We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
First, does "Yes" mean "defend their right to get back their land?" or does "No" mean "No right to defend?" I can't give an answer until I'm sure I understand the question.
Next, how are the Palestinians defining "their land," I mean do they have a deed? I thought "finder's keepers, loser's weepers" was the maxim that decides the rights of sovereign nations in the 21st century. 'Like can't you just see the descendants of Chief Sitting Bull walking up to President Bush's front door at the U.S. Capitol, to tell George, "We're sorry, but after reviewing all the treaties my people signed, our lawyers have come to the conclusion that America belongs to us. Now you will have to pack up your things and move out peacefully. If you won't move peacefully you will see the few million of us who are still around become ardent suicide bombers. You must come to your senses and see things from our point of view."
I don't think see George or any others in the USA giving much credence to Chief Sitting Bull's decision that America still belongs to the Native Americans.
Well, the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma is much the same. It's a big case of "finder's keepers, losers weepers," and let's face it the Israelis now have a lot in common with George. Their name is on the front door and no about of reasoning is going to convince them they're doing anything wrong, just like there is no way any Native Americans are going to get George, or any who would follow in his footpath to own up to the fact the Native Americans are the only people with any "right" to America. It just ain't gonna happen. It almost seems silly to think it should happen.
[2 points]4 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 4 years ago by Chipmonk
Israel was founded by extrmist religious people, they took the land by force and founded a new nation by force, that is wrong.
I do not advocate the palestinians killing Israelies, (killing people is just wrong) but this dispute should have been settled in an international court.
It does not mean that I don't condemn the actions of the Palestinians or the Israelies actions either (Israels resoponse is way out of proportions). Yet the US is refusing to sanction Israel to abide by the UN resolutions and instead is rewarding them for disobeying them to the tune of bilions in aid a year
Hmmm, technically, the British gave the land to Israel to serve as a Jewish homeland. It was theirs because they took it off the Ottomans I think or they were mandated it after WWI. The Ottomans probably took it off some Arabs or maybe some Persians who took it from someone else - Jews and Christians. Of course, the Romans were in there at some point too - there's a bit of land that certainly has changed hands a lot of times. So it's not fair to say the Jews took the land that became Israel by force.
That's not to say I agree entirely with Israel's current policies, but it's formation was pretty much legal.
From what I read is that the English had promised it to the palestinians in aid for helping them fight some wars.
The Brits also tried to stop the illegal imigrants and before ww2 the jewish population was about 10% of the population. I have noticed that there have been a lot of attempts to rewrite that part of history, but BBC has (or at least did have) some good articles from that period on-line.
I would like to see this dealt with in an international court because I, like most people, am not qualified to find and understand the details. I do understand lots of people in Israel feel bad about what happened in the past (just like I am not proud of all my Dutch forefathers did, our greatest war hero was a pirate) But I do think we should be trying to understand what the causes are for this, if we do not I am afraid it will just go on until there is no palestinian left alive.
The short term solution might be for Israel to obide by the UN resolution and the creation of one or two viable Palestinian states.
Oh yes, the period before WWII had a different overall plan for the area, I think after the war though, a certain amount of guilt played a part in changing Britain's policy.
I can't help but feel that British involvement in that area in the early part of the 20th century has a lot to answer for in terms of current instabilities, such as those in Iraq as well as Palestine.
I can understand Israel's mistrust and feeling it needs to defend itself vigorously, but also feel that they have gone beyond merely defending and crossed a line where they have begun to oppress to a certain extent. The Palestinians have a right to a homeland too. I'm not convinced outside rulings are the answer, imposing a solution is something both sides seem to not like much...they have to agree together - which I'm sure will require mediation, and perhaps more give and take than they are willing to make.
Sure, we caused disruption and mayhem whereever we went!
The colonies could not get rid of us fast enough once the ball strted rolling, but take a slow honest look at the places we used to be ... how many of them are actually better off than they were under British rule?
I'm not claiming we were saintly in our approach, but neither will I accept that we** are the cause of all the worlds evils either.
I didn't say or imply that the West was responsible for all the worlds ills, in fact as I mentioned somewhere else, I don't think we can be held responsible for fixing current situations, it's been too long and they have had ample opportunities to fix things themselves. However, in regards Palestine and Iraq, our meddling definitely was the father of today's issues.
We forced the tribes into becoming the country of Iraq, they only joined forces long enough to make us leave, and we did that despite reports from observers that the hatreds there were far too deep and ingrained and that it wasn't really a good idea. We can't deny that the fiasco that is Israel is an unholy mess. Yes, lots of things happened in the meantime, but we were right there at the beginning, planting those seeds.
I don't need to be persuaded that the British Empire did some good in other places, Hell, I don't even disagree with the formation of Israel - the Jews have as much right to their historical homeland as anyone else - but the original point in this thread of comments was about "Israel was founded by extrmist religious people, they took the land by force and founded a new nation by force, that is wrong." a point I disagree with and the involvement of Britain in the early 20th century was a factor that sways my thoughts on the matter.
Fair points, and I am sorry for over-reacting and taking your comment out of context.
Although this does not excuse my bad behaviour, and am sick to the gills of being blamed for everything from slavery to the price of oil and must be getting a bit touchy about it in my old age.
Plus its 29 C in my office and I'm getting hot and irritable :)
No worries, you didn't really overreact - you raised a fair point regarding how important it is to move on from the past and fix things - past dwelling is in my opinion a lot of the problem in the Middle East.
Sucks about your office, hope you escaped for a nice cold beer =)
I hope a ruling on how Israel and/or Palestine were founded and what happened subsequently would be a good basis to start negotions and the healing proces.
In the mean time the UN resolutions should be enforced with economic sanctions, if only just to show that we in the west are at least attempting to be even handed when it comes to international disputes.
To say "yes" is to endorse terrorist activity by Palestinians. To say "no" is to fail to acknowledge that Israel has done very wrong in some of it's dealings with them, especially more recently.
So not a black and white issue, with an answer as simple as yes or no. And really such a biased question anyhoo.
Whether it was right or wrong that Israel was created, and whose fault it was that it happened is not nothing but history.
Most of the original displaced people are long gone to the graveyard.
As someone else pointd out, its not exactly the first time this piece fo land, like many others, has changed hands.
There comes a time when you have to give it up and move on, or it will eat away at peoples souls for generations.
How long does it take for something to become accepted, and consigned to history?
50 years? (obviously not!)
100 years?
200 years?
If you want to hang on to disputes you can do so, but it is rare that there are ever any true winners.
Britain rules large parts of France for many years, and they changed hands over and over again over a long period of time.
Should be complain that we should be the rightful rulers now? That would be ridiculous.
Should we ask America to give us back the original 13 states? A total farce.
In this cae and many others, there is not real right and wrong, no black and white issues, just varying shades of grey dependign on which side you look from.
The oil rich middle east counties have had 60 years to help their "brothers" in the refugee camps** yet instead of doing so, they actually like having them to be able to use to show the world how evil Israel is!
If they really cared for the people, they would help them, not use them to score political points.
(** when is a refugee camp reclassified as a settlement? Are there many actual refugees left? Even the earliest children born there must be nearing senior citizen age. Time for a change of terminology?)
This is a logic which could be expected from people who had a bloody history of invading other people's land. (Not too far , we are talking about less than 100 Years :)
Unknown
if it is their own land they should defend! if any one were like them would defend too
First, does "Yes" mean "defend their right to get back their land?" or does "No" mean "No right to defend?" I can't give an answer until I'm sure I understand the question.
Next, how are the Palestinians defining "their land," I mean do they have a deed? I thought "finder's keepers, loser's weepers" was the maxim that decides the rights of sovereign nations in the 21st century. 'Like can't you just see the descendants of Chief Sitting Bull walking up to President Bush's front door at the U.S. Capitol, to tell George, "We're sorry, but after reviewing all the treaties my people signed, our lawyers have come to the conclusion that America belongs to us. Now you will have to pack up your things and move out peacefully. If you won't move peacefully you will see the few million of us who are still around become ardent suicide bombers. You must come to your senses and see things from our point of view."
I don't think see George or any others in the USA giving much credence to Chief Sitting Bull's decision that America still belongs to the Native Americans.
Well, the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma is much the same. It's a big case of "finder's keepers, losers weepers," and let's face it the Israelis now have a lot in common with George. Their name is on the front door and no about of reasoning is going to convince them they're doing anything wrong, just like there is no way any Native Americans are going to get George, or any who would follow in his footpath to own up to the fact the Native Americans are the only people with any "right" to America. It just ain't gonna happen. It almost seems silly to think it should happen.
Ohh look, someone invaded Iraq, well i guess its "finders keepers, losers weepers" to bad for all those Iraqis that used to live there huh?
:-)
Phrasing the question was not 100% correct, it should be do you see it right that ....
Yes means it's their right
No means it's not their right.
By your logic,what will you do if any other country invades your country and take it by force?
I like to see how this one rolls out, but you certainly know how to ask a biased question my friend...
Oh, and I answered yes, because I see it right or wrong.
Not really a yes/no questions. But I'm going on the assumption that 'yes' means that they do have the right to return and ‘no’ means that they don’t.
yes that is right, and it's not really a yes/no question, it should be right/wrong
the way you ask is 'politically not correct'. Who says that the land belonged to palestina before?
it really belonged to Palestinians before and Israelians went there after the world war II. it is completely clear for every one!
mmm, you need to re-read the history of Israel and Palestine
Israel was founded by extrmist religious people, they took the land by force and founded a new nation by force, that is wrong.
I do not advocate the palestinians killing Israelies, (killing people is just wrong) but this dispute should have been settled in an international court.
It does not mean that I don't condemn the actions of the Palestinians or the Israelies actions either (Israels resoponse is way out of proportions). Yet the US is refusing to sanction Israel to abide by the UN resolutions and instead is rewarding them for disobeying them to the tune of bilions in aid a year
Hmmm, technically, the British gave the land to Israel to serve as a Jewish homeland. It was theirs because they took it off the Ottomans I think or they were mandated it after WWI. The Ottomans probably took it off some Arabs or maybe some Persians who took it from someone else - Jews and Christians. Of course, the Romans were in there at some point too - there's a bit of land that certainly has changed hands a lot of times. So it's not fair to say the Jews took the land that became Israel by force.
That's not to say I agree entirely with Israel's current policies, but it's formation was pretty much legal.
From what I read is that the English had promised it to the palestinians in aid for helping them fight some wars.
The Brits also tried to stop the illegal imigrants and before ww2 the jewish population was about 10% of the population. I have noticed that there have been a lot of attempts to rewrite that part of history, but BBC has (or at least did have) some good articles from that period on-line.
I would like to see this dealt with in an international court because I, like most people, am not qualified to find and understand the details. I do understand lots of people in Israel feel bad about what happened in the past (just like I am not proud of all my Dutch forefathers did, our greatest war hero was a pirate) But I do think we should be trying to understand what the causes are for this, if we do not I am afraid it will just go on until there is no palestinian left alive.
The short term solution might be for Israel to obide by the UN resolution and the creation of one or two viable Palestinian states.
Oh yes, the period before WWII had a different overall plan for the area, I think after the war though, a certain amount of guilt played a part in changing Britain's policy.
I can't help but feel that British involvement in that area in the early part of the 20th century has a lot to answer for in terms of current instabilities, such as those in Iraq as well as Palestine.
I can understand Israel's mistrust and feeling it needs to defend itself vigorously, but also feel that they have gone beyond merely defending and crossed a line where they have begun to oppress to a certain extent. The Palestinians have a right to a homeland too. I'm not convinced outside rulings are the answer, imposing a solution is something both sides seem to not like much...they have to agree together - which I'm sure will require mediation, and perhaps more give and take than they are willing to make.
Sure, we caused disruption and mayhem whereever we went!
The colonies could not get rid of us fast enough once the ball strted rolling, but take a slow honest look at the places we used to be ... how many of them are actually better off than they were under British rule?
I'm not claiming we were saintly in our approach, but neither will I accept that we** are the cause of all the worlds evils either.
(** we in this case being all the western powers)
I didn't say or imply that the West was responsible for all the worlds ills, in fact as I mentioned somewhere else, I don't think we can be held responsible for fixing current situations, it's been too long and they have had ample opportunities to fix things themselves. However, in regards Palestine and Iraq, our meddling definitely was the father of today's issues.
We forced the tribes into becoming the country of Iraq, they only joined forces long enough to make us leave, and we did that despite reports from observers that the hatreds there were far too deep and ingrained and that it wasn't really a good idea. We can't deny that the fiasco that is Israel is an unholy mess. Yes, lots of things happened in the meantime, but we were right there at the beginning, planting those seeds.
I don't need to be persuaded that the British Empire did some good in other places, Hell, I don't even disagree with the formation of Israel - the Jews have as much right to their historical homeland as anyone else - but the original point in this thread of comments was about "Israel was founded by extrmist religious people, they took the land by force and founded a new nation by force, that is wrong." a point I disagree with and the involvement of Britain in the early 20th century was a factor that sways my thoughts on the matter.
Fair points, and I am sorry for over-reacting and taking your comment out of context.
Although this does not excuse my bad behaviour, and am sick to the gills of being blamed for everything from slavery to the price of oil and must be getting a bit touchy about it in my old age.
Plus its 29 C in my office and I'm getting hot and irritable :)
Can't think of any more excuses right now.
No worries, you didn't really overreact - you raised a fair point regarding how important it is to move on from the past and fix things - past dwelling is in my opinion a lot of the problem in the Middle East.
Sucks about your office, hope you escaped for a nice cold beer =)
I hope a ruling on how Israel and/or Palestine were founded and what happened subsequently would be a good basis to start negotions and the healing proces.
In the mean time the UN resolutions should be enforced with economic sanctions, if only just to show that we in the west are at least attempting to be even handed when it comes to international disputes.
To say "yes" is to endorse terrorist activity by Palestinians. To say "no" is to fail to acknowledge that Israel has done very wrong in some of it's dealings with them, especially more recently.
So not a black and white issue, with an answer as simple as yes or no. And really such a biased question anyhoo.
not sure what "yes" and "no" means in the context of your question
The phrasing of the question was not 100% correct,
However, Yes means it's their right , and "No" means it's not their right
What an oddly phrased question!
Whether it was right or wrong that Israel was created, and whose fault it was that it happened is not nothing but history.
Most of the original displaced people are long gone to the graveyard.
As someone else pointd out, its not exactly the first time this piece fo land, like many others, has changed hands.
There comes a time when you have to give it up and move on, or it will eat away at peoples souls for generations.
How long does it take for something to become accepted, and consigned to history?
50 years? (obviously not!)
100 years?
200 years?
If you want to hang on to disputes you can do so, but it is rare that there are ever any true winners.
Britain rules large parts of France for many years, and they changed hands over and over again over a long period of time.
Should be complain that we should be the rightful rulers now? That would be ridiculous.
Should we ask America to give us back the original 13 states? A total farce.
In this cae and many others, there is not real right and wrong, no black and white issues, just varying shades of grey dependign on which side you look from.
The oil rich middle east counties have had 60 years to help their "brothers" in the refugee camps** yet instead of doing so, they actually like having them to be able to use to show the world how evil Israel is!
If they really cared for the people, they would help them, not use them to score political points.
(** when is a refugee camp reclassified as a settlement? Are there many actual refugees left? Even the earliest children born there must be nearing senior citizen age. Time for a change of terminology?)
This is a logic which could be expected from people who had a bloody history of invading other people's land. (Not too far , we are talking about less than 100 Years :)