Is the Palestinian Right of Return a Path to Peace or Conflict?

[The Dagda]

There's very good reasons why the Zionist movement was a secular one.

1) Israel had no real biblical claim to the lands there because they had not fulfilled their prophecies, thus technically speaking they were acting against The Bible in returning to Zion.

2) They wanted to make it clear that Israel was a legal state not a religious one, for obvious reasons.

Essentially though Israel has no more right to Palestine than the Celts do to England. Simple as that.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u all

I don't think you're right …

From Genesis 25:13-15 in the Torah (or see http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/topics/twelve_tribes_of_ishmael.htm), the 12 sons of Ishmael were named …


And from Genesis 9:18 …


Of course, the Koran may give different names … but so far as I know the Koran doesn't give any names at all.

no it gave many names of prophets (25 of them) , good worshipers and one of prophet Mohammad's (blesing and peace be upon him) men his name is "Zaid ben Harethah"

i want to comment that if u read Torah u will easily find the differences between it's copies.. and u wil find that there are a lot of modified copies of Torah .. not just Torah .. jews had modified several times and in many aspects and chapters other holy books like "Zabor" holy book ... so as i told u that regarding to this we can't say what version - I'm sorry if the word is not suitable i just mean that they are not all the same not any thing else - of Torah is the right one .. but we can just respect it as a holy book ...

So far as both the Torah and the Koran are concerned, the Arabs are Shemites, descended from Ishmael (who was descended from Shem the son of Noah), and the Canaanites (who inhabited Palestine before Moses) were descended from Canaan, the son of Ham the son of Noah.​

(Palestine, incidentally, is named after another pre-Moses tribe inhabiting Palestine, the Philistines, who are stated in Genesis 10:14 as descending from Mizraim, another son of Ham)

Do you have any reference (from one of the books you have read, or from the internet, or from the Koran) which supports your statement that there is a connection between the Arabs and the Kana'ani tribes, or that the Arabs have a pre-Moses connection with Palestine? …




erm … you mentioned it!

and i'll bring u as soon as possible the book .. although it's in arabic but i'll try to translate some papers from it ... and i guess that there are othetr references in it's appendix .. and almost all books that teach Quran and Explain it say that Kana'ani tribes are arabian i can't .. i'll try to help u find an english book
any way this have no relation at all to the right of return .. and i think that discussing such a religious disagreements do never pay .. it just strengthen hate ..

and i wonder if u really read in Torah how couldn't u see that jews are not allowed by God to go palestaine .. and before the end of time they'll go there and they'll be punished and they'll be killed by Jesus .. i don't need ur confirmation coz u can find a copy of Torah that disagrees with this while there are copies that agree

and by the way .. u did mention it first .. re-read the posts in order

Kylep

First off, the religious claim isn't even what drove the Zionist movement in the beginning, but rather it was started by secular but ethnic Jews who rejected millenia of religious understanding that any attempt to forcefully establish any Jewish state is strictly forbidden. The theological arguments to support such a conquest only came later, and only started gaining popular support as the conditions in Europe grew worse for Jews under the rise of Nazism. Also note there is still is some religious Jews around the world who still reject the state as an affront to God. Furthermore, the majority of Jews in Israel and elsewhere today don't consider themselves religious, but rather only ethnically-Jewish, and many don't approve of Israel's conquest over Palestine either.

i agree with what u said (in green) and i know some of them one of them was my camp mate in a camp.. but i disagree with what in red ..

1) Israel discards their ethnic nationalist nature and gives Palestinians equal rights, allowing refugees to return and incorporating Gaza and the West Bank into a truly democratic state.

2) Israel arranges fair compensation for the refugees they displaced, and allows a fully independent state of Palestine to exist thoughout Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as it's capital.

#1 is the ideal solution, but #2 is far more realistically achievable as it doesn't require overcoming the ethnic nationalist mindset ingrained into the majority of Israelis, but only the lust for colonizing the West Bank shared by a small minority of zealots

it's not fair at all to give people right to live in a land they stolen it .. suppose a thief who beaten a person and stolen his money for example u shall we give him the right to spend it and give it to his friends and family and once the victim asks for his rights we say that we must not make wrong over wrong !

 

[tiny-tim]

peace upon u 2, kylep

no it gave many names of prophets (25 of them) , good worshipers and one of prophet Mohammad's (blesing and peace be upon him) men his name is "Zaid ben Harethah"

sorry, I didn't mean i thought there were no names in the Koran, i only meant no names of the sons of Ishmael or of Noah.

(what is the relevance of Zaid ben Harethah?)

and i'll bring u as soon as possible the book .. almost all books that teach Quran and Explain it say that Kana'ani tribes are arabian …
any way this have no relation at all to the right of return .. and i think that discussing such a religious disagreements do never pay .. it just strengthen hate ..

i look forward to seeing this reference to the Kana'ani tribes …

i wouldn't say the differences between religious books should cause disagreement between people … for example, the Torah tells that Abraham (Ibrahim) was told to sacrifice Isaac, while the Koran says that he was told to sacrifice Ishmael … but both religions draw the same conclusion from the story … the disagreement in that story does not cause any modern disagreement.

knowledge, and understanding (not the same thing!), of each other's holy books, both of the similarities and the differences, is always a good thing.

and i wonder if u really read in Torah how couldn't u see that jews are not allowed by God to go palestaine …

The Torah (which contains the commandments of God) is only the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), and ends with the death of Moses (Musa). The rule you refer to is classified not as a commandment of God but as a commandment of the rabbis (a rabbinic commandment), and so is of lesser authority and is subject to much disagreement, and it derives from (but is not explicitly stated in) references to the Messiah (Moshiach, Christ) in Isaiah (later in the Bible).

 

[kyleb]

i want to comment that if u read Torah u will easily find the differences between it's copies.. !

There are many differences between various translations of Torah, just there are many differences between translations of Quran. However, the translations of Torah (and Tanakh as a whole) which are used by Jews and most Christians all come from the same ancient Hebrew Masoretic Text which was settled on around a millennium ago. Only some Christian Bibles are based on earlier Aramaic and Greek translations.

The rule you refer to is classified not as a commandment of God but as a commandment of the rabbis (a rabbinic commandment)...

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:28), and the loss of that right as well as the instructions for living in exile until that right is redeemed is detailed throughout Tanakh (notably Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4). Even speaking strictly in a secular sense, the violation of those instructions is what brought the destruction of the Second Temple, revolting against Roman rule rather than maintaining limited autonomy under it.

This is also why the Rabbinical consensus until recently opposed any suggestion of building a Jewish state, and religious arguments for the Zionist movement only gained popular support as conditions in Europe grew exceedingly worse for Jews. For example sake, note that the First Zionist Congress of 1897 was originally to be held in Munich, but was moved to Basel under protest from the large Jewish communities in Germany.

As for the ancient ancestral claims, here is a report on a DNA study from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

As fighting continues in the Middle East, a new genetic study shows that many Arabs and Jews are closely related. More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.


The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times.
...

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

So, again, the theological linages you two are discussing hold no weight in either side's claim to the land over the other.

 

[tiny-tim]

and i wonder if u really read in Torah how couldn't u see that jews are not allowed by God to go palestaine …

The rule you refer to is classified not as a commandment of God but as a commandment of the rabbis (a rabbinic commandment)...

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:29)

uhh? Leviticus 18:29 says nothing of the sort …
From http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm …

29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
כט כִּי כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה, מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה--וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת, מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם.

(… and the earlier verses limit those "abominations" to incest and other sexual practices.)

Did you mean some other passage from the Torah?

This is also why the Rabbinical consensus until recently opposed any suggestion of building a Jewish state …

Yes, rabbinical (and only until recently, for most rabbis).​

 

[Phrak]

bleh ​

are you trying to spell "help" so that it can be seen from the air? ​

haha


From the air it spells don't get involved arguing with someone where every other sentence contains implicite falsehoods. It's a very long word.

The quote in your OP is such a statement, with invented history, and what else. No offense to you intended. (So who can keep up on all of it?) It permeates that mideast. Do this folks believe the friday rants like children and TV commercials? probably.

Usually this persistent activity gets shut down by some enraged mentor, doesn't it? Where do I purchase a mentoring degree so I can slash with vengence?

 

[tiny-tim]

just Prak!

Originally Posted by Prak

Now what are you trying to spell so that it can be seen from the air?

better out than in! ​

 

[The Dagda]

<snip>

So, again, the theological linages you two are discussing hold no weight in either side's claim to the land over the other.

Third time lucky, let's see if we can put this baby to rest, they might get the idea that Biblical claims are worthless even if they are followed to the letter. Let's face it even if it said in 1948 you will be given Israel back, that would be an amazing revelation, but still worthless.

No rebuilt temple, no right of return, get it.

It might be a little hard to rebuild it considering the Dome of the Rock is built over the site of the temple too.

 

[kyleb]

uhh? Leviticus 18:29 says nothing of the sort …

My bad, I meant the verse just prior, Leviticus 18:28:

that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

I go back and edit my previous post now.

 

[tiny-tim]

Leviticus 18 … "abominations"

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:28)

erm … http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm" says nothing of the sort, either …

like verse 29 (obviously ), the earlier verses limit it to commission of "abominations" (תּוֹעֵבֹת), which they specify as incest and other sexual practices.

Oh … maybe you're relying on Israel's promotion of gay rights, and its giving asylum to gay Palestinan refugees, as forbidden in Leviticus 18:22? ​

The "statement" you refer to is not from the Torah, but rabbinical.

(The Torah, of course, is only the first 5 books of the Bible … Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.)

 

[kyleb]

I am referring to the Leviticus 18:28, as I quoted above, which explains that when the Israelites defile the land they will be exiled from it, and the events of that are explained though the Books of Kings.

 

[The Dagda]

Some scholars claim that the events in The OT already happened after their exile to Babylon and their return and the building of the second temple. Tiny Tim, really I wouldn't press that particular issue too far. For one it doesn't matter if God promised anything, no one cares. And for two Orthodox Jews know a great deal more than you and they don't think The Bibles conditions have been fulfilled. I'd leave it, it's a pointless avenue anyway, but it's your look out.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u

There are many differences between various translations of Torah, just there are many differences between translations of Quran. However, the translations of Torah (and Tanakh as a whole) which are used by Jews and most Christians all come from the same ancient Hebrew Masoretic Text which was settled on around a millennium ago. Only some Christian Bibles are based on earlier Aramaic and Greek translations.

mmmmmmmm ..
my dear ... translated copies of Quran into other languages are not the holy book it self .. and even though .. translated copies have no differences between ideas, instructions, orders and notion nor in names, places, times and other fine details .. but it's just not the holy book and they are not Quran .. simply they are translated texts ...

The statement that the Israelites right to the Holy Land is conditional is straight out of out of Torah (Leviticus 18:28), and the loss of that right as well as the instructions for living in exile until that right is redeemed is detailed throughout Tanakh (notably Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4). Even speaking strictly in a secular sense, the violation of those instructions is what brought the destruction of the Second Temple, revolting against Roman rule rather than maintaining limited autonomy under it.

i read it an other place .. i don't remember where exactly but not here surely .. and one of my friends told me that once ..

This is also why the Rabbinical consensus until recently opposed any suggestion of building a Jewish state, and religious arguments for the Zionist movement only gained popular support as conditions in Europe grew exceedingly worse for Jews. For example sake, note that the First Zionist Congress of 1897 was originally to be held in Munich, but was moved to Basel under protest from the large Jewish communities in Germany.

As for the ancient ancestral claims, here is a report on a DNA study from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:



http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

So, again, the theological linages you two are discussing hold no weight in either side's claim to the land over the other.

i know that a lot of people saw that .. but in fact u can reread the history of how and why israel was established .. and the main crises that happened then you'll find that religion is not too far way ..

but i agree that the identity of the hebrew state is not totally determined by religion ..

 

[ALYAZAN]

I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.



Please present whatever facts you believe back your arguments, or are you putting faith somewhere it doesn't belong? If it is the latter, there is no peace to be found in that.

oh dear don't be that sharp in judging my speech !
i was just saying that i agree with what u said .. and what u quoted from torah was familiar to me ..

 

[ALYAZAN]

hey dear Kyleb

So again I am curious to know; what facts you believe back your argument, or is your argument not based on facts?

facts .. it's just a matter of gathering these facts .. since David ben Gurion uptill now ...

i may be late in it .. coz I'm working now on a research

 

[kyleb]

hey dear Kyleb

facts .. it's just a matter of gathering these facts .. since David ben Gurion uptill now ...

i may be late in it .. coz I'm working now on a research

If by "facts" you mean a few quotes where he mentioned God when it suited him, don't bother as I've likely already see them. However, I assure you that if you take time to research on David ben Gurion and the history of the Zionist movement in general, you will find it was largely secular in nature, in contradiction to millenniums rabbinical consensus, and hence staunchly opposed by the vast majority of religious Jews in it's early years.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone off topic. This is strictly about the "legal" issue. off topic posts will be deleted.

See my post when this thread was created.

I have moved these posts discussing ""right of return" (Palestinian)" to a new thread. Do not attempt to hijack this thread with personal opinions about the current military actions.

 

[drizzle]

say whatever you like about Palestinians.. terrorists ..cowards…garbage…but you wouldn’t hide the fact that Israel OCCUPY that Arab land, they’ll stand until the last man and they will have their country back ….. you may say both sides are victims of US and UK conspiracy or whatsoever…I agree but victims who choose their destiny to be in this (garbage) situation are different from those people … as for the Israelis they should be responsible for their choices …. Palestinians didn’t choose this, it was forced on them and they’ll resist ….what makes it more illogical the refugees are not allowed to go back! …..the story is simple ..Israel has no right to do this, but for now every person in the whole world live in his/her country except Palestinians their country lives in their hearts.

 

[ThomasT]

Greed is certainly the drive behind the leaders this conquest over Palestine, but the same was true for the conquest of whites over blacks in South Africa. Apartheid in South Africa went on for decades with tactile support of governments in the US and elsewhere. However, as public awareness of the wickedness committed in our names spread, and our self-indulgent leaders were eventually forced to conform to the standards of justice which are sacrosanct to the greater population. I see the same build toward a tipping point happening here, and am at a loss as to find any tangible basis for your pessimism to the contrary.

Since making my previous replies to you, I looked up some polling stats and now I think you might be right that there is some reason for optimism regarding eventual justice for Palestinians.

According to polling stats at worldopinion.org. most people want their governments to take an even-handed role. Of those that wanted their governments to take a side, the majority were in favor of taking the Palestinian's side.

I also want to say that I think that the strictly legal issues surrounding Palestinian's right of return are something of a smokescreen obscuring what is essentially an issue of right and wrong.

Let's not forget mankind's long history of legal, state-sanctioned atrocities.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u

i found this ..

http://www.rorcongress.com/Statements/24-04-2004.htm

i guess it's a good material to discuss !

and when i'll be back from Egypt i'll post a good report about general Egyption people common opinion about right of return

best wishes