Opinion of this quote

[GMantis]

The rewriting of history by the anti-Israel crowd is just shameless. 

The land Israel sits on is the Jewish homeland.  That area was conquered by Assyrians, Seleucid Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Mamluk Turks.  Jews didn't leave Israel by choice for the most part.  They were mostly sold in slavery in the Roman Empire and forced to flee at various points.  That's not to say that Israel belongs to Jews.  I don't think any land belongs to any one national group per se.  But, the land of Israel is not an ancestral Arab territory.  So, there's that.

I long for the time when an American arguing for the ridiculous argument that Jews had the right to create Israel due to historic rights shocked me, but those days of naivety are unfortunately long gone. And it's probably an utter waste of time to try to explain this but do you understand what your argument implies? Forget about this giving the Natives Americans rights over the whole of the American continent, this would mean that England is not the ancestral land of the English people -  they after all settled there several centuries after most Jews left Palestine. There is simply no way to make this argument without making you look both ignorant and an Israeli hack.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This argument is a waste of space considering it fails to address how all this was the fault of the Palestinians

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
First, most of the land was actually bought from absentee landlords, and the actual people living there were not consulted. Second, buying land does not give anyone the right to control some territory. Thirdly, Palestine was only a third Jews when it was divided without the agreement of the majority of the population. So the Palestinians have no reasons to apologize with not agreeing with this injustice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you've already had ridiculous appeals to history, emotional outbursts without any relevance to the discussions at hand and now you're resorting to conjuring imaginary and impossible alternate history scenarios? Why not simply state that Israel is always right - that would at least be straightforward and honest?

[GMantis]

The rewriting of history by the anti-Israel crowd is just shameless. 

The land Israel sits on is the Jewish homeland.  That area was conquered by Assyrians, Seleucid Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Mamluk Turks.  Jews didn't leave Israel by choice for the most part.  They were mostly sold in slavery in the Roman Empire and forced to flee at various points.  That's not to say that Israel belongs to Jews.  I don't think any land belongs to any one national group per se.  But, the land of Israel is not an ancestral Arab territory.  So, there's that.

I long for the time when an American arguing for the ridiculous argument that Jews had the right to create Israel due to historic rights shocked me, but those days of naivety are unfortunately long gone. And it's probably an utter waste of time to try to explain this but do you understand what your argument implies? Forget about this giving the Natives Americans rights over the whole of the American continent, this would mean that England is not the ancestral land of the English people -  they after all settled there several centuries after most Jews left Palestine. There is simply no way to make this argument without making you look both ignorant and an Israeli hack.

I think anyone can live anywhere dude.  Jewish people ought to be allowed to live in Brazil, America, Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.  Arabs ought to be allowed to live anywhere too.  There is no land that belongs to one ethnic group.  I don't see how that's being an Israeli hack.  Do you think there was something wrong with the Jewish immigration to Ottoman or British Palestine?

No, that's not how things work. First, you can only live in a country with that country's permission, otherwise you're an illegal immigrant. And the mass settlement with the purpose of taking over a country is not immigration, it's invasion. Especially if the local population is not consulted. No independent Palestinian state would have allowed itself to be taken over like this.
For a corresponding counterexample, would you allow the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to immigrate to Israel?
And if you don't believe that no land belongs to one ethnic group, why bring up the absurd argument of Jewish historical rights?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This argument is a waste of space considering it fails to address how all this was the fault of the Palestinians
[/quote]

It wasn't.  But, that was the problem.  Under your rules, Jews couldn't live in any land that belonged to another ethnic group, they couldn't buy land because that's imperialist, what should they have done?  Is it just that they're an ethnic group without a country as of a certain date so they should just disappear?[/quote]
"My" rules exist only in your imagination. I have nothing against immigration that is approved by the country being entered. And yes, more countries should have granted asylum to the Jews before WWII and the failure of most to do so contributed indirectly to the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean that it's right to take over other countries (and of course by the time Israel was founded, there war was over and there were other options to safeguard the Jewish people).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
First, most of the land was actually bought from absentee landlords, and the actual people living there were not consulted. Second, buying land does not give anyone the right to control some territory. Thirdly, Palestine was only a third Jews when it was divided without the agreement of the majority of the population. So the Palestinians have no reasons to apologize with not agreeing with this injustice.
[/quote]

The Jewish state in 1948 was majority Jewish, but that was less than half of Palestine.  And, I agree it wasn't fair that Palestinians couldn't return to their land.  Who could call that fair?  That cause of that unfairness was shared between Arabs and Jews however.  Most of those people voluntarily left and couldn't come back because of the whims of Arab nationalists and the historical circumstance.  Ultimately, you just have to realize that the Arab tried to destroy the state of Israel and they lost.  We need to move on from that at some point.  That's coming up on 70 years ago.  I mean, the partition of India and Pakistan was unfair to the people of the subcontinent.  But, here in the West we don't get upset out of our minds about the various irredentist claims over Kashmir.  This is just a case of automatic sympathy for the party with less power and the idea that perceived first world power should act "civilized" and the perceived third world people are noble savages who just can't help but lob missiles at children.
[/quote]
It's more likely that Israel receives less sympathy because they inflict most of the suffering. And remember that it was you who brought up a historical argument. I certainly don't deny Israel's right to exist now, but the history of its foundation is quite a different matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you've already had ridiculous appeals to history, emotional outbursts without any relevance to the discussions at hand and now you're resorting to conjuring imaginary and impossible alternate history scenarios? Why not simply state that Israel is always right - that would at least be straightforward and honest?
[/quote]

No.  I think I have an even-handed view of Israel.  I think we should have a two-state solution and Israel should stop building settlements yesterday.
[/quote]
But neither you, nor Warren and most Congress members believe in actually taking any measures to encourage Israel to take the path to peace. So all these noble words only conceal an unprincipled and unconditional support of Israel.