2006-07-20 05:41:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They both do. Neither things they are wrong, so they are both justified in their own minds.
I think that the area is important to both people, and they need to have a compromise. I think the major points of contentsion should be open to both, an independed 'free zone' run by the UN. Palistinians and Isralies could both go to these zones freely but neither would 'control' or 'own' it.
2006-07-20 05:46:11 · answer #1 · answered by John C 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Morals have nothing to do with it.
The UN resolution (181, 1947) that established a "Jewish state" in the Middle East is arguably unlawful in the first place. And, Israel's declaration of independence was an extension of the original unlawful act that essentially stole land from indigenous people and gave it to invaders from Europe.
Israelis have no legal right to land anywhere in the Middle East, but it appears "might makes right," so it is unlikely Israel will be required to assimilate herself with the indigenous population and become a state that represents all the people.
2006-07-20 13:16:05 · answer #2 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God gave the land to Abraham's descendants, the Jews. He established a covenant for that purpose. God does not break covenants. All this was written a long time before any Islamic book.
With that said, the issue must be about those who follow the true faith in God which He gave to the Jews. Hence, if you are a secularly oriented Jew, then I cannot see how you can justify that the land belongs to you.
Lastly, those who believe in Christ inherit the promise of God, which includes the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants. At the end of times, after the Rapture, the remnant of 144,000 Jews will convert a great many to God's truth. Jerusalem remains God's city, now and forever.
2006-07-20 12:54:33 · answer #3 · answered by Bentley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here are a few scenarios then you answer your own question:
1.someone takes your home bulldose it down and then build they house there.
2.Russia comes to your state and set-up a puppet government where you need a passport to see family member who lives two miles away in the same state.
3.someone comes to your country in peace but once they get a foot hold they start taking your homes and land and oppress you and your family.
But the kicker is that they can justify all of this using the Bible/Torah [all I can say is...when you are confronted with a hard problem ask yourself this question ...what would Jesus do ?
2006-07-20 13:25:43 · answer #4 · answered by ronn106 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say the Jews. They'd lived there for thousands of years before the Romans put them out around 73 A.D. They could have come back in a nicer way but they were blocked from all sides. After what had just happened to the majority of them, who can blame them from fighting to have their own country?
2006-07-20 13:01:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering it's Israel's country . . . uh, Israel.
2006-07-20 12:46:13 · answer #6 · answered by Zombie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋