Should Israel bomb Iran???

[healthmyths]

Be good if we could avoid bombing things/people and not use the notion of it so flippantly.

Regardless of who it is.

OH you are so wonderful. So sensitive. You believe the Israelis are just as violent as the muslims?

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

OH you are so wonderful. So sensitive. You believe the Israelis are just as violent as the muslims?

No, I don't believe that.

My point was a general one. I don't like the tone when people just casually talk about bombing countries - any country.

and agreed, I am wonderful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have to count Palestinians who were forced to flee the genocidal attack on Arab villages

And the next 4 generations? Why?

International law demands their right of return.

International law says lots of things that everyone ignores. So what?

Jews have no right of return because Jerusalem was never legally theirs.

Sure they do, it's their country, like it or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not going to look for 1930 Palestine immigration law, and should not have to.
Since the British were enforcing immigration limits that they would have no reason to do unless it was the law, you have to agree there were immigration limits and Jews were violating them.

But this from the Jewish Virtual Library should be sufficient for anyone.
{...
Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘ absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to be forcing the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was at a time when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than six million.
...

By 1949, however, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.2

This made for Jewish aquistion of immigration certificates extremely difficult. As the world entered the second world war, requests for entry were difficult to accomdate to Jews all over the world. Correspondence between governing officials in Palestine and Greek Jewish authority demonstrate the sheer inflexibility.
...
The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration
...​

In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4​

...}

I am not going to look for 1930 Palestine immigration law, and should not have to.

I agree, you can't prove your claim.

Since the British were enforcing immigration limits that they would have no reason to do unless it was the law

How many Arabs were moving in?

the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration

Placed restrictions? Oh my!

By 1949, however, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.2

How many do the Jews own now? Is it more?

The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs,

Yeah, big mistake. Whiners still think their whining matters.

 

[Rigby5]

OH you are so wonderful. So sensitive. You believe the Israelis are just as violent as the muslims?

No, the Israelis are millions of times more violent and in violation of natural law.
Palestine is and always a majority not Jewish, so should not be ruled by Jewish political interests.
The Arabs did not start any of the violence ever, and the Israelis tried to massacre hundreds of Arab villages from 1946 on.
After the Holocaust, you would think Jews would know better than to commit genocide.
But Zionists obviously have been attempting genocide since 1946.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
All the land had been owned by Arabs long before the Ottoman invasion around 1500.
The Arabs did not pay rent because there were not landlords.
They paid taxes to the Ottoman Empire instead.

All the land had been owned by Arabs long before the Ottoman invasion around 1500.

And then it wasn't owned by the Arabs.

They paid taxes to the Ottoman Empire instead.

It sounds like a lot of them didn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you really interested in this subject? If so you should read Ibn Battuta and Rabbi Benjamin Tudela.. There were VERY few Jews in Palestine. Most had moved to Arab countries or North Africa.

There were VERY few Jews in Palestine

And now there are a bunch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
The UN partition of 1948 was what the British Mandate for Palestine Peel Commission had recommended.
It is the only legal partition at all, and if not accepted, then Israel does not legally exist at all.

And while it is true Jerusalem was ruled from other Muslim cities, like Cairo or Damascus after Mohammed, before Mohammed, Jerusalem had been the capital of many Arab countries.
And there is no evidence left of Jerusalem ever being a Jewish capital.
It could all be myth for all we know, and that actually is most likely.

The UN partition of 1948 was what the British Mandate for Palestine Peel Commission had recommended.

I know. Boy did the Arabs **** that up.

and if not accepted, then Israel does not legally exist at all.

And yet....they do.

Jerusalem had been the capital of many Arab countries.

And now Jerusalem is the capital of a Jewish country.

 

[Rigby5]

And the next 4 generations? Why?

International law demands their right of return.

International law says lots of things that everyone ignores. So what?

Jews have no right of return because Jerusalem was never legally theirs.

Sure they do, it's their country, like it or not.

When you ignore international law and do not allow the Palestinians back to their rightful homes and land, then you are by definition a criminal, evil, and deserve no rights at all until you repent.
Only criminals ignore international law.

Israel does not belong to Jews.
It certainly can not legally be gained by murdering or expelling the rightful owners and inhabitants.
The only people who have any right to be there are Arab Palestinians who have deeds and titles, or Jewish children born there who have not yet committed any crimes.
That puts the Jews vastly as a tiny minority.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope.
Iran has secular laws.

Many Moslem countries has both Sharia law and secular law, and Sharia is mostly used for domestic disputes.

{...
Since the early Islamic states of the eighth and ninth centuries, Sharia always existed alongside other normative systems.[1]

Historically, sharia was interpreted by independent jurists (muftis), based on Islamic scriptural sources and various legal methodologies.[2] In the modern era, statutes inspired by European codes replaced traditional laws in most parts of the Muslim world, with classical sharia rules retained mainly in personal status (family) laws.[2][3] These laws were codified by legislative bodies which sought to modernize them without abandoning their foundations in traditional jurisprudence.[2][4] The Islamic revival of the late 20th century brought along calls by Islamist movements for full implementation of sharia, including hudud capital punishments, such as stoning, which in some cases resulted in traditionalist legal reform.[2][4] Some countries with Muslim minorities use sharia-based laws to regulate marriage, inheritance and other personal affairs of their Muslim population.
..

Types of legal systems[edit]​

The legal systems of Muslim countries may be grouped as: mixed systems, classical sharia systems, and secular systems.[22]

Classical sharia systems[edit]​

Under this system, shared by a small minority of modern countries, classical sharia is formally equated with national law and to a great extent provides its substance. The state has a ruler who functions as the highest judiciary and may promulgate and modify laws in some legal domains, but traditional religious scholars (ulama) play a decisive role in interpreting sharia. The classical sharia system is exemplified by Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states. Iran shares many of the same features, but also possesses characteristics of mixed legal systems, such as a parliament and codified laws.[22]

Secular systems[edit]​

Secular systems are those where sharia plays no role in the nation's legal system and religious interference in state affairs, politics, and law is not permitted. Turkey has been an example of a Muslim-majority nation with a secular system, although its secularism has recently come under intense pressure. Several states in West Africa and Central Asia also describe themselves as secular.[22]

Mixed systems[edit]​

Most Muslim countries have mixed legal systems that postulate a constitution and Rule of Law, while also allowing rules of traditional Islamic jurisprudence to influence certain areas of national law. These systems possess large bodies of codified laws, which may be based on European or Indian codes. In these systems, the central legislative role is played by politicians and modern jurists rather than traditional religious scholars. Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and Nigeria are examples of states having mixed systems.[22] Some countries with Muslim minorities, such as Israel, also have mixed systems that administer Sharia for their Muslim population.[23]

Domains of application[edit]​

Constitutional law[edit]​

Most Muslim-majority countries incorporate sharia at some level in their legal framework. Their constitutions commonly refer to sharia as a source or the main source of law, though these references are not in themselves indicative of how much the legal system is influenced by sharia, and whether the influence has a traditionalist or modernist character.[2][8] The same constitutions usually also refer to universal principles such as democracy and human rights, leaving it up to legislators and the judiciary to work out how these norms are to be reconciled in practice.[24] Conversely, some countries (e.g., Algeria), whose constitution does not mention sharia, possess sharia-based family laws.[8] Nisrine Abiad identifies Bahrain, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as states with "strong constitutional consequences" of sharia "on the organization and functioning of power".[25]

Family law[edit]​

Except for secular systems, Muslim-majority countries possess sharia-based family laws (marriage, inheritance, etc.). These laws generally reflect influence of various modern-era reforms and tend to be characterized by ambiguity, with traditional and modernist interpretations often manifesting themselves in the same country, both in legislation and court decisions. In some countries (e.g., Nigeria), people can choose whether to pursue a case in a sharia or secular court.[24]

Criminal law[edit]​

Countries in the Muslim world generally have criminal codes influenced by French law or common law, and in some cases a combination of Western legal traditions. Saudi Arabia has never adopted a criminal code and Saudi judges still follow traditional Hanbali jurisprudence. In the course of Islamization campaigns, several countries (Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, and Yemen) inserted Islamic criminal laws into their penal codes, which were otherwise based on Western models. In some countries only hudud penalties were added, while others also enacted provisions for qisas (law of retaliation) and diya (monetary compensation). Iran subsequently issued a new "Islamic Penal Code". The criminal codes of Afghanistan and United Arab Emirates contain a general provision that certain crimes are to be punished according to Sharia, without specifying the penalties. Some Nigerian states have also enacted Islamic criminal laws. Laws in the Indonesian province of Aceh provide for application of discretionary (ta'zir) punishments for violation of Islamic norms, but explicitly exclude hudud and qisas.[26] Brunei has been implementing a "Sharia Penal Code", which includes provisions for stoning and amputation, in stages since 2014.[27][28] The countries where hudud penalties are legal do not use stoning and amputation routinely, and generally apply other punishments instead.[2][24][29]
...}

Application of Sharia by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nope.
Iran has secular laws.

Israel has secular laws.

Iran (Persian: ایران‎ Irān [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] (listen)), also called Persia,[11] and officially the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Islamic Republic? What?

 

[Rigby5]

I am not going to look for 1930 Palestine immigration law, and should not have to.

I agree, you can't prove your claim.

Since the British were enforcing immigration limits that they would have no reason to do unless it was the law

How many Arabs were moving in?

the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration

Placed restrictions? Oh my!

By 1949, however, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.2

How many do the Jews own now? Is it more?

The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs,

Yeah, big mistake. Whiners still think their whining matters.

I proved the Jews were illegally immigrating.
The British were neutral but still were appalled by the amount of illegal Jewish immigration.

But Jews do not legally own any more land now than in 1920, because they did not buy any.
Illegally forcing the owners off their property, does not make it yours.

 

[Rigby5]

There were VERY few Jews in Palestine

And now there are a bunch.

A bunch of illegal immigrants with no right to be there.

 

[Rigby5]

The UN partition of 1948 was what the British Mandate for Palestine Peel Commission had recommended.

I know. Boy did the Arabs **** that up.

and if not accepted, then Israel does not legally exist at all.

And yet....they do.

Jerusalem had been the capital of many Arab countries.

And now Jerusalem is the capital of a Jewish country.

Jerusalem is not a Jewish capital according to UN, most of the world, and international law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you ignore international law and do not allow the Palestinians back to their rightful homes and land, then you are by definition a criminal, evil, and deserve no rights at all until you repent.
Only criminals ignore international law.

Geez, lay off the estrogen, you sound hysterical.

Now, about this international law you're imagining, who voted for it?
Why does everyone have to follow it? What happens if they don't?

Is there an international law against throwing gays off buildings and about "honor" killings?

Israel does not belong to Jews.

It seems like it does.

It certainly can not legally be gained by murdering or expelling the rightful owners and inhabitants.

I agree, Arabs should stop trying to do that.

The only people who have any right to be there are Arab Palestinians who have deeds and titles,

So that'd be about 2% of them? Where should the rest of those Arabs move?
None of their neighbors want them.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope.
Iran has secular laws.

Israel has secular laws.

Iran (Persian: ایران‎ Irān [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] (listen)), also called Persia,[11] and officially the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Islamic Republic? What?

Wrong.
Iran has a secular legal system.

{...

II. The Iranian Legal System​

The Iranian Legal System is structured as a civil law system following French civil law system. The government consists of the Supreme Leader, the executive, judicial and legislative powers. In this section, a summary of each institution will be studied.
...}

An Overview of Iranian Legal System and Research

GlobaLex is an open-access electronic legal publication dedicated to international, comparative, and foreign law research.

www.nyulawglobal.org

 

[Indeependent]

When you ignore international law and do not allow the Palestinians back to their rightful homes and land, then you are by definition a criminal, evil, and deserve no rights at all until you repent.
Only criminals ignore international law.

Israel does not belong to Jews.
It certainly can not legally be gained by murdering or expelling the rightful owners and inhabitants.
The only people who have any right to be there are Arab Palestinians who have deeds and titles, or Jewish children born there who have not yet committed any crimes.
That puts the Jews vastly as a tiny minority.

If you checked out AP News and Reuters you’d discover that dozens of nations are breaking international law 24/7.

 

[Indeependent]

Wrong.
Iran has a secular legal system.

{...

II. The Iranian Legal System​

The Iranian Legal System is structured as a civil law system following French civil law system. The government consists of the Supreme Leader, the executive, judicial and legislative powers. In this section, a summary of each institution will be studied.
...}

An Overview of Iranian Legal System and Research

GlobaLex is an open-access electronic legal publication dedicated to international, comparative, and foreign law research.

www.nyulawglobal.org

99% of Iranians want to live in Israel.
Your mind is poisoned.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I proved the Jews were illegally immigrating.
The British were neutral but still were appalled by the amount of illegal Jewish immigration.

But Jews do not legally own any more land now than in 1920, because they did not buy any.
Illegally forcing the owners off their property, does not make it yours.

I proved the Jews were illegally immigrating.

You said some guy placed restrictions, you didn't post a law. Try again?

The British were neutral but still were appalled by the amount of illegal Jewish immigration.

Well, gosh, I hope they've recovered. Stiff upper lip and all that.

But Jews do not legally own any more land now than in 1920,

Still owned more than the Arabs. And don't get me started on how much the Jews owned
after they kicked all that Arab ass.

Illegally forcing the owners off their property, does not make it yours.

The Ottoman Empire lost fair and square.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A bunch of illegal immigrants with no right to be there.

I agree, Arab squatters should leave now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jerusalem is not a Jewish capital according to UN,

UN? Who cares what those whiney primitives believe?