LFG 2 with a necessary history of modern Israel….

Regarding the religious justification, and in response to the former Gordon, why is it that just because some other religion has an argument it should follow that we should consider that argument equal to our own? I mean, the Aztecs had a different religion too, and at its core, it required vast numbers of human sacrifices to keep the world from being destroyed. Shouldn’t we base our actions on what we believe to be right, whether based in religion or Nature or Tradition? If the belief systems cannot be reconciled, then our own should prevail. Counterarguments on this point mystify me. Now, when the our religion conflicts with our American law, that does become a problem.

There is a third argument, in addition to what we call “legal” and religious, and it gets to the purpose and nature of what is called “international law.” Such “law” is not like American law in the sense that it does not derive solely from Congress and it is not checked by the Executive or the Court. As I understand it, the original purpose of such “law” was to regulate the actions of nations such that national interests could be advanced without the need of constant war. Such “law” has been turned into something very different: a way of shackling the “hegemon” (and we know who THAT is). Well, if it is in the American INTEREST to see Eretz Israel Jewish and the Fakestinians ousted, that alone is justification enough.

Do you then say, “that means might makes right”? I would say, “darn tootin.’” This is the post-Wesphalia nation-state system in a nutshell. Why are we apologizing? Sometimes there are inevitable clashes of interest between states. Whose interests then should prevail if they cannot be reconciled? I mean, what was that war against the Axis powers if not a response to the same “autarkic” (the correct word and spelling) international system?

This whole “international law” thang has been, since WW2, completely misinterpreted to advance certain interests. It’s about time we interpret it correctly.

Take your pick, “Allah” doesn’t will it. Leave Israel to Israel.

You can believe in nothing, and even voice that opinion here (as long as you are respectful) if you’d like.

I however, believe in G-d, and The Torah, and the eternal covenant H’S made with the Jewish people. Thus my understanding that G-d Himself gave all the land of Israel to the People of Israel trumps your U.N. any day.

The concept of a legal right, and a Holy right however are not at odds. They are both true, and they are both acceptable arguments.

Actually no, that isn’t the same claim because they are wrong, and since the Koran is based on the Bible, and Torah, it too states that the land was given to the Jews.

There are 2 arguments to why Israel belongs to the Jewish people: one is legal (secular) and the other is Holy.

Stick to the legal arguments, and leave G-d out of this one.

Yes we are working on fixing the links, and doing other work regarding the site. We will definitely attempt to add this primer to the links, etc. However, its just where which is going to be the problem. That is what we are trying to figure out.

Just trying to rearrange the sock drawer.

As to the topic. These are facts that everyone who supports Israel must keep in mind, and be sure to mention everytime the Arab/Israel conflict comes up. We are often asked to begin every conversation about the “conflict” from a false premise that Israel stole land, and the Phakestinians lost their homes, so now what do we do about it. This is why we continue to end up with people thinking the only resolution is for Israel to give the Phakestinians Judea, and Samaria to the Arabs even though they have been predominantly Jewish (as was “east” Jerusalem) throughout history.

A reasonable and fair resolution would be to have these Phakestinians be fully integrated into Jordanian society as full members.