Does Israel have a right to exist?

[samir_shannon 0]

yes it does have a right to exist

[snz1802 0]

Yes it does have a right to exist, History is history, what is done is done. Present is what needs to be looked at, the people who live there today had nothing to do with how Israel came to be in the past, that is just my opinion.

[Isabel 0]

I vote yes. What do you think? For the purposes of this, disregard the current conflict in the region. Simply state whether or not you believe the nation as we know it today, has a right to exist.

I really dont get the purpose of this poll. Why would you point out Israel? Doesnt every country has the right to exist? That is totally useless to ask in IMO

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I vote yes. What do you think? For the purposes of this, disregard the current conflict in the region. Simply state whether or not you believe the nation as we know it today, has a right to exist.

I really dont get the purpose of this poll. Why would you point out Israel? Doesnt every country has the right to exist? That is totally useless to ask in IMO

Because at this time, about 28% of respondents have voted no. Israel's right to exist is not as widely accepted as the right to exist of say, Germany or China.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

I have my own opinions about Israel. But you can all judge for your self. The key here is to actually do your own research and READ and not follow the main stream media who blind sides its viewers by only showing a one sided story. It saddends me that there is so much injustice and many dont see it because they only know what comes out on fox or cnn and nbc.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendID=32424780

I vote yes. What do you think? For the purposes of this, disregard the current conflict in the region. Simply state whether or not you believe the nation as we know it today, has a right to exist.

I really dont get the purpose of this poll. Why would you point out Israel? Doesnt every country has the right to exist? That is totally useless to ask in IMO

Because at this time, about 28% of respondents have voted no. Israel's right to exist is not as widely accepted as the right to exist of say, Germany or China.

[samir_shannon 0]

yes

[samir_shannon 0]

post boosting

[Diavy 0]

I'm not sure if israel does have a right to exist. Why are they so special? because according to the bible they are the chosen people of god? at least that's what the bible says. but then the people who decided what should be included in the bible were not very honest individuals. the israeili's have taken land away from the people who lived there since the beginning of time.

this is my opinion.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Yes, it does (Israel has right to exist).

Actually Gwen, you got it partly wrong.

Much of the ME was gotten by UK and France from Turkish (Ottoman) rule through the efforts of Gen. Allenby. TL Lawrence (aka "Lawrence of Arabia") gave away large tracts due to blackmail (he was caught in a homosexual tryst).

Part of the giveaway by Lawrence included 75% of Palestine-Transjordan region (to Sharif Husein, a Meccan), another involved making Hajamin Husseini "grand mufti"--Husseini had ambitions of being Sultan rather than "mufti" so he backstabbed his benefactors and became open supporter of Adolf Hitler (he actually recruited Kosovars and Bosnians for SS regiments).

When Israel was created in 1948, it was attacked immediately by several Arab nations (Transjordan, Syria, Egypt) who wanted to divide the Holy Land amongst themselves (of these Abdullah I of Transjordan actually ADMITTED he wanted it under his rule; Farouq of Egypt pretended he wanted to "help the Palestinians"--in reality, he wanted them as a colony; Gaza Strip was a colony of Egypt till 1967 when Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon were defeated in six-day war).

[Chuckles 0]

There is something I don't understand about all this, and I voted yes.

There is no nation of Palastine. There never was a nation of Palastine. A Palastinian nation is an arab fantasy. Palastine was a geographical area, never an organized nation. Prior to Israel's formation it was known as the British Mandate, as the British ruled it as a consequence of occupying it during WWII. The land was taken from Syria and Egypt. Who, incidently, were predudice against those who lived in the area and the Romans gave the name of Palanstinians, refering to the geographical area THEY TOOK FROM THE JEWS.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

There is something I don't understand about all this, and I voted yes.

There is no nation of Palastine. There never was a nation of Palastine.

A Palastinian nation is an arab fantasy. Palastine was a geographical area, never an organized nation.

On the nail here. The area was under combined Israel/Judah from 1050-930 BC, then split Israel (northern) and Judah (southern) from 930-722 BC, Judah only in south 722-586 BC (Assyria/Babylon in north--and Judah gave TRIBUTE to these, so hardly independent).

586 BC - 1453 AD, area ruled by external power (Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Ottoman Turks)

1453 - 1918 area under Ottoman Turks.

Prior to Israel's formation it was known as the British Mandate, as the British ruled it as a consequence of occupying it during WWII. The land was taken from Syria and Egypt.

Highlighting your mistakes in red--the "British Mandate of Palestine" was actually taken from Ottoman Turks (as I showed above) after WWI. True it was still ruled during WW2, but the (British) occupation was established fact-on-ground in 1939.

Who, incidently, were predudice against those who lived in the area

As said, these countries in 1948 wanted the LAND--with the Arab inhabitants as colonials.

and the Romans gave the name of Palanstinians, refering to the geographical area THEY TOOK FROM THE JEWS.

Correct that the Romans slapped the term "Palestine" on the land; the term was latin for "Philistine", a group which had formerly been there but by then defunct. The Romans however actually took over rule from the Macedonians (Seleucids); the majority of inhabitants however, WERE JEWS.

FYI, some modern "Palestinians" claim to be descended from Philistines, but the claim is highly inaccurate; the original Philistines were similar to the Tusi (very tall, lean, dark--would generally pass muster in modern Bujumbura). The "Palestinians" on the other hand are descended from Esau (aka Edom), a grandson of Abraham (btw, Esau was NOT the son of Ismail).

The Biblical book of Obadiah is a prophecy specific to the (post-Nebuchadnezzar) Edomites (prior to that they had been a kingdom; afterwards, Edomites reestablishing as a kingdom is divinely proscribed!)

Edited October 11, 2006 by CherryXS

[Elizabethnhenry 0]

hell to the yes

There is something I don't understand about all this, and I voted yes.

There is no nation of Palastine. There never was a nation of Palastine.

A Palastinian nation is an arab fantasy. Palastine was a geographical area, never an organized nation.

On the nail here. The area was under combined Israel/Judah from 1050-930 BC, then split Israel (northern) and Judah (southern) from 930-722 BC, Judah only in south 722-586 BC (Assyria/Babylon in north--and Judah gave TRIBUTE to these, so hardly independent).

586 BC - 1453 AD, area ruled by external power (Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Ottoman Turks)

1453 - 1918 area under Ottoman Turks.

Prior to Israel's formation it was known as the British Mandate, as the British ruled it as a consequence of occupying it during WWII. The land was taken from Syria and Egypt.

Highlighting your mistakes in red--the "British Mandate of Palestine" was actually taken from Ottoman Turks (as I showed above) after WWI. True it was still ruled during WW2, but the (British) occupation was established fact-on-ground in 1939.

Who, incidently, were predudice against those who lived in the area

As said, these countries in 1948 wanted the LAND--with the Arab inhabitants as colonials.

and the Romans gave the name of Palanstinians, refering to the geographical area THEY TOOK FROM THE JEWS.

Correct that the Romans slapped the term "Palestine" on the land; the term was latin for "Philistine", a group which had formerly been there but by then defunct. The Romans however actually took over rule from the Macedonians (Seleucids); the majority of inhabitants however, WERE JEWS.

FYI, some modern "Palestinians" claim to be descended from Philistines, but the claim is highly inaccurate; the original Philistines were similar to the Tusi (very tall, lean, dark--would generally pass muster in modern Bujumbura). The "Palestinians" on the other hand are descended from Esau (aka Edom), a grandson of Abraham (btw, Esau was NOT the son of Ismail).

The Biblical book of Obadiah is a prophecy specific to the (post-Nebuchadnezzar) Edomites (prior to that they had been a kingdom; afterwards, Edomites reestablishing as a kingdom is divinely proscribed!)

Very well explained.

[BJZags 17]

The easy answer is: "does it matter?" The middle-east is a political and religious mess. The morons in this region are going to likely kill each other off. Until they like their children more than they hate their perceived enemies or opposition tribes, it really doesn't matter which nation has a right to exist. Dead is dead. And don't be mistaken, Israel will be caught up in this madness.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The easy answer is: "does it matter?" The middle-east is a political and religious mess. The morons in this region are going to likely kill each other off. Until they like their children more than they hate their perceived enemies or opposition tribes, it really doesn't matter which nation has a right to exist. Dead is dead. And don't be mistaken, Israel will be caught up in this madness.

Why are you using "will be"? Israel has been the PRIMARY VVICTIM of such madness since 1948!

[BJZags 17]

Why are you using "will be"? Israel has been the PRIMARY VVICTIM of such madness since 1948!

Whether or not they have been "victims" I'm not sure. But you have just supported my point. It's gonna be a "let God sort em out" situation before too long.