and guarding the remaining synagogues.

Just a supplementary question
How many of you have traveled in the Middle East?
The problem is not the people but the fanatics. Unfortunately they have a strong influence in Israel and an even stronger one in the muslim countries in the ME.

I've never been in the Middle East but I did walk and shop in a muslim neighbourghood in Antwerp. The town is called Borgerhout but we call it Borgerocco because of the many Moroccans living there.
May 2nd, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
According to DNA the origins of the people who lived in the Palestinian region came from India. There's also the theory that Jesus also came from India and that Christianity is a mix of Judaism and Hinduism.
If it is true, that still has no bearing on the fact that only a small part of today's Jews have a short and transitory connection with Palestine occurring not more than 3000 years ago.

And like everyone else in the world, had they have only been absent for a single generation they would have no claim to Palestine, the same as you and I have no claim the the lands of our ancestors.
May 3rd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
If it is true, that still has no bearing on the fact that only a small part of today's Jews have a short and transitory connection with Palestine occurring not more than 3000 years ago.

And like everyone else in the world, had they have only been absent for a single generation they would have no claim to Palestine, the same as you and I have no claim the the lands of our ancestors.
There is only one earth and we all live on it. All ancestors propably came from another region.

In the past the strongest ruled, now it's rule of law.
In the past someone could claim the land was his until someone killed him or chased him away and then the other had it.
Now you need an official document to prove the land is yours and only the government can take it away if their laws allow it to.
Rule of law determines who's property it is, not ancestry.
Rule of law determines who's property it is, not your opinion.
--
May 3rd, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
There is only one earth and we all live on it. All ancestors propably came from another region.

In the past the strongest ruled, now it's rule of law.
In the past someone could claim the land was his until someone killed him or chased him away and then the other had it.
Now you need an official document to prove the land is yours and only the government can take it away if their laws allow it to.
Rule of law determines who's property it is, not ancestry.
Rule of law determines who's property it is, not your opinion.
Again you very conveniently ignore the fact that we have already shown that Native people do not need "paperwork" to prove ownership, and similarly your whole argument is based on false premise.

It still comes back to my statement, "Like everyone else in the world, had they have only been absent for a single generation they would have no claim to Palestine, the same as you and I have no claim the the lands of our ancestors"
May 4th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Again you very conveniently ignore the fact that we have already shown that Native people do not need "paperwork" to prove ownership, and similarly your whole argument is based on false premise.

It still comes back to my statement, "Like everyone else in the world, had they have only been absent for a single generation they would have no claim to Palestine, the same as you and I have no claim the the lands of our ancestors"
"Native people do not need "paperwork" to prove ownership" is history. Rule of law changed all that. "Palestinians" are not native people, just as the British, Americans, Belgians, Germans .... are not native people.

Your statement is wrong. If an ancestor of the 17th century had ownership in Palestine and now someone living today in Argentina can show that he inherit it, it's his. Rule of law.
May 4th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
"Native people do not need "paperwork" to prove ownership" is history. Rule of law changed all that. "Palestinians" are not native people, just as the British, Americans, Belgians, Germans .... are not native people.

Your statement is wrong. If an ancestor of the 17th century had ownership in Palestine and now someone living today in Argentina can show that he inherit it, it's his. Rule of law.

This is a paradox,

As is whatever your nemisis in this thread will throw at you. Fact is, just because you can prove something, does not mean you can just have it.

Native Americans had rights to this land I am sitting on right now. But my ancestors with no moral attachtment declared rights to this land and evicted them by brutal force at the turn of the 19th century, one Manifest Destiny later and a whole country was missing from them.

The tale is timeless, the U.S. goverment made legal appropraitions to take what they wanted and needed to feed a growing economy, when they broke their own laws they simply relegistrated new ones absolving them of any wrong doing, all legally.

You can legalize anything. As long as it's sits on what is widely acceptible in the eyes of the dominant influences in the world at the time. Right now it's the Israeli/ U.S. dogma. This may not stay this way, but at this point in time it is the dominant influence for the circuits of western society and is broadcast to the world.

Point is, blessings and atrocities alike are committed under "rule of law"

Greed, Jealousy, paranoia are human pyschological factors, and these things leak into our legistration even today.

Like I said, you can legalize anything. We even legalize and illegialize "right" and "wrong".
May 4th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
"Palestinians" are not native people,
Unfortunately for you, they are recognised as such by the rest of the world.

Australian Aboriginals were preceeded by a group known as the Lake Mungo people a much older and genetically different race, however today's Aboriginals are still recognised as the "Native People" because there are no longer and discernible Lake Mungo people remaining.
May 5th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
This is a paradox,

As is whatever your nemisis in this thread will throw at you. Fact is, just because you can prove something, does not mean you can just have it.
Yes it does. If you have legal documents that prove the property is yours, it is yours.

Quote:
Native Americans had rights to this land I am sitting on right now. But my ancestors with no moral attachtment declared rights to this land and evicted them by brutal force at the turn of the 19th century, one Manifest Destiny later and a whole country was missing from them.
You cannot look at history with the eyes of today. Today it is regarded as wrong what your ancestors did. In their time it was normal. How could they know that the land they started building on belonged to a native indian tribe? No borders. Native indians tribes regularly fought each other about hunting grounds. Who owned what depended on force, not rule of law.

Quote:
The tale is timeless, the U.S. goverment made legal appropraitions to take what they wanted and needed to feed a growing economy, when they broke their own laws they simply relegistrated new ones absolving them of any wrong doing, all legally.
Almost all borders on the planet are drawn through wars. Does that mean that all borders are illegal? And if so, who has the authority to draw new ones. No matter where you draw them families and friends will be separated.

Quote:
You can legalize anything. As long as it's sits on what is widely acceptible in the eyes of the dominant influences in the world at the time. Right now it's the Israeli/ U.S. dogma. This may not stay this way, but at this point in time it is the dominant influence for the circuits of western society and is broadcast to the world.
In the last few centuries western style rule of law is being accepted all over the world. Rule of law is a foundation of a society. It is not perfect and changes are constantly made. A judge decides according to laws drawn up by the government and not a king or cleric who uses his own judgement as he pleases. The Arab countries have a lot of work to do to catch up on the Israeli rule of law.

Code:
Point is, blessings and atrocities alike are committed under "rule of law"
I agree, that's why I said rule of law is not perfect. The Germans used it to kill the Jews. The Arab countries used it to expell the Jews. The Israelis used it to keep properties in Jewish hands and to occupy non-Israeli land. Wars or international pressure can and sometimes did change that.

Quote:
Greed, Jealousy, paranoia are human pyschological factors, and these things leak into our legistration even today.
True. Politicians are like sharks. They rule. But there are also people who fight against it and they are sometimes victorious and rule of law is changed for the better.

Quote:
Like I said, you can legalize anything. We even legalize and illegialize "right" and "wrong".
If nothing would be legalized who then has the authority to separate right from wrong? You? I? Someone else?
May 5th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Unfortunately for you, they are recognised as such by the rest of the world.
No they are not. The West Bank plus Gaza is recognised by seperate countries as a Palestinian State.

Have a look at the common names of "Palestinians" and you'll know where they came from.

Quote:
Australian Aboriginals were preceeded by a group known as the Lake Mungo people a much older and genetically different race, however today's Aboriginals are still recognised as the "Native People" because there are no longer and discernible Lake Mungo people remaining.
C

Comparing Palestinians and Aboriginals is like comparing apples and oranges.
May 5th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
No they are not. The West Bank plus Gaza is recognised by seperate countries as a Palestinian State.
Which has no bearing whatsoever on my statement, that the Palestinians are still recognised as the Native people of the area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Comparing Palestinians and Aboriginals is like comparing apples and oranges.
Not true. They are both regarded as the native people and carry genetic material from the earliest people of the area, having lived continuously in their respective areas through to the present day.
 


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