Israel's "Right to Exist"?

[P F Tinmore]

Ditto.

You are always there to cheer them on.

As you are to those who kill Jewish babies?

Come in, Lipush, you know I have never done that.

 

[Sundowner47]

God is it effortless to go fishing for the SAYIT variety of Carp....hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[SAYIT]

As I've said nothing changes...its akin to arguing with recalcitrant children...the preferred comebacks are as weak and ineffectual as might be expected: "Jew hater"...."Muslim"..."Jihadist'...etc....etc.

Jews have been roundly despised by every host culture for thousands of years...they have been expelled from every host culture...are we to believe the facts, or the one's denying them?

You refer, of course, to the fact that Jew-haters never change their stripes?
BTW, your board Rep rating still says you spend way too much time "sucking off goats."
I suggest you stop swalowing, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

How about Kosher Baby Killer Gets 45 Holy Days:

"An Israeli soldier accused of killing a mother and daughter carrying a white flag in Gaza during Israel's 2009 'Operation Cast Lead' has received a sentence of only 45 days following a plea deal approved by a military court on Sunday.

"Rayah Abu Hajaj (in this family photo) and her daughter Majedah were shot while walking with a group of Palestinians holding white flags after their home was bombed during Israel's 'Operation Cast Lead' in the Gaza Strip in 2009.

"The charges against the soldier -- known only in court documents and the Israeli media as 'staff sergeant S'..."

I wonder if that's staff sergeant Sieg heil?
Another relative of rosie's.

Israeli Sniper Gets Only 45 Days for Killing of Two Women under White Flags | Common Dreams

FYI, Georgie, that soldier has suffered cruel and unusual punishment. IMO.

It's always funny when another family loses a mother and daughter.
Would it be even funnier if it were yours?
FYI, my actions have never lead to the murder of a mother or a daughter.

And you know that because?
One could easily argue that the now 64 year old Arab siege of Israel is at least in part fueled by the exhortations of fools ... well, fools just like you.

 

[SAYIT]

It's always funny when another family loses a mother and daughter.
Would it be even funnier if it were yours?
FYI, my actions have never lead to the murder of a mother or a daughter.
How about yours?

Ditto.

You are always there to cheer them on.

As are you, Princess.

 

[Sundowner47]

As I've said nothing changes...its akin to arguing with recalcitrant children...the preferred comebacks are as weak and ineffectual as might be expected: "Jew hater"...."Muslim"..."Jihadist'...etc....etc.

Jews have been roundly despised by every host culture for thousands of years...they have been expelled from every host culture...are we to believe the facts, or the one's denying them?

You refer, of course, to the fact that Jew-haters never change their stripes?
BTW, your board Rep rating still says you spend way too much time "sucking off goats."
I suggest you stop swalowing, Princess.

how old are you SAYIT? aren't such juvenile responses the property of teenagers...and what is this new attachment to goats...I 've always assumed that you were given to sexual eccentricities, but goats???

 

[Lipush]

Affirming Israel’s right to exist has almost become the diplomatic standard in the Middle East. Why, anyone who would dare challenge this notion is obviously not rational, to say the least.

Yet the fact is, Israel does not have a right to exist. That is, Israel does not have a moral right to exist.

Israel was declared a country in Palestine when that declaration was against the will of the majority of the people living in Palestine at the time. Thus, the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination was denied. It was morally wrong. It is that simple.

Of course, the government of Israel does exist for many reasons. The two most prominent are that many feel sympathy for Jews because of the history of persecution, and therefore support the Jew’s desire for a “homeland” where they would be immune from persecution.

However, the fact that the Jews were persecuted in various times and places in history doesn’t give them the right to persecute someone else. It doesn’t give Jews the right to deny the right to self-determination to the Palestinians. Two moral wrongs don’t make a moral right.

It is also interesting that the claim for a Jewish homeland would presumably mean that Jews would want land that would not be taken away from them by someone else claiming a divine right to their homeland. That is very interesting indeed.

Another reason why Israel exists is the result of support from America, and much of that support is from Christians who believe the Bible affirms the Jew’s claim of “divine right” to the land of Palestine. Of course, there are many Christians who disagree with that conclusion, and believe it is a severe misunderstanding of the Bible.

However, what is interesting is that the Christian debate is irrelevant--Jews believe that they have a divine right to the land. And this claim is the legitimate prerogative of the Jewish faith. In fact, this is a popular claim by many faiths. Many groups of people around the world believe that they have a divine right to various lands. In fact, many in the Arab world believe that Palestine is “Arab Land”.

This raises questions of what is morally right when there is a divine right claim to the land. Is a claim of divine right a legitimate or moral reason to settle competing land claims? And, is it morally right to force one claim of divine right on someone who doesn’t recognize that claim?

The obvious answer is no, it is not morally right to force a claim of divine right on someone that doesn’t recognize that claim. It is not morally right because no one wants to be deprived of their land or property because someone else makes a divine right to their land or property that they don’t recognize. Christians would recognize this principle as the Golden Rule.

Thus, the larger issue in Palestine is not who has a divine right to the land. The issue that should be discussed is who has the moral right, and that issue has been largely absent in the debate over Israel.

Jews and supporters of Israel have been successful in framing the debate in terms of denying the Jews their divine right. But the real issue is morality. Who has the legitimate moral right to the land? And how should that moral right be determined?

And most important, what if the Palestinians don’t recognize the Jew’s claim of divine right? Should the Palestinians be murdered and their property taken anyway? Is this the proper moral position of Christians, that if the Palestinians don’t recognize a divine right, they should be murdered?

Most Christians would find that murdering Palestinians in order to impose a divine right is abhorrent to Christianity. It would be morally wrong, and thus Israel does not have a moral right to exist.

If murder or war is not morally correct in arbitrating land disputes, what is the correct moral path? The popular moral tenet in America is that the will of the people should be recognized in settling political disputes. The preamble to the Constitution begins with “We the people, …” Land claims in Palestine should have been settled by the will of all the people of Palestine.

And how should the will of the people be determined? In America, the will of the people is morally determined by voting. Americans viscerally understand that determining the will of the people through majority vote is a legitimate and moral method of settling virtually any dispute.

When the Jews declared Israel a state in 1948, Jews were approximately one-third of the population. Had there been a vote in all of Palestine in 1948 to ascertain if the will of the Palestinian people agreed that Israel had a right to be a state, that right would have been denied. The majority of the people of Palestine did not grant the Jews a right to declare Israel a sovereign state.

Of course, no vote was ever taken. Thus, for the Jews to ignore the will of the Palestinian people and declare Israel a state was morally wrong. The moral right to allow the will of Palestinian people to prevail was denied.

Israel does not have a moral right to exist.

Israel have a morale right to exist just like every other state.

99% of the world's states build their countries based on occupation of lands. in their case, the land was unfamiliar to them. The Jews occupy their homeland.

All states have morale rights of existence, Israel is no different.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ditto.

You are always there to cheer them on.

As are you, Princess.

Links?

 

[Sundowner47]

affirming israel’s right to exist has almost become the diplomatic standard in the middle east. Why, anyone who would dare challenge this notion is obviously not rational, to say the least.

Yet the fact is, israel does not have a right to exist. That is, israel does not have a moral right to exist.

Israel was declared a country in palestine when that declaration was against the will of the majority of the people living in palestine at the time. Thus, the right of the people of palestine to self-determination was denied. It was morally wrong. It is that simple.

Of course, the government of israel does exist for many reasons. The two most prominent are that many feel sympathy for jews because of the history of persecution, and therefore support the jew’s desire for a “homeland” where they would be immune from persecution.

However, the fact that the jews were persecuted in various times and places in history doesn’t give them the right to persecute someone else. It doesn’t give jews the right to deny the right to self-determination to the palestinians. Two moral wrongs don’t make a moral right.

It is also interesting that the claim for a jewish homeland would presumably mean that jews would want land that would not be taken away from them by someone else claiming a divine right to their homeland. That is very interesting indeed.

Another reason why israel exists is the result of support from america, and much of that support is from christians who believe the bible affirms the jew’s claim of “divine right” to the land of palestine. Of course, there are many christians who disagree with that conclusion, and believe it is a severe misunderstanding of the bible.

However, what is interesting is that the christian debate is irrelevant--jews believe that they have a divine right to the land. And this claim is the legitimate prerogative of the jewish faith. In fact, this is a popular claim by many faiths. Many groups of people around the world believe that they have a divine right to various lands. In fact, many in the arab world believe that palestine is “arab land”.

This raises questions of what is morally right when there is a divine right claim to the land. Is a claim of divine right a legitimate or moral reason to settle competing land claims? And, is it morally right to force one claim of divine right on someone who doesn’t recognize that claim?

The obvious answer is no, it is not morally right to force a claim of divine right on someone that doesn’t recognize that claim. It is not morally right because no one wants to be deprived of their land or property because someone else makes a divine right to their land or property that they don’t recognize. Christians would recognize this principle as the golden rule.

Thus, the larger issue in palestine is not who has a divine right to the land. The issue that should be discussed is who has the moral right, and that issue has been largely absent in the debate over israel.

Jews and supporters of israel have been successful in framing the debate in terms of denying the jews their divine right. But the real issue is morality. Who has the legitimate moral right to the land? And how should that moral right be determined?

And most important, what if the palestinians don’t recognize the jew’s claim of divine right? Should the palestinians be murdered and their property taken anyway? Is this the proper moral position of christians, that if the palestinians don’t recognize a divine right, they should be murdered?

Most christians would find that murdering palestinians in order to impose a divine right is abhorrent to christianity. It would be morally wrong, and thus israel does not have a moral right to exist.

If murder or war is not morally correct in arbitrating land disputes, what is the correct moral path? The popular moral tenet in america is that the will of the people should be recognized in settling political disputes. The preamble to the constitution begins with “we the people, …” land claims in palestine should have been settled by the will of all the people of palestine.

And how should the will of the people be determined? In america, the will of the people is morally determined by voting. Americans viscerally understand that determining the will of the people through majority vote is a legitimate and moral method of settling virtually any dispute.

When the jews declared israel a state in 1948, jews were approximately one-third of the population. Had there been a vote in all of palestine in 1948 to ascertain if the will of the palestinian people agreed that israel had a right to be a state, that right would have been denied. The majority of the people of palestine did not grant the jews a right to declare israel a sovereign state.

Of course, no vote was ever taken. Thus, for the jews to ignore the will of the palestinian people and declare israel a state was morally wrong. The moral right to allow the will of palestinian people to prevail was denied.

Israel does not have a moral right to exist.

israel have a morale right to exist just like every other state.

99% of the world's states build their countries based on occupation of lands. In their case, the land was unfamiliar to them. The jews occupy their homeland.

All states have morale rights of existence, israel is no different.

you don't really pay attention to details do you? No state in the world inheres a "right to exist"....does this yet register?

 

[SAYIT]

You are always there to cheer them on.

As are you, Princess.

Links?

Pick any of your camel crap posts from PIC (The Voice of Palestine).

 

[SAYIT]

As I've said nothing changes...its akin to arguing with recalcitrant children...the preferred comebacks are as weak and ineffectual as might be expected: "Jew hater"...."Muslim"..."Jihadist'...etc....etc.

Jews have been roundly despised by every host culture for thousands of years...they have been expelled from every host culture...are we to believe the facts, or the one's denying them?

You refer, of course, to the fact that Jew-haters never change their stripes?
BTW, your board Rep rating still says you spend way too much time "sucking off goats."
I suggest you stop swalowing, Princess.

how old are you SAYIT? aren't such juvenile responses the property of teenagers...and what is this new attachment to goats...I 've always assumed that you were given to sexual eccentricities, but goats???

Just run your cursor over your Rep rating, Princess. It's the board's view of you.

 

[Sundowner47]

as are you, princess.

links?

pick any of your camel crap posts from pic (the voice of palestine).

from whence do you glean your post content sayit?....massada2000 or other such reputable sources? Possibly goat-suckers-monthly?

 

[Sundowner47]

you refer, of course, to the fact that jew-haters never change their stripes?
Btw, your board rep rating still says you spend way too much time "sucking off goats."
i suggest you stop swalowing, princess.

how old are you sayit? Aren't such juvenile responses the property of teenagers...and what is this new attachment to goats...i 've always assumed that you were given to sexual eccentricities, but goats???

just run your cursor over your rep rating, princess. It's the board's view of you.

...and this signifies what exactly? Perhaps the ratio of zionists to critics? Lol

 

[irosie91]

Most partitions of lands accomplished to save people from the rape and murder you so love are not a matter of a VOTE For example----the sudan did not VOTE for the partition of the SUDAN It was a matter----to your disappointment ---of saving a mere few million from the rape and murder and enslavement that you so enjoy In the USA if the issue of slavery had been put to a popular vote-------there would still be slaves in the USA Your statement that the muslims did not want to give up their self proclaimed right to murder, rape and enslave and therefore any attempt to DEPRIVE them of that right is "ILLEGAL" is a joke-------in fact the UMMAH optimism that it will WIN THAT RIGHT IN THE FUTURE by VOTE is another joke. People are highly motivated to avoid the filth you advocate even when they are a minority. England did not get to VOTE on the independence of the 13 colonies either

 

[Jos]

how old are you sayit? Aren't such juvenile responses the property of teenagers...and what is this new attachment to goats...i 've always assumed that you were given to sexual eccentricities, but goats???

just run your cursor over your rep rating, princess. It's the board's view of you.

...and this signifies what exactly? Perhaps the ratio of zionists to critics? Lol

True, some people like sayshit give it importance as secretly they would like to fuck something, anything, even a goat again

 

[Lipush]

affirming israel’s right to exist has almost become the diplomatic standard in the middle east. Why, anyone who would dare challenge this notion is obviously not rational, to say the least.

Yet the fact is, israel does not have a right to exist. That is, israel does not have a moral right to exist.

Israel was declared a country in palestine when that declaration was against the will of the majority of the people living in palestine at the time. Thus, the right of the people of palestine to self-determination was denied. It was morally wrong. It is that simple.

Of course, the government of israel does exist for many reasons. The two most prominent are that many feel sympathy for jews because of the history of persecution, and therefore support the jew’s desire for a “homeland” where they would be immune from persecution.

However, the fact that the jews were persecuted in various times and places in history doesn’t give them the right to persecute someone else. It doesn’t give jews the right to deny the right to self-determination to the palestinians. Two moral wrongs don’t make a moral right.

It is also interesting that the claim for a jewish homeland would presumably mean that jews would want land that would not be taken away from them by someone else claiming a divine right to their homeland. That is very interesting indeed.

Another reason why israel exists is the result of support from america, and much of that support is from christians who believe the bible affirms the jew’s claim of “divine right” to the land of palestine. Of course, there are many christians who disagree with that conclusion, and believe it is a severe misunderstanding of the bible.

However, what is interesting is that the christian debate is irrelevant--jews believe that they have a divine right to the land. And this claim is the legitimate prerogative of the jewish faith. In fact, this is a popular claim by many faiths. Many groups of people around the world believe that they have a divine right to various lands. In fact, many in the arab world believe that palestine is “arab land”.

This raises questions of what is morally right when there is a divine right claim to the land. Is a claim of divine right a legitimate or moral reason to settle competing land claims? And, is it morally right to force one claim of divine right on someone who doesn’t recognize that claim?

The obvious answer is no, it is not morally right to force a claim of divine right on someone that doesn’t recognize that claim. It is not morally right because no one wants to be deprived of their land or property because someone else makes a divine right to their land or property that they don’t recognize. Christians would recognize this principle as the golden rule.

Thus, the larger issue in palestine is not who has a divine right to the land. The issue that should be discussed is who has the moral right, and that issue has been largely absent in the debate over israel.

Jews and supporters of israel have been successful in framing the debate in terms of denying the jews their divine right. But the real issue is morality. Who has the legitimate moral right to the land? And how should that moral right be determined?

And most important, what if the palestinians don’t recognize the jew’s claim of divine right? Should the palestinians be murdered and their property taken anyway? Is this the proper moral position of christians, that if the palestinians don’t recognize a divine right, they should be murdered?

Most christians would find that murdering palestinians in order to impose a divine right is abhorrent to christianity. It would be morally wrong, and thus israel does not have a moral right to exist.

If murder or war is not morally correct in arbitrating land disputes, what is the correct moral path? The popular moral tenet in america is that the will of the people should be recognized in settling political disputes. The preamble to the constitution begins with “we the people, …” land claims in palestine should have been settled by the will of all the people of palestine.

And how should the will of the people be determined? In america, the will of the people is morally determined by voting. Americans viscerally understand that determining the will of the people through majority vote is a legitimate and moral method of settling virtually any dispute.

When the jews declared israel a state in 1948, jews were approximately one-third of the population. Had there been a vote in all of palestine in 1948 to ascertain if the will of the palestinian people agreed that israel had a right to be a state, that right would have been denied. The majority of the people of palestine did not grant the jews a right to declare israel a sovereign state.

Of course, no vote was ever taken. Thus, for the jews to ignore the will of the palestinian people and declare israel a state was morally wrong. The moral right to allow the will of palestinian people to prevail was denied.

Israel does not have a moral right to exist.

israel have a morale right to exist just like every other state.

99% of the world's states build their countries based on occupation of lands. In their case, the land was unfamiliar to them. The jews occupy their homeland.

All states have morale rights of existence, israel is no different.

you don't really pay attention to details do you? No state in the world inheres a "right to exist"....does this yet register?

In that case, let us not talk about "right to exist" but simply of "Israel's existence" as a fact.

That will be much better.

 

[Lipush]

You are always there to cheer them on.

As you are to those who kill Jewish babies?

Come in, Lipush, you know I have never done that.

Just like Israel's supporters don't think killing Palestinian children is a good thing.

How that we settled THAT right, we're good to go.

 

[Lipush]

As I've said nothing changes...its akin to arguing with recalcitrant children...the preferred comebacks are as weak and ineffectual as might be expected: "Jew hater"...."Muslim"..."Jihadist'...etc....etc.

Jews have been roundly despised by every host culture for thousands of years...they have been expelled from every host culture...are we to believe the facts, or the one's denying them?

You constantly spit anti-semitic remaks, then say we "whine" you're a Jew haters?

Do you not follow what you write?

 

[georgephillip]

FYI, Georgie, that soldier has suffered cruel and unusual punishment. IMO.

It's always funny when another family loses a mother and daughter.
Would it be even funnier if it were yours?
FYI, my actions have never lead to the murder of a mother or a daughter.

And you know that because?
One could easily argue that the now 64 year old Arab siege of Israel is at least in part fueled by the exhortations of fools ... well, fools just like you.

One could just as easily argue the 1948 plan to give one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine 55% of the land of Palestine began today's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[SAYIT]

how old are you sayit? Aren't such juvenile responses the property of teenagers...and what is this new attachment to goats...i 've always assumed that you were given to sexual eccentricities, but goats???

just run your cursor over your rep rating, Princess. It's the board's view of you.

...and this signifies what exactly? Perhaps the ratio of zionists to critics? Lol

I think it just signifies that you suck off goats, Princess, and I recommend you stop swallowing.