Does the state of Palestine exist ?

[preacherman76]

I know Palestine to this day refuses to recognize Israel no matter what Israel gives them. They cant. Its literally against their religion.  

[docyabut2]

Its all about Abraham two sons  Isaac and Ishmael,  of which son was promised  that land , if it were not  for a Jewish state, it become a Islamic state.

Edited January 1, 2017 by docyabut2

[RoofGardener]

How could Ishmael have created an Islamic State, 800 years or more before Islam was even created ? 

[docyabut2]

10 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

How could Ishmael have created an Islamic State, 800 years or more before Islam was even created ? 

Preferring  to now, if the Jewish state was taken away for any reason,  that land  would be come a Islamic state.

[kartikg]

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:23 PM, and then said:

No, I'm not going off on any tangent.  It's a simple question.  If my president, with 3 weeks left in his term, decided today to vote yes for Palestinian Statehood, the State of Palestine would exist in hours.  Is this not true?  

And tell me why exactly USA has this divine right ? 

[kartikg]

long story short Palestine is not a state or nation, it's illegally occupied by fraudsters. just imagine someone coming to your farm and staying there and claim that it's theirs? IMO whatever land is disputed is highly congested and God forbid if any disease breaks out, the near by Muslim countries should donate some land for their brothers and let them have their own nation and let them live in peace and dignity. 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

On 12/30/2016 at 7:45 PM, docyabut2 said:

Does the state of Palestine exist ? yes it  it did in   the state of  Palestine in ancient history of  Giza and  was once Greek. 

Short answer NO!!

 

Long Answer:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

Quote

In AD 135, the Emperor Hadrian blotted out the name “Provincia Judea” and renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”. This was the Latin version of the Greek name and soon became a name to be used as an administrative unit. This name was shortened to Palaestina and the name “Palestine” was derived from it as a modern and anglicized version. No changes occurred to this name until after the fourth century had passed when Palestine was divided in to three regions, following the imperial reorganization. The name Palestine was used by the Christian Crusades to regard all three of the divided regions in general and continued to be used for the regions on both sides of the Jordan River in general. Palestine went under the rule of the Ottoman Turks for 400 years where its administration was attached to Damascus. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the name Palestine was revived and was applied to the land falling under the British Mandate for Palestine. Arabs use the name “Falastin” for Palestine which is an Arab pronunciation of the Roman word “Palaestina.”

 

[docyabut2]

The trace of the original populace of Palestine is rather difficult but the ancient inhabitants of Palestine are known to be ancient Greeks hailed from Asia Minor and not Arabs or Semites.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early.php

Edited January 2, 2017 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

Make sense to me, the Hebrews might have been of the descendants  of  Greece, they are of the lighter skin then of the Arabs  

[Phaeton80]

On 2-1-2017 at 0:52 PM, RoofGardener said:

How could Ishmael have created an Islamic State, 800 years or more before Islam was even created ? 

 

Based on thesame logic Isaac and Jacob could have created a 'Jewish state' dear mr. Gardener. You do know Moses was born about 245 years after Abraham, Im sure. If one would have asked Abraham (or Moses for that matter) if he knew Judaism; he would obviously reply in a negative manner. In fact, it would be excessively more plausible they would recognize 'Islam' in terms of religion than they would 'Judaism'.

'Islam' literally means submission (to G*d) - the G*d of Adam, Kenan, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Aaron, Moses, David, Solomon etc etc. It is really no different than how Judaism came to be, given it was no more than the future name of one of Abrahams progeny, and resulting tribe. Thesame goes for the term Israel.

Also; " On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

Traditional Jewish interpretation, and that of most Christian commentators, define Abraham's descendants as Abraham's seed only through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau.^{[4][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]}This may however reflect an eisegesis or reconstruction of primary verses based on the later biblical emphasis of Jacob's descendants. The promises given to Abraham happened prior to the birth of Isaac and were given to all his offspring signified through the rite of circumcision. Johann Friedrich Karl Keil is less clear, as he states that the covenant is through Isaac, but notes that Ishmael's descendants have held much of that land through time.^[17]

..Adding ofcourse, that the deceit of Jacob against his father removed Isaac's blessings illegitimately from Esau to Isaac. Thereby hijacking that which did not belong to him through deceit. Lets just hope that doesnt say anything about his descendants shall we..

[ExpandMyMind]

Lol I can't believe this is still being debated here. There have been Palestinian passports issued since at least 1920 and the indigenous population have been referred to as Palestinians for just as long. You can see them referred to as such in all the relevant documents of the time (Royal Commission etc). But the most important fact here is that they refer to themselves as such and really that's all that matters. Self determination I mean. I'm not going to bother going into this any further, since it always ends up with me laughing and crying at the stupidity (or ignorance) of others, but to say there is no such thing as a Palestinian is a horrendous claim to make. 

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[+and-then]

On 1/2/2017 at 4:29 PM, kartikg said:

And tell me why exactly USA has this divine right ? 

I never said anything about a divine right.  I merely pointed out a factual condition.  If tomorrow, the US president had his UN ambassador vote yes on a resolution for Palestinian statehood, the State would be a fait accompli.  Sure, there would still be wrangling over details about the borders and such, but since the US is all that has kept it from happening until now, it's obvious what would happen if we suddenly withdrew our reservations.  

[RavenHawk]

7 hours ago, and then said:

Sure, there would still be wrangling over details about the borders and such,

It would still take more than drawing lines in the sand.  Sykes-Picot proved that.  But no proposed border arrangement is feasible.  The local history has proved that.  Any plan leaves either with a divided homeland and/or indefensible borders.  The only possible solution is a one-state solution, winner take all.  We already know what will happen to Palestine if it gains statehood, but if the Security Council approves it, what else do you think will happen?  The Kurds would have every right to seek statehood.  That would directly effect at least 4 other nations.  Palestine gaining statehood would cause more unrest.  How would all of this affect the Saudi plan for Pan-Arabia?  And Iran’s plan to thwart it?

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It would still take more than drawing lines in the sand.  Sykes-Picot proved that.  But no proposed border arrangement is feasible.  The local history has proved that.  Any plan leaves either with a divided homeland and/or indefensible borders.  The only possible solution is a one-state solution, winner take all.  We already know what will happen to Palestine if it gains statehood, but if the Security Council approves it, what else do you think will happen?  The Kurds would have every right to seek statehood.  That would directly effect at least 4 other nations.  Palestine gaining statehood would cause more unrest.  How would all of this affect the Saudi plan for Pan-Arabia?  And Iran’s plan to thwart it?

 

I was merely trying to explain the flow of such an "agreement" that would lead to Statehood and why a US demurral or yes vote would bring it about.  I have zero illusions of where we're headed there.  Just a matter of time.  This could really be the year when things start moving in earnest.

[docyabut2]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 8:37 AM, Phaeton80 said:

 

Based on thesame logic Isaac and Jacob could have created a 'Jewish state' dear mr. Gardener. You do know Moses was born about 245 years after Abraham, Im sure. If one would have asked Abraham (or Moses for that matter) if he knew Judaism; he would obviously reply in a negative manner. In fact, it would be excessively more plausible they would recognize 'Islam' in terms of religion than they would 'Judaism'.

'Islam' literally means submission (to G*d) - the G*d of Adam, Kenan, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Aaron, Moses, David, Solomon etc etc. It is really no different than how Judaism came to be, given it was no more than the future name of one of Abrahams progeny, and resulting tribe. Thesame goes for the term Israel.

Also; " On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

Traditional Jewish interpretation, and that of most Christian commentators, define Abraham's descendants as Abraham's seed only through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau.^{[4][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]}This may however reflect an eisegesis or reconstruction of primary verses based on the later biblical emphasis of Jacob's descendants. The promises given to Abraham happened prior to the birth of Isaac and were given to all his offspring signified through the rite of circumcision. Johann Friedrich Karl Keil is less clear, as he states that the covenant is through Isaac, but notes that Ishmael's descendants have held much of that land through time.^[17]

..Adding ofcourse, that the deceit of Jacob against his father removed Isaac's blessings illegitimately from Esau to Isaac. Thereby hijacking that which did not belong to him through deceit. Lets just hope that doesnt say anything about his descendants shall we..

I ve  read in the Islam books,  they believe it was Ishmael that was the sacrifice and promise the land, before Haggar and  Ishmael were kicked out of the camp  and  started a new land.

[AdealJustice]

I think we are overcomplicating this. Regardless of it was a state or not the fact is there are two peoples, who are both semetic that need to get a long. What we should be doing is formulating a solution for this not debating the semantics of existence.

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, AdealJustice said:

Regardless of it was a state or not the fact is there are two peoples, who are both semetic that need to get a long.

Why do they *NEED* to get along?  One cannot accept the other as an equal because it is against their faith.  And the other doesn’t want the one to be a nation for the same reasons that the neighbors do not want it.

 

What we should be doing is formulating a solution for this not debating the semantics of existence.

Why do *WE* need to be formulating?  One thing should be obvious and that is that third parties cannot impose peace.  Only the two participants can do that.  Imposing peace will only incur more war.

[AdealJustice]

15 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Why do they *NEED* to get along?

For obvious reasons. This really isn't rocket science.

15 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

One cannot accept the other as an equal because it is against their faith. 

Against whose faith? I'm not sure what you are getting at. Palestinian muslims wont accept Israelis? and that too because of their faith? This is quite the claim. I am an ardent critic of Islam but the Quran states Israel belongs to the Jews. So if these people wont accept Israel then it definitely isn't based on their holy scripture.  Geo political circumstances play a greater role.

15 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Why do *WE* need to be formulating?

Because we are also the ones discussing. It would be more constructive to formulate solutions than to continually and redundantly participate in the debate of who's land is this.

15 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

One thing should be obvious and that is that third parties cannot impose peace.  Only the two participants can do that.  Imposing peace will only incur more war.

To the contrary if we can build a consensus of peace in that region among interest groups and states we can effectively "impose" peace.  An imposed peace is still peace. From that point on an intellectual and academic infiltration can be possible to dissuade these people from wanting violent conflicts as solutions. Is there any such thing as good brainwashing?

My suggestion was of a constructive kind. No point in wallowing in the stagnation of redundancy that comes along with the Israel/Palestine conflict or Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. There is more to be gained from being productive neighbors than destructive neighbors. These places need relationships the way Canada/US have them. Even after historical conflicts both nations are had greater peace but for that they must have mutual goals of progression.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by AdealJustice

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, AdealJustice said:

For obvious reasons. This really isn't rocket science.

And what is obvious for you?

 

Against whose faith? I'm not sure what you are getting at. Palestinian muslims wont accept Israelis? and that too because of their faith? This is quite the claim. I am an ardent critic of Islam but the Quran states Israel belongs to the Jews. So if these people wont accept Israel then it definitely isn't based on their holy scripture.  Geo political circumstances play a greater role.

It is partly geo/political but Islam is more than just a belief system.  The belief (their holy scripture) is that *ALL* aspects of life are controlled by Allah.  If you are familiar with Shirk and Bida then you understand what I’m getting at.  If not, then you need to search out some answers.  If you are an ardent critic, you should know this??

 

The Quran doesn’t actually say that it belongs to the Jews.  It just references that Allah allows them to live there.  And that is perhaps one of the many humps.  In Islam, people do not own land unless Allah gives it to them.  In Judeo-Christian thought, possession of the land is a natural GOD-given right.  The whole point of Israel is the right of self-determination and dominion over the land.  But that places the Jew in a superior position over the Muslim and that is not allowed.  The Jew can only live there as a Dhimmis.  This is a much lower status (it is not the status of equals).  In Islam, the Covenant flows through Ismael and not Abraham-Issac-Jacob, so by that, Jews don’t own the land.  But today, we don’t have to rely on an ancient claim.  Jews own the land legitimately via purchase and by spoils and by law.  The Palestinians don’t.

 

Because we are also the ones discussing. It would be more constructive to formulate solutions than to continually and redundantly participate in the debate of who's land is this.

And what if the solution is to formulate as to whose land it is?  There is nothing to stop anyone from discussing the possibilities but all the factors are known, all the possibilities have been rehashed.  There is nothing new that will magically appear.

 

To the contrary if we can build a consensus of peace in that region among interest groups and states we can effectively "impose" peace.  An imposed peace is still peace. From that point on an intellectual and academic infiltration can be possible to dissuade these people from wanting violent conflicts as solutions.

That’s not a lasting peace.  Peace imposed only festers the hate more.  You don’t build a consensus with anybody else but those direct parties.  The British tried it in the 20s, 30s, & 40s and failed.  The only way for a third party to do it is to occupy the region for several generations and will have to be more brutal than either side were to impose a peace.  You either go all out or keep hands off.  If you go all out – why, in the first place?  Especially when you have groups like ISIS killing believers and non-believers alike, two pariah nations racing to be nuclear armed, and 65 million refugees worldwide.  Those seem to be far more important concerns.

 

Is there any such thing as good brainwashing?

But that is what we are fighting.  Islam and Socialism are perhaps the two best manipulation ideologies.

My suggestion was of a constructive kind. No point in wallowing in the stagnation of redundancy that comes along with the Israel/Palestine conflict or Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan.

It’s stagnation because third parties won’t allow natural processes to solve the problem itself.  It’s the Globalist mentality.

 

There is more to be gained from being productive neighbors than destructive neighbors.

Well, that would be nice if the Palestinian could be productive.

 

These places need relationships the way Canada/US have them. Even after historical conflicts both nations are had greater peace but for that they must have mutual goals of progression.

It would be better to use England, Germany, and Japan.  Many times, you have to fight each other before you see eye to eye.  But look at the history of Europe.  Everyone has fought everyone else and several times.  Peace and common goals ebb and flow.  Currently, it is pretty stable but it is just a matter of time before something blows up again.  The Hijrah will be the trigger for the next thing.  In 50 years time, some European nations will be Muslim.

[AdealJustice]

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And what is obvious for you?

not really. just to the generally observant. the question was, why do they NEED to get along. pretty elementary.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It is partly geo/political but Islam is more than just a belief system.  The belief (their holy scripture) is that *ALL* aspects of life are controlled by Allah.

sounds like the other 2 monotheistic religions from the same region.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If you are familiar with Shirk and Bida then you understand what I’m getting at.  If not, then you need to search out some answers.  If you are an ardent critic, you should know this??

Considering I'm an ex muslim its safe to say I know the inner workings of that stagnant religion. Types of shirk ,etc are still debated by Islamic scholars to this day. 1400 years later and they still aren't able to agree on most of these things hence the immense sectarian division and conflict.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The Quran doesn’t actually say that it belongs to the Jews.  It just references that Allah allows them to live there.  And that is perhaps one of the many humps.  In Islam, people do not own land unless Allah gives it to them.  In Judeo-Christian thought, possession of the land is a natural GOD-given right.

 

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The whole point of Israel is the right of self-determination and dominion over the land. 

The whole point of Israel is still being debated to this day and for years to comes.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The Jew can only live there as a Dhimmis.  This is a much lower status (it is not the status of equals).  In Islam, the Covenant flows through Ismael and not Abraham-Issac-Jacob, so by that, Jews don’t own the land.  But today, we don’t have to rely on an ancient claim.

Much of Israels claim to that land is ancient lol... I simply think you hold great disdain for muslims and don't see the differences in the beliefs they might hold.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Jews own the land legitimately via purchase and by spoils and by law

 

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Those seem to be far more important concerns

All concerns warrant conversation. Some aren't to be ignored simply because you deem them unworthy of attention.

 

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s stagnation because third parties won’t allow natural processes to solve the problem itself.  It’s the Globalist mentality

Natural processes? such as? I'm not pro globalist myself but wouldn't globalism suggest a more cohesive nation state community?

 

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

In 50 years time, some European nations will be Muslim.

And that is a scary thought. As scary as a secular nation reverting to ANY religious theocracy.

[RoofGardener]

AJ, I don't know Islamic scripture well enough to intelligently discuss the issue with you. 

However, you presumably accept that both HAMAS and the PLO mandate the destruction of the state of israel. (and are somewhat... coy... about the fate of the jews). They also both state that any solution - particularly international agreements - that fall short of the destruction of the state of Israel are inadmissible. 

As both the PLO and HAMAS are self-perpetuating oligarchies, and not vulnerable to democratic debate on the part of the Palestinian people, then it is difficult to see how an externally imposed peace treaty could be effective ? 

[MrBene]

On 3/1/2017 at 10:42 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

Lol I can't believe this is still being debated here. There have been Palestinian passports issued since at least 1920 and the indigenous population have been referred to as Palestinians for just as long. You can see them referred to as such in all the relevant documents of the time (Royal Commission etc). But the most important fact here is that they refer to themselves as such and really that's all that matters. Self determination I mean. I'm not going to bother going into this any further, since it always ends up with me laughing and crying at the stupidity (or ignorance) of others, but to say there is no such thing as a Palestinian is a horrendous claim to make. 

 

This. 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, MrBene said:

This. 

Not really.  They can call themselves Palestinians forever but that doesn't mean they have a State.  In fact, the only thing that really bonds them together is a virulent hatred of Jews.  Ex is correct, though, the topic has been done to death.  Time will tell the tale for the "state of Palestine".

[RavenHawk]

14 hours ago, AdealJustice said:

not really. just to the generally observant. the question was, why do they NEED to get along. pretty elementary.

That’s not something that is obvious.  That is wishful thinking.  There is no requirement that they NEED to get along.  At the very least it is up to them and no one else.

 

sounds like the other 2 monotheistic religions from the same region.

“Sounds like” is as far as that comparison goes.  It is not as restrictive in or reflective of the other two.  Judaism is non-proselytizing so there is no submit or die option.  Jesus’ message is respect and love.  Sure, the concept is to accept Jesus as the son of GOD but since the Peace of Westphalia, there is no Earthly punishment for not adhering to the faith.  That was a concept entirely created by Man in the early Church.  Probably stimulated by first contact with Islam.

 

Considering I'm an ex muslim its safe to say I know the inner workings of that stagnant religion.

Interesting…  Yes, of course.  That would be the hope.  I’d be curious about what you would think Islam would look like if it wasn’t stagnant?

 

Types of shirk ,etc are still debated by Islamic scholars to this day. 1400 years later and they still aren't able to agree on most of these things hence the immense sectarian division and conflict.

That’s sort of disingenuous.  Shirk is perhaps the most major sin this is.  Shirk is not like the debate of whether full submersion is required or will sprinkling do for baptism?  We are talking about putting the law of Man equal to the law of Allah (Sharia).  Whenever you see polls concerning what Muslims think about the superiority of Sharia, it is almost always overwhelming favorable even among Apostates.  I’m not trying to say that is bad.  In fact, that is expected.  Muslims should prefer Sharia.  But that is the crux of the issue.  Muslims can’t just partially follow Sharia.  It is an all or nothing proposition (by definition).

 

The whole point of Israel is still being debated to this day and for years to comes.

So you don’t acknowledge Israel’s right to exist?  For those that do, there is no debate.  Perhaps the debate is over the debate??

 

Much of Israels claim to that land is ancient lol...

Only part of the claim has ancient roots.  The modern claim carries more weight. 

 

I simply think you hold great disdain for muslims and don't see the differences in the beliefs they might hold.

It’s not distain.  There is no hatred.  But I am very critical of the faith.  If you’ve spent any time really reading what I write on the subject, I think it would be clear.  Every Muslim I’ve ever dealt with from long ago till now, there has always been issues of honesty.  And that raises red flags with me.  Perhaps the first concept I learned was Taqiya.  It seems to be second nature.  I see very clearly the differences in the beliefs they might hold, but that is really trivial.  It’s not the differences; it’s what is the same.

 

All concerns warrant conversation.

I’ll agree that they warrant conversation but as I said, every angle has been hashed over and rehashed.  All that’s left is to let the Fellahin and the Jew work it out.

 

Some aren't to be ignored simply because you deem them unworthy of attention.

That’s basically what I was saying.  People that aren’t favorable toward Israel will tend to ignore the real issues around the planet as being unworthy.  They put an over proportional amount of time on Israel.  Forgive me if I have the numbers wrong but the UN had issued over 20 resolutions against Israel and only 3 for the rest of the world in just the last year.

 

Natural processes? such as?  

Let nature take its course.  Some cultures never take off.  Neither should they.  It’s not healthy for Civilization.  Let the Palestinian absorb back into the neighbors, including for a few becoming Israeli citizens.

 

I'm not pro globalist myself but wouldn't globalism suggest a more cohesive nation state community?

Not exactly.  Perhaps an imposed cohesive nation police state.

 

And that is a scary thought. As scary as a secular nation reverting to ANY religious theocracy.

That’s what Europe is facing today.  I’m just wondering if the “C-ock” is alive today??

[ali smack]

I would say that the state of palestine does exist. I just think it's sad how it's getting smaller with settlers taking more and more land off them.