Jump to content

Israel's Right To Exist


Warrior_of_god
 Share

Recommended Posts

We all know how Israel was created, in 1948 it became a country after a hard war for its formation with neighboring Arab states and generally a civil war between the Jews and Palistinians. My question is this: Does Israel have the right to occupy land that has belonged to the people of that region for thousands of years? It has always seemed to me that it is like when the colonists in North America kept taking the indians land. It was theirs and we took it from them. Granted Israel has not committed genocide as we nearly did but the principal is the same. Do the Jews have the right to occupy that land to the after telling the palistinians to move and invading, albeit in a defensive war?

 

The Brits had a mandate granted them by the UN yes. But since when is it ok to transplant people from their native land and use it for other things? I know the Holocause was terrible, but 2 wrongs dont make a right.

 

The Mandate was in favour of the establishment for the Jewish people of a homeland in Palestine

If this Leauge of Nations mandate that granted Israel land is legal then why did after the 1947 war did Israel occupy 50% more land than was given to them? Might does not make right.

Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them.

In WWII the Allies didnt take the land Nazi germany had invaded and claim it as their own, they liberated it, not so with Israel.

 

At the time of its creation the land Israel would occupy had 700,000 people of which 575,000 were Muslims, 75,000 were Christian, and only 55,000 were Jews. The Palestinian Arabs, who accounted for 70% of the population and owned 92% of the land, were allocated 47% of the country. (UN resolution 181).

 

Referance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That tiny little strip of land certainly is worth fighting over, isn't it?

 

At least people seem to think so.

 

Let's go back, say, 2,000 years ago. The area which is now Israel was inhabited by the Jews, who were being ruled rather ruthlessly at that time by the Romans, who were sick of their rebellions and their refusal to put a statue of their God in the Pantheon in Rome, etc. Jerusalem at that time was inhabited by Jews with a considerable influx of pagan immigrants and a growing number of Christian converts (rather small at the time, but obviously not forever).

 

After the Roman Empire fell, the population remained pretty well mixed between Jews, pagans, and Christians. As I haven't delved that far into the archaeology yet I'm not sure whether any group predominated over the others. Then in the seventh century CE Islam is born, it eventually reaches Jerusalem and the area now described as Israel. We all know the great track record Islam has for tolerating other faiths.......

 

Jerusalem itself remained a hub of trading activity, and there still remained a small but visible proportion of Christians and Jews, however oppressed. The Crusaders superficially wanted to "reclaim" the Holy Land for Christ (as if it ever belonged to the Christians to begin with), but really wanted in on that trading and money network. They start a number of rather pitiful invasions that result in no great losses ultimately for the Muslims but thousands if not millions of casualties for the Christians. Of course the Jewish population is harassed by the invading Christians, and the ruling Muslims develop a distrust of even the native Christians, and then begin a persecution of non-Muslim religion burning anew.

 

Eventually the area now known as Israel developed into a land occupied mainly by Muslims, with small indigenous populations of Jews, Christians, and Druze, who were more or less "tolerated" at this point. Then Israel is founded, the (vastly secular) Jews who founded it call for the prior inhabitants to leave, and the whole hate machine cycles into another round.

 

Really, it all depends on who's side you're on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Israel is founded, the (vastly secular) Jews who founded it call for the prior inhabitants to leave...

After the US Civil war we didnt ask the Southerners to leave. We helped them rebuild our country. Why would they not do the same?

 

Let's go back, say, 2,000 years ago. The area which is now Israel was inhabited by the Jews, who were being ruled rather ruthlessly at that time by the Romans, who were sick of their rebellions and their refusal to put a statue of their God in the Pantheon in Rome, etc. Jerusalem at that time was inhabited by Jews with a considerable influx of pagan immigrants and a growing number of Christian converts (rather small at the time, but obviously not forever).

Who did it belong to first though?

 

Found some interesting stuff:

 

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel.

 

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E.

 

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

 

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

 

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

So it was recognizes as Syrian.

I believe Israel has a right to exist, however I also think that it should give up some of what is not legally theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is crying out to get down to brass tacks. I can't help but want to ask, what is the "right to exist?" What I mean to say is, if Isreal can exist then it does exist, right? Or is that too close to "might makes right"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have titled the thread better. It certainly has a right to exist. The question is does it have the right to exist with the land it took over in its early wars?

 

That whole region should be reduced to a glass parking lot, so we can all get passed this idiot debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...My question is this: Does Israel have the right to occupy land that has belonged to the people of that region for thousands of years?....
Simple answer; no. More complex reality; they are there and they need to recognize Palestines right to exist. They must withdraw to the 1997 boundaries and leave all settlements intact. Then we can talk about peace in the region.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can hold it on their own then they deserve it. There wont be peace in the region.

 

I agree - if Israel can hold onto it of their own accord, without American money and blood being spilled at their expense, then they deserve the land.

 

Israel is a perfect example of the "foriegn entanglements" George Washington wisely warned us not to get into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is crying out to get down to brass tacks. I can't help but want to ask, what is the "right to exist?" What I mean to say is, if Isreal can exist then it does exist, right? Or is that too close to "might makes right"?

 

Right or wrong, might does make right. When you are dealing with a world of independent states you essentially have a system that is better defined as an anarchy of states. The League of Nations and then the UN have been an attempt to organize the anarchy, but it remains an anarchy. I may or may not agree with the tactics that have been used to get and maintain territory but that doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as a "right" to occupy. At least not in a pragmatic or practical sense of the word. And since we are in fact discussing an anarchy of states, morality is a nonsensical concept, which gets pushed aside by pragmatism.

 

It's all very messy stuff.

 

If they can hold it on their own then they deserve it. There wont be peace in the region.

 

I dispute the word "deserve" but the rest I agree with. See my post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every bit of land on this planet has been conquered many times over. Every time someone takes someones land they are demonised, then after they've had it a few years people call it theirs and demonise the next guys who conquer it. Its ridiculous!

 

"1:This land is mine! we've been here three generations!

 

2:Before that?

 

1:Well.......we took it off some other guy who'd been here three generations.

 

2:And before that??

 

1:Well......I think he took it off some other guy who'd been there two generations."

 

They should have just set up Izrael in Poland we're there was room! Now that it's there it ain't going anywhere without a lot of death so they need to just sort out a border and each side fuck off to their side of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can hold it on their own then they deserve it. There wont be peace in the region.

 

And the billion dollar question, where's "God" in all this? The Israelites are his people no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brits had a mandate granted them by the UN yes. But since when is it ok to transplant people from their native land and use it for other things? I know the Holocause was terrible, but 2 wrongs dont make a right.

 

Exactly. Like Mr Michael Wong justly said on his site, "if all this really would have been about justice after WW2, the Jews would have been given a part of Germany instead of Palestine". I wouldn't have liked that I guess (but then, if it had been done I'd probably be used to it now... :scratch: ), but it would have been just. Kind of.

But Palestine... what justification can there be for letting the Jews have it? The book of lies? They must be kidding us!

 

That said, the people of course have a right to exist. The state of Israel in its current form, however, and with its current politics... :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jews had already purchased close to 50% of Israel by the time of the UN's partition of Palestine, with 55% going to the Jews & 45% going to the Arabs. The Arabs didn't accept the plan and many abandoned their land rather than live shoulder to shoulder with Jews. Land acquired by Israel in subsequent wars was often returned (e.g. the Sinai) but others were kept to maintain more defensible borders (the Golan Heights, and the West Bank).

 

I think all these methods of acquisition were legitimate (even though some were returned due to political considerations or difficulty of defense or both). Less so is claiming the imperative of the 2000 year Diaspora of the Jews initiated by the Romans and accelerated by the Arabs under Islam. It's the same thing as saying God gave us that land. The only basis for that is a 3000 self-serving legend, invented to justify the conquest of Canaan with tremendous slaughter of their own. In either case, it's ancient history which is irrelevant for conquest 2/3000 years later.

 

All in all, I think the state of Israel is justified, or at least some Jewish state is somewhere, what with the centuries of Christian and Muslim persecution that continue to this day. Given the facts in the first paragraph, and that Israel is established, it deserves to stand, even though it will remain THE source of manic hate within Islam for decades or centuries to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the facts in the first paragraph, and that Israel is established, it deserves to stand, even though it will remain THE source of manic hate within Islam for decades or centuries to come.

Indeed, If only Israel had been put somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

answer; no. More complex reality; they are there and they need to recognize Palestines right to exist. They must withdraw to the 1997 boundaries and leave all settlements intact. Then we can talk about peace in the region.

Precisely, Israel, in its current incarnation, should never have existed. But it does, and has for too long to just go back. The people living in Israel have as much right to live there as anyone, but their current policy's and our adminstration's willingness to support them no matter what are not OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, If only Israel had been put somewhere else.

 

Now, since in the OT Israel is depicted as being pretty much where it is today, would any Zionist Jew really tolerate Israel being anywhere else?

 

It all boils down to that stupid Abrahamic cult. Were it not for that, this mess wouldn't exist today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but they would probably be fighting anyhow if the Jews were anywhere near the Middle East.

 

I think the entire conflict was born out of their cults' doctrines.

 

In the beginning, Jews wouldn't tolerate Is-lame, because to them it was anti-Yahooweh.

 

In the beginning, Moose-lims wouldn't tolerate Jews, because their beliefs were non-Is-lame.

 

Both groups had a religious claim to the land of what is now Israel.

 

Were it not for the Abrhamic cults, we'd have no unrest in the Middle-east. Even for the non-religious amongst both groups, the religious violence transferred to cultural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to enter this particular debate due the sticky, futile and emotional nature of it, but I've seen a few repetitions of a historical fallacy that I'd like to correct.

 

We all know the great track record Islam has for tolerating other faiths.......

 

Jerusalem itself remained a hub of trading activity, and there still remained a small but visible proportion of Christians and Jews, however oppressed.

 

 

In the beginning, Jews wouldn't tolerate Is-lame, because to them it was anti-Yahooweh.

 

In the beginning, Moose-lims wouldn't tolerate Jews, because their beliefs were non-Is-lame.

 

To the best of my knowledge, these are both wrong. I'm no fan of Islam by any stretch of the imagination, but one of the things that made it truly revolutionary as a new Abrahamic monotheism was its toleration of other "people of the book." What we know as Jews and Christians. They were allowed to freely practice their faith without threat of persecution as dhimmis (non-Muslims living in the Islamic world who paid a poll tax in return for the freedom and security granted them in Muslim society), a system actually very similar to many of our secular governments today--i.e. they don't care what you do in your free time so long as they get their "dues."

 

I don't know how Christians and Jews felt about Muslims, but as near as I can tell they weren't terribly put out by this arrangement. The Jews in particular probably didn't like being subject to yet another group of foreign rulers, but in the wake of the religious persecutions of the Byzantine and Sassanian empires (against Jews and Christians, respectively), the policy of toleration the Muslims brought with them must have seemed a welcome change of pace.

 

Of course, their attitude toward pagans was a different matter alltogether...

 

The Crusaders superficially wanted to "reclaim" the Holy Land for Christ (as if it ever belonged to the Christians to begin with), but really wanted in on that trading and money network. They start a number of rather pitiful invasions that result in no great losses ultimately for the Muslims but thousands if not millions of casualties for the Christians.

 

The Crusades had at least as much to do with the internal strife in Europe. Catholic leaders saw a continent tearing itself apart, with Christian lords fighting constantly amongst themselves, and decided something had to be done about the situation. So they figured they'd do what the Muslims did with the Turks and Bedouins; gather the leaders together, point them to the infidels in the east, and say "sick 'em."

 

You're certainly right about the impact, though. I found it interesting to learn in my Islamic Civ class this semester that the Crusades, which were such a huge deal in Europe, were barely worth consideration in the Muslim world. "Oh look, another invading army. I suppose we'll have to fight them off just like we have everyone else." Between the Turks, the Bedouins, the Mongols, the Berbers and the regular political and sectarian strife which had been plagueing the Islamic world since the caliphate of 'Ali, the invasion of the Christian Europeans was simply "business as usual."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning, Jews wouldn't tolerate Is-lame, because to them it was anti-Yahooweh.

 

In the beginning, Moose-lims wouldn't tolerate Jews, because their beliefs were non-Is-lame.

 

To the best of my knowledge, these are both wrong.

 

They are not wrong - and the "beginning" I speak of is hostilities in the Mideast between Jews and Moose-lims.

 

There are verses of intolerance, furthermore, in the Koran, just as much as there are in the Torah.

 

Hardcore adherents of each cult will not tolerate the other on religious grounds.

 

If not for the Abrahamic cults and their intolerant gods of violence, there would be no conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not for the Abrahamic cults and their intolerant gods of violence, there would be no conflict.

I believe I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with this statemant unless it was modified somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, we were talking past each other then. Fair enough.

 

You're certainly right about the Qu'ran. For all that my professor tried to witewash the fact and paint Muhammad in an even more rosy light than Christians try to paint Jesus, Islam's last prophet was not a nice fella'.

 

'Course, the fact that he was yet another intolerant fucking monotheist is really enough to put me at odds with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not for the Abrahamic cults and their intolerant gods of violence, there would be no conflict.

I believe I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with this statemant unless it was modified somehow.

 

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.