The greatest threat to Israel?

[L00b]

doesn't land belong to the people living on it or do you consider immigrants have no right to be living in the uk?

Only if they own title deeds or occupy it for a sufficiently long time (acquisition by prescription). I'd say Israel qualifies on both counts.

 

The alternative doesn't bear thinking about, because logically every place of just about every country on Earth would have to go back millennia to find the 'rightful' first owners. Nonsensical.

 

Of course, and unfortunately, common sense finds no currency with the politically biased.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The occupied territories became so after the 6 day war in 1967.

Er, no. Conquest is a perfectly proper way to acquire sovereign land, given that there's no such thing as International Law. So those territories became and remain part and parcel of Israel; use of the epithet 'occupied' is inaccurate, pejorative, and tendentious.

[unbeliever]

Er, no. Conquest is a perfectly proper way to acquire sovereign land, given that there's no such thing as International Law. So those territories became and remain part and parcel of Israel; use of the epithet 'occupied' is inaccurate, pejorative, and tendentious.

 

I understand that Israel prefers the "disputed territories" but they exist in the zeitgeist as the "occupied territories".

Still you have a point. Israel all but annexed this land decades ago. Still they permit a large degree of self rule. The situation is messy even if you don't involve the UN.

 

My main point is that the previous owners of this land lost it because of a war of aggression they started with the intention of performing a genocide and then lost because they're idiots.

[Celia Paul]

How did they get it?

It was the promised land.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 17:20 ----------

 

And wasnt Palestine mentioned in the Bible. I know I dont believe much of what the Bible says but they must have kept to some historical accuracy.

 

So if Palestine was in the Bible surely they should be entitled to have their own state.

You mean Philistines.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 17:26 ----------

 

The occupied territories became so after the 6 day war in 1967.

The Islamic countries surrounding Israel got bored one day and decided to go Jew slaughtering. They lost spectacularly due to their own incompetence and lost land as a result.

 

If you want to make a case against the establishment of modern Israel after the second world war you might have a point.

 

I think it's out of order to classify strapping a bomb to one of your own children and then sending them onto a bus full of your enemy's children as self-defence, but maybe that's just me.

When you look at the map of the middle east and see the size of Israel compared to the Arab states it amazes me how such a tiny country wupped all the Arabs at the same time.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 17:27 ----------

 

I understand that Israel prefers the "disputed territories" but they exist in the zeitgeist as the "occupied territories".

Still you have a point. Israel all but annexed this land decades ago. Still they permit a large degree of self rule. The situation is messy even if you don't involve the UN.

 

My main point is that the previous owners of this land lost it because of a war of aggression they started with the intention of performing a genocide and then lost because they're idiots.

Excellent point, well put.

[unbeliever]

It was the promised land.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 17:20 ----------

 

You mean Philistines.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 17:26 ----------

 

When you look at the map of the middle east and see the size of Israel compared to the Arab states it amazes me how such a tiny country wupped all the Arabs at the same time.

 

 

When modern Israel was established after the second world war, the residents of that land were forcibly removed. This was highly morally questionable.

In 1967 when (mostly) Syria and Egypt decided to exterminate the Israelis and got their arses kicked, they lost some land. That's their own damn fault.

 

 

There has been an Israel in roughly that location for a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(Samaria)

 

And a Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

 

There's also the matter of Judea, but that's likely to just confuse matters further.

 

But don't get too caught up in the names.

Just because it was called Palestine, doesn't mean it was populated by the followers of Mohammed.

 

When it comes to the matter of race, both the Israelis and modern Palestinians are mostly Semites. So they're basically all the same race.

 

As usual, the various worshippers of the god of Abraham are hell bent on slaughtering each other. In other news, bear craps in woods.

 

The Israelis are at least a civilised democracy who don't target civilians, so I know who's side I would choose. Doesn't mean that they couldn't do better or should be immune from criticism.

Edited July 23, 2015 by unbeliever

[Celia Paul]

When modern Israel was established after the second world war, the residents of that land were forcibly removed. This was highly morally questionable.

In 1967 when (mostly) Syria and Egypt decided to exterminate the Israelis and got their arses kicked, they lost some land. That's their own damn fault.

They also attacked Israel in the late forties and got wupped then or didn't you know that?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Celia Paul

[unbeliever]

The also attacked Israel in the late forties and got wupped then or didn't you know that?

 

Yes, but that's not how they got themselves into the current situation.

Although without that conflict, much of the "occupied/disputed territories" might well have been part of modern Israel from the foundation.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 18:55 ----------

 

To answer the OP question.

 

The greatest threat to Israel is from ignorant liberals in the west with a minimal understanding of the situation persuading their governments to abandon Israel to its far more aggressive neighbours and allowing the people of a free and democratic country to be slaughtered.

 

You would have thought that Socialism had killed enough of the Jews in the 20th century. Let's not have a repeat in the 21st.

Edited July 23, 2015 by unbeliever

[geared]

To be fair they have given a significant amount of land back that was captured in the 1967 war.

 

The Sinai Peninsula is now a hot-bed for terrorists and extremists, perhaps Israel should have just kept hold of it?

Edited July 24, 2015 by geared

[unbeliever]

To be fair they have given a significant amount of land back that was captured in the 1967 war.

 

The Sinai Peninsula is now a hot-bed for terrorists and extremists, perhaps Israel should have just kept hold of it?

 

They have indeed. At not inconsiderable risk to their own national security.

 

I am at a loss to understand why Socialists/Liberals in the west take against Israel. You'd thought they'd have learned by now that the Jews are not the devils they've been labelled as historically.

 

If the surrounding states had the power to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew they could lay their hands on, they would. They've said as much.

It shows enormous restraint and good conscience by Israel that they have been so merciful with enemies who would exterminate them if the situation were reversed.

 

I'm not even slightly jewish by the way in case anybody was speculating.

[geared]

I am at a loss to understand why Socialists/Liberals in the west take against Israel. You'd thought they'd have learned by now that the Jews are not the devils they've been labelled as historically.

 

The same morons usually bleat on about equal rights and such, but have no such qualms when it comes to their obviously anti-Semitic views???