Comments by "Sandy Tatham" (@sandytatham3592) on "The Israel Guys"
channel.
-
83
-
73
-
64
-
55
-
53
-
48
-
40
-
37
-
33
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@christopherdavidhughes8934 : I'm from New Zealand, and I support human and legal rights. Humanity has evolved considerably from solving disputes by "pushing back". That was the old tribal behaviour that Ben was talking about. Five or more Arab nations went to war against Israel in 1948, and again a few times after that, so it seems that a good many Arabs still felt the need to "drive them out from where they drove you out". That continues today, and is based on Islamic doctrine.
After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the League of Nations acknowledged the Jews as indigenous to historic Palestine and in 1922 the Jewish people were given the legal right to reconstitute their homeland. The non-Jewish occupants of the land were to be guaranteed freedom of religion, and equal rights under the law, which they have today. It took until 1947 amid a lot of hostility from Arabs before they could implement this right but eventually they founded the land of Israel.
The dismembered Middle East land of the Ottoman Caliphate was not retained by the victors of WWI but given to Arabs and Jews for self-determination. The Arabs got 99% of the land, countries today called Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The Jews got less than 1% but they accepted that. And one-fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs. That seems more than fair and reasonable to me. The displaced Arabs should have been resettled in neighbouring lands but the Arab League did not allow this because it wanted to weaponise the Palestinians in their fight (jihad) agains the Jews. UNRWA also keeps them as perpetual refugees for the same reason. Note: going to war against other nations, then losing those wars, has consequences!
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@faiqsabri5264 : You don't seem to be clear on the definition of a 'terrorist organisation'. A terrorist targets people, often innocent civilians, with acts of violence, with a goal to bring about some larger ideological change. The IDF are not terrorists. They are practising self-defence and rule of law. If so-called 'Palestinians' have built homes without legal permission, then demolition is standard in ALL countries which enforce rule of law. If the home belongs to a convicted criminal, then some countries have laws which enable security forces to confiscate that property and do what they want with it, including demolishing it. If 'Palestinians' would agree to recognise that Israel is a legitimate nation, and agree to live with Israelis in peace, then the IDF would no longer be required to be involved inside Israel. They could focus on protecting the country from external enemies such as Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.
Do you live in the Palestinian Territories? What's your personal stake in this conflict? Do you want peace in the area?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rob-t2e : Ancient Jewish tribes did live in today's west Jordan, south Lebanon, and Sinai, but the new country of Israel was restricted to the remaining land area of the British Mandate of Palestine. I suggest you watch the 5min PragerU video called "Does Israel Occupy the West Bank?" where international law professor Eugene Kontorovich outlines the legal precedents for establishing borders of new countries. I'm interested to know what you think of his explanation.
The founding of the Jewish state of Israel has nothing to do with which ethnic group was a majority. Remember that the Arabs of Palestine fought AGAINST the Allied Powers (which included the Jews and Arabs of the Hejaz) in WWI? Why would 'enemies' get to choose who ends up with what land after they lost that war in 1918? Why wouldn't the victorious British put people they trust in control of lands which had religious and strategic value to both the British and the Jewish people? They set this out in the 1917 Balfour Agreement, which was incorporated into the League of Nations mandate legislation in 1922.
The principle of "indigenous rights" was quite new back then but Israel is a success story, and it is the beginning of the rollback of Arab imperialism. I'm hopeful we will see more indigenous peoples such as the Kurds, Copts, Berbers-Amazigh, Assyrians, Nubians, Yazidis, etc. taking back control of their ancestral land... 🇮🇱🙏💙
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mark-fo3if : Why does Israel extending sovereignty over Judea and Samaria have to result in ethnic cleansing? Today 21% of Israeli citizens are Arabs. They sit in the Knesset (they are Muslim Brotherhood members, no less!!!), in the judiciary, security services, education, banking, health, science, technology, etc. and they have equal rights with Jews. Find me ONE neighbouring Arab country that hasn't 'ethnically cleansed' the Jews, and pretty much all of their Christians? Find me ONE Muslim country that doesn't persecute homosexuals and apostates, and have horrible rights for females?
A practical solution can be found but it seems you'd like the so-called 'Palestinians' to be held in limbo with corrupt leadership and no chance of citizenship of a legitimate country. You'd prefer to keep using them as 'weapons' against the Jews? You don't like the idea of them being granted citizenship of an Arab country and then given long-term residence status in their homeland, with a path to full citizenship if they reject violence against the Jewish people? What's your personal stake in this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mirani86 : Yes there is an argument to be made that"Allahu Akbar" can also means to a Muslim that his god is "great". But as an Infidel who lives in Muslim-majority countries, I'm only interested in what the Islamic scholars say the phrase means and how it is indicative of #superiority, ie. "Allah is greater". This is what the majority of Muslims believe it means, though they may not say that to you if they know you are a Christian. A certain amount of deception is permissible in the Islamic world if it furthers the cause of Allah.
The Islamic version of Jesus is clearly a bastardisation of the Jesus that Christians believe in. It is heretical. The 'morality' of islam is also horrible for women and girls (child marriage, polygamy, inequality in divorce, rape in marriage, wife-beating, sex slavery, etc) so please do NOT try and tell me that Islam upholds peace, tolerance and compassion without mentioning everything else. And if you've lived in an Islamic country where Islamic law (#sharia) is implemented, even partially, you would know that there is one rule for Muslims and another rule for Infidels/Kaffirs, so there is nothing 'binding' Islam to Christianity and Judaism. A Muslim is told by Allah that he is "the best of peoples" and that the Unbelievers are "vile creatures".
The prophet of Islam only gained a significant following after he moved to Medina and received revelations that his jihadis would get war booty and sex slavery from the raids they were conducting. In the 13 years of preaching a peaceful message he only gained a maximum 175 followers. Surely that raises a red flag for you?
There are lots of videos on the topic of "Do Islam and Christianity believe in the same God?" . A 3 minute video with that title by Dr Andy Bannister explains things well. He also has longer videos and a new book on this topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noor-jennazaman6694 : Don't ever be sorry to disagree. That's how we learn and grow in wisdom. I have a different take on Israel's founding but you are welcome to your version and to dispute mine. The fact is that the Jews were promised, as a consequence of supporting the British war effort, to be able to live in their ancestral homeland (Balfour Agreement of 1917) providing that the British & Allies were successful in DEFEATING the Ottoman Caliphate. The League of Nations acknowledged in 1920 that the Jewish people are indigenous to the Holy Land and the British Mandate of Palestine should be divided between the Arabs and the Jews.
Representing the Arabs, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was granted 78% of the Mandated land of the Ottoman region of Palestine in 1921. The Jews waited until 1948 for fulfilment of their land grant promise, and they accepted whatever they were offered as their new state when the chance FINALLY arose. Many attacks against them by the surrounding hostile Arab nations has seen Israel increase its land area out of necessity to maintaining security. And I would think it logical and legal under international law for them to annex Judea and Samaria, along with the Golan Heights, and possibly Gaza, within the next 20 years. Maybe the Arab occupants who want to remain can be given 'residence permits' but not full citizenship rights, because Israel already has 20% Muslim citizens, a small proportion of whom are hostile.
From the Middle East land of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, the Arabs have self-determination today over more than 99% of the total area (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Jordan). Why are the Jews still struggling to live peacefully on less than 1% of that total area? Why are the Jews held to a very different standard? You can call it 'Muslim displacement' if you like but those so-called Palestinians who are still HOSTILE to Jewish rule should be resettled elsewhere in the Arab Muslim world. The millions of dollars that today go into the pockets of the corrupt Palestinian leaders can then be diverted to help GENUINE refugees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noor-jennazaman6694 :
"of course muslim can and have for thousands of years".
Sorry, when I said 'tolerant' I really meant can an Islamic State rule with equality for all under the law? Not just 'tolerate' non-Muslims living with Muslims whilst they are forced to pay a protection tax, live as lower-class dhimmi citizens and be humiliated or subjugated [Qu'ran 9:29]. The fact that Muslims have invaded and conquered a vast part of the globe over the last 1400 years, then ruled over its non-Muslim occupants, is nowhere near the same thing.
"refers to war time".
I assume you understand the concept Dar al-Haarb and Dar al-Islam? Islam is perpetually at war with that part of the world which isn't Islamic. Islamic jurisprudential leaders today point to this Quran verse when they say that Palestine belongs to Muslims: Qur'an 2:191 "and drive them out from where they drove you out".
"Muslims never hated Jews".
I agree that Muslims can have their own feelings about Jews and Christians, and today we see Arab nations normalising relations with Israel and Jews. But the Qur'an is quite clear that Jews and Christians should be treated harshly [Qur'an 48:29], that the Believers should not be allies with them [Qur'an 5:51], and that the Infidels are vile creatures.
Zionists want to be safe and secure in their ancestral homeland. They are the indigenous people of that land. They have a right to peace in Israel, to uphold Jewish values, which includes equality for all under the law. Wars have consequences. The Islamic nations have lost many wars in the last 110 years (the most important one for the foundation of Israel and the surrounding Arab nations being WWI) and LOSERS don't get to decide on what happens to the land that they once inhabited or which they attacked.
I'm sorry if you have heard any Israelis talk of cleansing the world of non-Jews, but it sounds like just another ridiculous unverified anti-Semitic rumour to me. I hear these rumours all the time in whilst travelling in the Islamic world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3BigBoy : There is no genocide. The real problem came about in 1959 when the Arab League voted to prevent the #displaced Arabs from Palestine being given citizenship "in order to preserve the Palestinian entity and Palestinian identity." They are being exploited as pawns in the game of Arab vs Jews. Everywhere else in the world in the last 120 years, millions of displaced peoples have been resettled in new countries, usually ones which follow their own culture. For example, the 800K+ Jews who were exiled from Arab lands ended up in Israel, or the US, Australia, Canada, etc, and today they thrive. When Turkey was made an independent country after the Ottoman Empire was defeated, the Turks and Greeks forced 150 million people to move from one country to the other. Do they still whine about their troubles today? No, it's only the Arabs from historic Palestine who are being exploited. They are being held in stateless limbo and need to wake up to the fact that they are being used as pawns against the Jews. Thankfully, a good number have been resettled in western countries, but they still give their support to holding the Arabs of Palestine in their stateless limbo and in promoting 'armed resistance'.
1