Israel Vs. Palestine (Guru Gobind Singh's Answer)

[wahegurubhagatsingh]

I've seen from time to time different threads pertaining to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Some have supported Israel. Others Palestine. Some say neither is. But Guru Gobind Singh told us already. Every question is answered by Guru Sahib Ji (I'm sorry I don't know the ang., but it is from Krishna Avtar):

Kou kise ko rajnade hai

Jo lai hai nij bal sit lai hai

No people can have self-rule as a gift from another.

It has to be seized through their own strength.

After Zionist revolts began in Palestine for a Jewish state (Israel) and for a while created devastation, the United Nations (UN) jumped in and split Palestine into two countries: Palestine and Israel. In wars, not much later, Israel took over Palestinian land and kept it for their own.

So...who is right? Well...Israel,,,right? Wrong. Yes, they took over land, but the United Nations (UN) gave Israel land for free, and the right to being its own country. Israel got 55% of land and Palestine got the other 45%. It was completly disproportional. Becoming an internationally recognized nation gave Israel the ability to having stability, which Palestine had to, but without the UN, Israel wouldn't have had much of it. And even though the UN's purpose of giving land to Israel was "to stop violence", it is more than likely that by now the conflict would have been cleared up without the UN, but since the original Palestinian land was split up, it has taken many more lives.

For those who have given up on figuring out who is right and who is wrong, the Tenth King gives us the answer plain and simple.

Dhan Dhan Sri Satguru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji Maharaja!

[sikhstudent99]

Political leaders on both sides are to blame----but if israel was not attacked in 48 palesine would of bin an indendent state today I don't know much about the subject but may have a biased view and would love to learn more about this conflict----- didn't the jewish immigration start in the 1870's and I know there where indigenous people already there but a lot of jews and other arabs had immigrated to that region when the economy started booming and there was work available where before 1870's it was a very poor region---when Israel was created before the first war wasn't everyone living inside the Israel borders given citizenship even if they where muslim hence why 20% of Israel's population today is arab muslim----if the first war never happened then no one would of bin driven into refugee camps as well Palestine would be a state and they would of had a lot more land cause they had lost a lot of there land during the 48 war and then became occupied after the 6 day war----basically if there was no war to start with in 48 there would be no refugee problem-----but then again I have a lot to learn about this subject and would like to learn more so would it be ok if you could explain your point of view as well as correct what I stated as well isn't 40% of israels population middle eastern jews who have bin in the middle east for over 2000 years and are also considered indigenous people as well in the middle east an didn't they have there land taken away and get kicked out of countries like Syria Iraq at the beginning of the first war with Israel in 48?

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

I don't believe either side is blameless, but the Palestinians love playing "victim" when they're far from blameless. Fact is the British conquered the land, from the Ottomans, and that the Palestinians never ruled it. So we can't say the land "was stolen," but I still do understand where they are coming from, they were the majority after all. Unfortunant for them that they lost the wars, and now the Israeli state is firmly established, and by far the strongest nation in the reigion. Israel is going no where, the muslims better learn how to live with them. Worlds not fair.

[Koi]

When innocent people get killed, no one is blameless.

[Balkaar]

Guru's Sahib's support of the right of peoples to self-determination, evidenced in the Bani you have quoted, couldn't possibly be superimposed onto the messy situation in Israel/Palestine. That conflict has nothing to do with self determination of peoples. It is a religious conflict predicated on a few scribblings in some desert tomes. It arises from the idea that one ravaged patch of land is somehow more sacred than all others, and that Muslims and Jews, in their respective capacities as God's 'chosen people', have a right to all of it. Not the Western Bank. Not the Eastern Bank. All of it.

If it had anything to do with self-determination, both the Palestinians and the Israelis would consent to splitting the country in half, there is ample room for both of them. But this will never happen. The Jews refuse to content themselves with the Eastern Bank not because they are hungry for territory because of secular motives, but because they believe that their Messiah will only appear once the entirety of the Holy Land has been returned to them, that is all. The Muslims meanwhile consider the Holy Land to be a waqf, a religious dispensation to which they have a God-given right.

Sikhi dismisses the idea of a 'Holy Land' and a 'chosen people', the two ideas which are at the very heart of this struggle. Considering this, what possesses you to think that Guru Sahib could support either of them?

[MisterrSingh]

Muslim troll returns after a brief hiatus to resume his shenanigans, this time suggesting Guru Gobind Singh supports the Palestinians.

This guy is brilliant, lmao.

[wahegurubhagatsingh]

Muslim troll returns after a brief hiatus to resume his shenanigans, this time suggesting Guru Gobind Singh supports the Palestinians.

This guy is brilliant, lmao.

Great to see you again, MisterrSingh! I'm a Sikh. Flat out and simple. Ok? You are the troll if you don't trust your brothers, as Guru Gobind Singh said. Yeah, I support Palestine from what I've read about the situation. But it is messy and confusing and I'm no expert. I just wanted to see what others had to say.

I know that reasons are religious, and religiously speaking, I think that Israel should have the region for the sake of Jerusalem and all of the holy places there. The Muslims probably have some holy places in Palestine as well, but they get Arabia.

But I think that we shouldn't look from a religious point of you, but of who owns the land. It was Palestine pre-1947, and after Israel was given power,it has lost many wars. Neither side is innocent, but they don't have to be. Since when does politics have ethics anyways?

If it had anything to do with self-determination, both the Palestinians and the Israelis would consent to splitting the country in half, there is ample room for both of them. But this will never happen. The Jews refuse to content themselves with the Eastern Bank not because they are hungry for territory because of secular motives, but because they believe that their Messiah will only appear once the entirety of the Holy Land has been returned to them, that is all. The Muslims meanwhile consider the Holy Land to be a waqf, a religious dispensation to which they have a God-given right.

Sikhi dismisses the idea of a 'Holy Land' and a 'chosen people', the two ideas which are at the very heart of this struggle. Considering this, what possesses you to think that Guru Sahib could support either of them?

He doesn't support holy lands or chosen people, but he does have the right to recognize a country as being legitimate, whatever their motive. Guru Gobind Singh almost all that the Mughal Empire had been doing, and he didn't support them, but did acknowledge that they were a legitimate nation.

[Sayf Udeen]

Great to see you again, MisterrSingh! I'm a Sikh. Flat out and simple. Ok? You are the troll if you don't trust your brothers, as Guru Gobind Singh said. Yeah, I support Palestine from what I've read about the situation. But it is messy and confusing and I'm no expert. I just wanted to see what others had to say.

I know that reasons are religious, and religiously speaking, I think that Israel should have the region for the sake of Jerusalem and all of the holy places there. The Muslims probably have some holy places in Palestine as well, but they get Arabia.

Yeah, no. There is nothing religious about the situation. It is purely political.

We get Arabia? Right so that justifies a complete and utter landgrab, carpet bombing and genocide?

Anyone who supports the illegal and terrorist state of Israel is either.

a. Not human.

b. Ignorant as all get out.

I'm not saying you support Israel, but justifying driving people off of their land in any form is abhorrent, even if saying 'they have'. They are stateless, and unfortunately a lot of the Arab nations are so far up the USA's arse they also favour the Israelis to the Palestinians.

Disgusting.

[Balkaar]

It is purely political.

Not true. This conflict wouldn't even be happening if the Abrahamic religions weren't so fixated with the idea of a Holy Land. The Israelis would agree to the division of the Holy Land immediately if their messianic prophecies didn't propel them to colonize all it.

Anyone who supports the illegal and terrorist state of Israel is either.

a. Not human.

b. Ignorant as all get out.

I agree, only a morally deficient individual could support Israel's theft. But I believe the same can be said of anybody who supports the equally sanguinary Palestinian state with its glorification of terrorism and Islamic radicalism - https://news.vice.com/article/palestinian-support-for-hamas-soars-after-israel-war-as-fatah-loses-backing

Screw the Israelis and screw the Palestinians.

[StarStriker]

Look at how kuwaitis chucked out 350k palestinians, in early 90s, that had nutin to do with yanks, but to do with arafat sidin with saddam durin gulf war. Theres only 1 nation that r a match to isreal in the middle east and that is iran. Not even isreal wud mess with iran, n lucky enuff for them, n unfortunate for palestinians, iranians r shia, so have no sympathy for sunni palestinians. Consequently isreal can keep plundering, killing and doin wat they want, while knowin nobody will touch em.