Michael T.

"Dream"? Land ownership shifts all the time over the centuries.

Certainly the Christian White Dream for free land in Australia, the US, Argentina, Brazil, Russia and Canada was achieved through taking over the land of indigenous people.

Also Protestant English took over Catholic Irish land. Slavs took over German land in what is now Poland and Czechoslovakia.

So why can't Jewish people have the right to take over land?

Or do you go by the German-Russian Middle Ages racial-religious prejudice that Jewish people should always be banned from owning land?!

Pete

Dear Plantagenet,

Is anyone denying the right of Jews to own land?

Not that I am aware of, that was never the question at hand, which is, whether Israel should annex certain areas in the West Bank.

Israel is not "the Jewish people" - these are two quite distinct entities, and by-the-way, the majority of the Jewish people oppose that annexation.

BTW, I do not oppose the idea that some Jews may come and take over such lands and raise their own flag there if so they wish, so long as the state and people of Israel are not involved. Muslims already have 20+ states, so why can't Jews have two?

The State of Israel is the main, legal and most effective representative of the Jewish people in the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People

Dear Plantagenet,

Following some successful pork-barrelling, this controversial "basic law" to which you refer, was passed by the "impressive" majority of 62:55... What a show of unity of the Jewish people...

The majority of Jews had no say because they are not Israeli citizens.
The Orthodox Jews of Israel accepted this law only as part of the pork-barrelling bargain, despite many of them not even recognising the state of Israel.
Then what about those ex-Jews that are now erroneously called "Palestinians", who were pressured to convert by the invading Muslims? Are they not also the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom the land of Israel was allegedly promised? Do they not still worship the same God? Are they not more eligible for the Jewish inheritance than the millions of Caucasian converts that joined Judaism much later (of whom most of the Israelis today, Netanyahu included, are descendants)?

I firmly believe that should there been a referendum, by secret ballot, of all Jews, asking: "Do you approve the state of Israel to represent the Jewish people?", the majority would answer "No", and further, that this would be the result regardless whether eligibility was determined along ethnic or religious lines.

Even then, how can a body "represent" people who never agreed to be represented by it, nor have a say in its running?

And we still have not touched on the fact that over a quarter of Israel's citizens are not at all Jewish, while so many more do not believe the Jewish scriptures nor practice the commandments within, which say:

"Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time." [Deuteronomy, 4:39-40]

Thanks Y

However unjust that Basic Law is for some, it was still passed by a legal majority in the Middle East's only democracy.

In most non-Israeli countries of the Middle East the Dictator or King wouldn't even recognise a legal parliamentary majority.

That is unless HE (there being no female rulers of Islamic countries - the last one, in Pakistan, was murdered in 2007 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Assassination:_December_2007 ). Unless the Islamic or Royal HE rigged the parliamentaty vote by force.

So I'll amend the original statement to:

The State of Israel is the main, legal and most effective representative of the Jewish people in the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People

with the Basic Law in question passed by a legal "62 in favor, 55 against, and two abstentions"

Regards

Pete

#Loudmouth2

The Palestinian Arabs got the pathway to their State 98 years ago - in 1922 - when the Principal Allied Powers excluded the Jewish National Home provisions of the Mandate for Palestine from applying in 78% of the Mandate territory - Trans-Jordan - today called Jordan.

The Jews were dudded in 1922 into accepting just 22% - which included Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) - but reluctantly accepted this League of Nations carve up.

The Arabs did not.

98 years later - with millions of Jews and Arabs having been killed, maimed and traumatised - this two-state solution contemplated in 1922 still remains the solution to ending the conflict.

The 2020 solution requires Israel and Jordan - the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine currently sovereign in 95% of former Palestine - to allocate sovereignty in the remaining 5% by directly negotiating a new international boundary between their two respective States in accordance with their 1994 Peace Agreement.

Any proposal calling for another Arab state to be created between Israel and Jordan has always been - and remains - a total waste of time.