does israel have the right to exist?

[Imran Khan]

yard your argument is flawed and there is no basis for it….
pakistan could gain nothing from israel nor can israel stop pakistan from getting what it needs.

they are sir sorry to say but indian israeli lobby allow us so we have hands on modern tech accept it . without modern tech we have to lose more solders to gain targets

 

[qamar1990]

they are sir sorry to say but indian israeli lobby allow us so we have hands on modern tech accept it . without modern tech we have to lose more solders to gain targets

we get almost anything we need from the united states… we always have been getting it , right now we can't because we have no money… trust me.. israel has nothing to offer to pakistan.. neither do the Palestinians but ill choose the Palestinians simply because they are muslims and they are being oppressed by the other.

if we had money we can buy anything from america , no israeli lobby will be able to stop us either trust me on this bro.

Israel should only exist if they are able to accept a two-state solution with equal rights, remove the illegal settlements that host 400.000 illegal Zionists in the West Bank and remove the siege of Gaza.

Right now they are nothing more than a pariah apartheid state.

Regarding Jews being homogenous.

Yes, sure! Despite genetic tests, history etc. telling everything else. Is that not right? Keep telling yourself that Jews of today are all homogeneous when they are some of the most heterogeneous people on earth!

Now are you going to tell me that those 3 share a common ancestry? You must be kidding.




THE ONLY real Hebrews of today are those people - the Samaritans:



Do those two Samaritans look any different from the Palestinians or Arabs in general? The answer is no. Why? Because they are the only indigenous Jewish group in Israel.

Do you know how many of those are left? Try and guess.

Only 800 souls!

Samaritans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironically they never caused any problems and are some of the most peaceful people on earth.

thanks for your input bro..

 

[Imran Khan]

we get almost anything we need from the united states… we always have been getting it , right now we can't because we have no money… trust me.. israel has nothing to offer to pakistan.. neither do the Palestinians but ill choose the Palestinians simply because they are muslims and they are being oppressed by the other.

if we had money we can buy anything from america , no israeli lobby will be able to stop us either trust me on this bro.


thanks for your input bro..

lets agree on disagree here bro next step ?

 

[qamar1990]

lets agree on disagree here bro next step ?

well thats about it lol

 

[Imran Khan]

well thats about it lol

we can't be agree on policy bro simply

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

What about Israel butchery nowadays?

The missiles fired at Israel gives Israel right of self-defense.
The missiles are clearly a war-crime when fired at cities.

Any response must be "proportional" to military gains.
As far as I know, there is no definition what "proportional" means.
Looking at the sum of the casualties is wrong. You have to look at each and every incident.

If a missile is located in a building, and there is 1 civilian there,
I guess it is likely to be OK to bomb without this being considered a war crime.
(remember that presence of civilians does not protect a military target, according to Geneva convention)
If destroying a large building with 5000 civilians dead, then most likely it is not proportional.
If you ask for the limit, (66 killed OK/67 killed not OK) noone knows.

Facts does not matter as much as perceived facts. if Israel has proof (which later turns out to be false)
then it is a mistake, and not a war crime.

Civilians have very little protection under the Geneva convention.
You cannot determine if any specific death of a civilian is acceptable
collateral damage (military significance of target high), a mistake or a war crime
before a thorough investigation has been made by a non biased organisation.

I will not criticize nor condone any such operation, until such investigation has taken place.

What I do believe is that no good will come from either missiles or bombing, and both have to stop.

 

[Imran Khan]

The missiles fired at Israel gives Israel right of self-defense.
The missiles are clearly a war-crime when fired at cities.

Any response must be "proportional" to military gains.
As far as I know, there is no definition what "proportional" means.
Looking at the sum of the casualties is wrong. You have to look at each and every incident.

If a missile is located in a building, and there is 1 civilian there,
I guess it is likely to be OK to bomb without this being considered a war crime.
(remember that presence of civilians does not protect a military target, according to Geneva convention)
If destroying a large building with 5000 civilians dead, then most likely it is not proportional.
If you ask for the limit, (66 killed OK/67 killed not OK) noone knows.

Facts does not matter as much as perceived facts. if Israel has proof (which later turns out to be false)
then it is a mistake, and not a war crime.

Civilians have very little protection under the Geneva convention.
You cannot determine if any specific death of a civilian is acceptable
collateral damage (military significance of target high), a mistake or a war crime
before a thorough investigation has been made by a non biased organisation.

I will not criticize nor condone any such operation, until such investigation has taken place.

What I do believe is that no good will come from either missiles or bombing, and both have to stop.

they think whole world is Pakistan . Taliban killed 60000 pakistani civilians and military police personals and we have to talks with them. and some still openly said they are our brothers .

 

[Burger Boy]

Well Israel is a reality now and you can ignore Israel but it will still exist unless it's militarily defeated which is extremely unlikely as they are backed by US.

However, should Israel have been created in the first place? I would say no because zionism justifies a persecuted people from a different continent being resettled , just because those people share the same religion as someone who may have once lived there.

Zionists claimed that Palestine was "A land without a people, for a people without a land," which is a lie because the Arabs were already living there. There were many zionist freedom fighting group from Europe who were uprooting the native population of the Arabs in the early 20th century.

Then of course there's the religious claim to the land as the Jews are the "chosen people"

Why the need to go back into ancient history to justify their claim to the land......and if you wanna go back that far, the land belonged to Canaanites and Amalekites anyway.


I don't know how much of this would hold true for the younger generation which is born in Israel as they probably consider themselves natives of the land, rightly or wrongly, even if their grandparents were immigrants from elsewhere.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian dont chicken out- @qamar1990 jaan na dein na inu- -

For you all, gaza is not really the objective

your real objective is to do bhand pana about Israel. hahaha

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Well Israel is a reality now and you can ignore Israel but it will still exist unless it's militarily defeated which is extremely unlikely as they are backed by US.

However, should Israel have been created in the first place? I would say no because zionism justifies a persecuted people from a different continent being resettled , just because those people share the same religion as someone who may have once lived there.

Zionists claimed that Palestine was "A land without a people, for a people without a land," which is a lie because the Arabs were already living there. There were many zionist freedom fighting group from Europe who were uprooting the native population of the Arabs in the early 20th century.

Then of course there's the religious claim to the land as the Jews are the "chosen people"

Why the need to go back into ancient history to justify their claim to the land......and if you wanna go back that far, the land belonged to Canaanites and Amalekites anyway.


I don't know how much of this would hold true for the younger generation which is born in Israel as they probably consider themselves natives of the land, rightly or wrongly, even if their grandparents were immigrants from elsewhere.

I see it as much simpler than that.

A large group of individuals decided to move elsewhere.
Each individual was accepted, and thus legally immigrated.
Once there, they have the same rights as anyone tracing their ancestry 1000 years back.

All according to existing laws at the time.

Our local racists wants us to believe otherwise.

 

[qamar1990]

For you all, gaza is not really the objective

your real objective is to do bhand pana about Israel. hahaha

maybe it is… you got a problem yaar? don't we have the right to do so?

 

[JonAsad]

For you all, gaza is not really the objective

your real objective is to do bhand pana about Israel. hahaha

Bro my paratha halk mein phuns gaya-
What does this mean?- " bhand pana "

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The only thing possible is a one state solution. By now though, too much hatred is developing but it can be combated through a one state solution led by the international world which guarantees rights of all people.

USSR: failed
Czechoslovakia: failed
Yugoslavia: failed
Ukraine: failed
Georgia: failed
Cyprus: failed
Belgium: failing
United Kingdom: Scottish separatism
Spain: Basque and Catalonian separatism
France: Basque separatism

...and so forth. One state solutions don't work, so that's not feasible. Since there is such mistrust between Israelis and Arabs, why has the focus been on 1967 lines as a precursor to a Palestinian state? Pre-1967, the West Bank belonged to Jordan, and Gaza belonged to Egypt. Shouldn't that be the ultimate outcome? In 1948-1967, there was no significant Palestinian national movement, so that would seem to be the natural state of affairs to which to return.

This solution seems far more practical, because Israel has a good relationship with Jordan and Egypt, and can trust their assurances when it comes to security (for the most part), whereas no such trust is possible between Israel and the Palestinians.

If, after a period of tutelage, the Palestinians still want independence, they can agitate for that from within Jordan and Egypt, but in the meantime, they will have security and be attached to economically viable countries instead of perpetually asking for charity.

 

[Burger Boy]

But the Arab nations plan to simply steam roll the newly formed Israeli state after its formation was neither justified nor did it turn out well for them as Israel ended with more land than the UN envisaged.

The world, in the form of UN decided that there should be two states.
The Arab countries disagreed

This half truth has been repeated too many times without glossing over some important details.

Yes the Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan but they did so because the Partition plan was unfair to the Arabs.

The Partition plan allotted 56% of the land to Israel even though Jews made up at best 30% of the population in 1946.

The Jewish population of Palestine increased greatly in the late 19th and early 20th century because of Ottoman and later British administrators encouraged immigration of jews from Europe against the will of the native Arab population.

Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present) | Jewish Virtual Library

Even after this immigration jews still did not make up close to the majority of the population of Palestine in the 1940s.

At the time, the British Mandate of Palestine was divided into districts.

In 1946, Of the 16 districts in the Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan river, 14 of them, including Jerusalem, had an Arab majority. One district, Haifa, had an Arab plurality. The only district that had a Jewish majority was Jaffa.

Sometimes zionists claim that the creation of Israel was justified because the Jewish immigrants bought the land in Palestine.
This is disingenuous because in 1945, Jews did not own the majority of the land in any of the 16 districts.

In 1945, 4 of the districts had Arabs owning a plurality of the land and in the remaining 12 districts Arabs owned the majority of the land.

So if you ever hear why Arabs rejected the partition plan you should know why, as you can see it was clearly unfair to them as it dispossessed them of the land that was theirs.

 

[qamar1990]

they think whole world is Pakistan . Taliban killed 60000 pakistani civilians and military police personals and we have to talks with them. and some still openly said they are our brothers .

what does this have to do with thread topic???
why do you guys always go off topic when you are proven wrong??