What must Israel do to "end the occupation"? (solutions thread)

[Slyhunter]

The problem is that Israeli wants to maintain a theocratic state that only allows those of a specific religion to rule. That just doesn't match up with Western values, it is more akin to Islamic theocracies. There will not be a Palestinian Christian/Muslim state, so Israel will have to continue being an Apartheid state with most of the non-Jews held in Bantustans they control.

Get rid of the Muslim Theocracy's first then we'll talk about Israel.

 

[jillian]

BDS has the only just solution.

only to anti-semite terrorist supporters

 

[Challenger]

And I'm not buying so much "stolen land" when I've seen the Deeds of Record for the original city centers in Israel..

Actual deeds? Who issued the deeds? When and where did you see them? Which cities were involved?

Genesis 25: 9-10: And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre; the field which Abraham purchased of the children of Heth; there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife. (The price was 400 shekels.)

Joshua 24:32: And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

Second Samuel 24:24-25: And the king said unto Araunah the Jebusite: "Nay, but I will verily buy it of thee at a price; neither will I offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord my God, which cost me nothing." So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. So the Lord was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.

First Kings 16:24: And Omri bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver: and he built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built , after the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill, Samaria.

So the cities of Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), and Jerusalem, as well as the land of Samaria, belong to the Jews, from their deed, which is in the Bible. The Arabs are living there illegally.

So, no deeds then, I thought not. See Shusha's post about religous beliefs not being valid in a court of law...

They were on special display at the Stanford site. All links are gone. But a quick trip to the Wiki about the founding of Tel Aviv (or Ahuzit Bayit) will clear all that up for you.. Next time I go to Silicon Valley, I'll get access from the Stanford library.

Not a problem, no-one has ever disputed Tel Aviv was a Jewish settler creation along with Petah Tikva, but if you are suggesting from that that every city in modern Zionist Israel was "bought" legally from the then Palestinian/Ottoman owners, you are on very shakey ground. We know from records that the Zionist project only managed to purchase betwen 5-7% of Palestine. The rest of the country, they illegally appropriated through violence and intimidation.

 

[Challenger]

The problem is that Israeli wants to maintain a theocratic state that only allows those of a specific religion to rule. That just doesn't match up with Western values, it is more akin to Islamic theocracies.

You're kidding, right? Israel does not match up with Western values? Israel is a theocratic state? Like Islamic states whose laws are based on sharia? What planet do you live on?

Israel has people of all religions and ethnic groups running their government. How many Jews govern Gaza? Or Palestine? Oh wait, none! Because there are no Jews there.

Earth, (from the center of the galaxy, longitude: 179° 56′ 39.4″, latitude: +0° 2′ 46.2″, distance: 7,940 ± 420 parsecs (25,900 ± 1,400 light years, just in case you come from another planet, yourself ).

"The Chief Rabbis of Israel have been yielded a lot of political power in this country. It is their influence and actions that impact all facets of Israeli life, along with a huge, publicly funded budget under their control. The Israeli government has even given the Chief Rabbis the power to determine who is Jewish: One might have extensive proof of Jewishness (birth certificate, conversion certificate, ketubah or marriage contract) and yet, if there is any doubt in the mind of the rabbi, that individual can be denied basic rights like the ability to make aliyah under Israel’s Law of Return, without unreasonable obstacles. The Chief Rabbinate also controls marriage. After proving their Jewishness and sometimes even attending humiliating “family purity” classes, all Israeli couples must be married in an Orthodox ceremony by an Orthodox Rabbi in order to be allowed the rights of a married couple under Israeli law. This drives many Israeli couples to go to other countries to get married; they do not wish their union to be sanctioned in an Orthodox fashion, and if they are wed in another country, the marriage must be accepted under Israeli law." The Problem With Israel's Chief Rabbinate

Yeah, very "non-theocratic Western"

 

[Challenger]

BDS has the only just solution.

only to anti-semite terrorist supporters

Like Zionists, got it.

 

[Challenger]

That is the essence of the conflict -- Jews want Jewish self-determination

No, Zionists insist on "Jews", a multi ethnic religious group, having "self-determination" in a land they have no link to other than a tenuous religious one. As you said yourself, religious views are not valid in a court of law.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

That is the essence of the conflict -- Jews want Jewish self-determination

No, Zionists insist on "Jews", a multi ethnic religious group, having "self-determination" in a land they have no link to other than a tenuous religious one. As you said yourself, religious views are not valid in a court of law.

Not only a religious connection (which itself is a very intense one), but also one based on ancestry, history and culture. It's the only place in the world where a unique Israeli culture is celebrated, as opposed to a Palestinian-Arab culture, which is no different than 22 others. Unfortunately, you've never been there, seen it or experienced it for yourself. Also, as someone whose dad lost his family in WW2, it's important to have one last refuge for Jews, so we don't have to rely on the whimsical kindness of others. And not only in terms of persecution. When the Ethiopian Jews were threatened by drought, they went to Israel.

 

[teddyearp]

<snip> and Arab exclusive access to the Temple Mount?

They are already almost living with this now.

 

[Shusha]

That is the essence of the conflict -- Jews want Jewish self-determination

No, Zionists insist on "Jews", a multi ethnic religious group, having "self-determination" in a land they have no link to other than a tenuous religious one. As you said yourself, religious views are not valid in a court of law.

I said religious beliefs are not a valid basis for international law, as in you can't formulate international law based on religious beliefs. Clearly.

And the Jewish religious links to the land is anything but "tenuous". Nor are the ethnic, cultural and historical links "tenuous". They are clear and ancient and precede all other surviving cultures. It is ridiculous in the extreme to argue otherwise.

Why, by any objective measure, would the Jewish right to self-determination be any less valid than any other culture's right to self-determination? What does one need, in order to be considered a "people" deserving of self-determination? Objectively.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is the essence of the conflict -- Jews want Jewish self-determination

No, Zionists insist on "Jews", a multi ethnic religious group, having "self-determination" in a land they have no link to other than a tenuous religious one. As you said yourself, religious views are not valid in a court of law.

I said religious beliefs are not a valid basis for international law, as in you can't formulate international law based on religious beliefs. Clearly.

And the Jewish religious links to the land is anything but "tenuous". Nor are the ethnic, cultural and historical links "tenuous". They are clear and ancient and precede all other surviving cultures. It is ridiculous in the extreme to argue otherwise.

Why, by any objective measure, would the Jewish right to self-determination be any less valid than any other culture's right to self-determination? What does one need, in order to be considered a "people" deserving of self-determination? Objectively.

What does one need, in order to be considered a "people" deserving of self-determination?

Surely not somebody Else's land.

 

[Shusha]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

 

[Shusha]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

Well, by definition, if you belong to a people and that people originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land and are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, you have ancestors from that land and it is your land.

How are you proposing to determine whether or not an individual has ancestors from that land or not? What's the test? Are we testing everyone? Or just Jews?

 

[Shusha]

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

Surely you are not claiming that no Jew has ancestors from that land. Surely, then by your own definition, some Jews must have a claim to that land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

Well, by definition, if you belong to a people and that people originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land and are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, you have ancestors from that land and it is your land.

How are you proposing to determine whether or not an individual has ancestors from that land or not? What's the test? Are we testing everyone? Or just Jews?

You are just assuming that some people have ancestors from that land.

 

[Shusha]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

Well, by definition, if you belong to a people and that people originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land and are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, you have ancestors from that land and it is your land.

How are you proposing to determine whether or not an individual has ancestors from that land or not? What's the test? Are we testing everyone? Or just Jews?

You are just assuming that some people have ancestors from that land.

No. I'm asking you what your criteria is for determining that people do (or do not) have ancestors from that land. How do you measure it?

 

[teddyearp]

You'll get nothing but snippets and eventually a pretzel from Tinmore.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

Well, by definition, if you belong to a people and that people originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land and are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, you have ancestors from that land and it is your land.

How are you proposing to determine whether or not an individual has ancestors from that land or not? What's the test? Are we testing everyone? Or just Jews?

You are just assuming that some people have ancestors from that land.

What about the Cave of Machpelah, which houses the tombs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Sarah, Rebecca and Leah? You can't have better ancestors than that!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Surely not somebody Else's land.

If your peoples originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land, are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, is it not your land?

Not if you have no ancestors from that place.

Well, by definition, if you belong to a people and that people originated on that land, developed on that land, held sovereignty on that land, have thousands of years of history on that land and are the oldest surviving peoples claiming that land, you have ancestors from that land and it is your land.

How are you proposing to determine whether or not an individual has ancestors from that land or not? What's the test? Are we testing everyone? Or just Jews?

You are just assuming that some people have ancestors from that land.

What about the Cave of Machpelah, which houses the tombs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Sarah, Rebecca and Leah? You can't have better ancestors than that!

I suppose you have proof that they are your ancestors?

I don't think so.

 

[Shusha]

What is your criteria for "proof" of ancestry?