Do Jews have a right to have a homeland in the Levant?

[gumboot]

In the thread on IDF "Hate Training" I proposed a central issue (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4437815&postcount=107) of the Palestine/Israel issue:

In my opinion it is the issue. The core issue of disagreement in the Palestine-Israel conflict is the question;

"Do Jew have a right to have a homeland in the Levant?"

In my experience, the vast majority of people base their position on all subsequent events and issues in relation to their answer to that question.

Tin Foil Timothy asked me what my opinion on that question was, so I created this thread, so as to avoid derailing the other thread any further.

This is a thread solely for discussing the central question of whether the Jews have a right to a homeland in the Levant. I'd like to establish some boundaries for the discussion.

I use the term "Jew" here in an ethnic nature; to define the culture, language, beliefs and customs of the Jewish people.

By a "homeland" I mean a Jewish state - that is a state which is predominantly set aside specifically for the Jewish people.

The exact geographic area of the Levant has varied over time (it originally meant all of the Mediterranean east of Venice) so I'll use a definition of the modern Levant (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Modern_Levant.PNG) which comprises the land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean; roughly the area of Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and Lebanon.

For the purposes of this discussion, the extent of the Jewish homeland is not relevant, nor the status of other inhabitants of the Levant.

The purpose of this thread is as follows:

In my many discussions on this topic, a common central point of conflict seems to boil down to this question. Those tending to support the Israeli position argue that Jews have a right to a homeland, while those who support the Palestinian position often argue from a position that the Jews have no right to a homeland.

This is, of course, not exclusive, but merely a trend I have observed.

Perhaps more fundamental than this is the question itself of self-determination and nationhood. The Israel question brings into conflict two fundamental principles of western attitude towards nationhood.

The UN supports a principle that local peoples should have a right to their own governance, and has routinely followed this principle for allowing for the division of historic nations along ethnic lines.

However, we are also supporters of liberal, secular and all-exclusive democracy, and the concept of dividing land along ethnic lines would appear to be an anathema to those principles.

I would be interested in hearing general discussions on these two seemingly conflicting principles of western foreign policy (via the UN) and also the more specific discussion of what right the Jewish people have to a specifically Jewish homeland in the Levant.

[funk de fino]

Yes.

[gumboot]

Yes.

Do you have any thoughts on the apparent conflict between the two western principles I have outlined above?

For the record (I am sure TFT will ask for my opinion soon enough) I fully intend to offer my own perspective, but would like to see something of a discussion established first, as I don't want this thread to be about my opinion on the subject.

:)

[portlandatheist]

And if jews don't have a right to have a homeland in the Levant, then there is the follow up question:
Should jews be ethnically cleansed from the land that doesn't belong to them? And if so, how would you go about the ethnic cleansing? After all, doesn't it logically follow that if you believe jews don't have a right to be there, that they need to be forcefully removed? Obviously I don't advocate that, but I often read into statements of people who claim they don't have a right to be there that they advocate something pretty extreme and like gumboot, I'd like to hear some clarification from the anti Israeli crowd how they would go about resolving this fundamental question.

[gtc]

The Jews have as much right to a homeland as any other group of people who are capable of creating a nation and holding it.

[funk de fino]

I think the UN are hypocritical sometimes and indeed other countries own foreign policies are also hypocritical when you look at some of the domestic issues in those countries.

I believe that Israel has a right to a homeland in that area and that it should coincide with a seperate Palestine state. I do not wish to be brought any further into these discussions as the extreme polarity that some posters bring to this issue leaves me with a little sick in my mouth and I do not wish to be harangued as a Zionist Apologist or whatever the fashionable insults bandied about this forum are today. I just thought it would be good manners to answer your question with a straightforward answer.

[gumboot]

And if jews don't have a right to have a homeland in the Levant, then there is the follow up question:
Should jews be ethnically cleansed from the land that doesn't belong to them? And if so, how would you go about the ethnic cleansing? After all, doesn't it logically follow that if you believe jews don't have a right to be there, that they need to be forcefully removed? Obviously I don't advocate that, but I often read into statements of people who claim they don't have a right to be there that they advocate something pretty extreme and like gumboot, I'd like to hear some clarification from the anti Israeli crowd how they would go about resolving this fundamental question.


I don't think it's necessary to get into that. The obvious alternative to having a Jewish homeland is simply having a non-ethnic-specific nation within which Jews a one of several ethnic groups.

[portlandatheist]

I don't think it's necessary to get into that. The obvious alternative to having a Jewish homeland is simply having a non-ethnic-specific nation within which Jews a one of several ethnic groups.
In other words, a one state solution?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I think the UN are hypocritical sometimes and indeed other countries own foreign policies are also hypocritical when you look at some of the domestic issues in those countries.

I believe that Israel has a right to a homeland in that area and that it should coincide with a seperate Palestine state. I do not wish to be brought any further into these discussions as the extreme polarity that some posters bring to this issue leaves me with a little sick in my mouth and I do not wish to be harangued as a Zionist Apologist or whatever the fashionable insults bandied about this forum are today. I just thought it would be good manners to answer your question with a straightforward answer.

Zionist Apologist isn't an insult. It's a description of someone who defends the agenda of the Zionist Movement.

[gumboot]

I think the UN are hypocritical sometimes and indeed other countries own foreign policies are also hypocritical when you look at some of the domestic issues in those countries.

I believe that Israel has a right to a homeland in that area and that it should coincide with a seperate Palestine state. I do not wish to be brought any further into these discussions as the extreme polarity that some posters bring to this issue leaves me with a little sick in my mouth and I do not wish to be harangued as a Zionist Apologist or whatever the fashionable insults bandied about this forum are today. I just thought it would be good manners to answer your question with a straightforward answer.


But do you have any interest in the other topic, which isn't really anything to do with Palestine/Israel at all? It seems to be that simply dismissing it as "the UN is hypocritical" doesn't really mesh.

Being a hypocrite usually means espousing one principle, then acting in a way that conflicts with that principle. This is something a little different; as western liberal democracies, we have espoused two separate principles that appear to be in conflict with each other.

I find that quite interesting.

I think perhaps a potential explanation is that one principle - that of an all encompassing democracy - is our ideal, but that we're pragmatic enough to realise that this solution simply isn't feasible in some parts of the world at present, so we separate people out by ethnicity as an alternative principle.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that segregating people into nations by ethnicity is only a short term solution, and not only does it not help in achieving the ideal end point, but it actively prevents the ideal end point - the constant segregation along ethnic lines simply makes it increasingly less likely that these groups of people will coexist as an all-inclusive democracy. We see this happening in Eastern Europe. Once you allow a couple of states to separate into ethnic enclaves, it snowballs and every other ethnic group wants their own country.

Worse yet, the more ethnically distinct nations you have, the more difficult it becomes for the UN to function - simply look at the various blocs appearing in the UN amongst nations that are not all-inclusive. Instead of being a forum for the world communities to come together in equality, it becomes a competition to see who can build the biggest bloc in the General Assembly and thus attempt to dictate policy to the globe.

[gumboot]

In other words, a one state solution?


Not necessarily. You could form a hundred states of that type. Or you could annex the entire area to another country and have a zero state solution.

[funk de fino]

Zionist Apologist isn't an insult. It's a description of someone who defends the agenda of the Zionist Movement.

Sorry pal, its a personal attack on members here for their views. You dont need to use it. It makes you look a little kooky and detracts from the miniscule amount of sense you do sometimes make.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

In the thread on IDF "Hate Training" I proposed a central issue (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4437815&postcount=107) of the Palestine/Israel issue:



Tin Foil Timothy asked me what my opinion on that question was, so I created this thread, so as to avoid derailing the other thread any further.

This is a thread solely for discussing the central question of whether the Jews have a right to a homeland in the Levant. I'd like to establish some boundaries for the discussion.

I use the term "Jew" here in an ethnic nature; to define the culture, language, beliefs and customs of the Jewish people.

By a "homeland" I mean a Jewish state - that is a state which is predominantly set aside specifically for the Jewish people.

The exact geographic area of the Levant has varied over time (it originally meant all of the Mediterranean east of Venice) so I'll use a definition of the modern Levant (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Modern_Levant.PNG) which comprises the land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean; roughly the area of Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and Lebanon.

For the purposes of this discussion, the extent of the Jewish homeland is not relevant, nor the status of other inhabitants of the Levant.



Of course they are relevant!! Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself!!

You've just specifically defined the area of the Levant and above that you've said " a state which is predominantly set aside specifically for the Jewish people."

So the status of other inhabitants is entirely relevant.

Here's my view ....


Do the Jewish people have a right to a homeland? YES!

Do the Jewish people have a right to set up a homeland that's set aside specifically for the Jewish people comprising of the area known as the Levant ( as per definition above )? NO - Why? because other people already live there and own land there and no one has any right to just go stampeding their own selfish agendas at will, displacing others in the process.

Do the Jewish people have a right to set up a homeland that's set aside specifically for the Jewish people comprising of the area known as Palestine ? NO - Why? because other people already live there and own land there and no one has any right to just go stampeding their own selfish agendas at will, displacing others in the process.

[funk de fino]

But do you have any interest in the other topic, which isn't really anything to do with Palestine/Israel at all? It seems to be that simply dismissing it as "the UN is hypocritical" doesn't really mesh.

Being a hypocrite usually means espousing one principle, then acting in a way that conflicts with that principle. This is something a little different; as western liberal democracies, we have espoused two separate principles that appear to be in conflict with each other.

I find that quite interesting.

I think perhaps a potential explanation is that one principle - that of an all encompassing democracy - is our ideal, but that we're pragmatic enough to realise that this solution simply isn't feasible in some parts of the world at present, so we separate people out by ethnicity as an alternative principle.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that segregating people into nations by ethnicity is only a short term solution, and not only does it not help in achieving the ideal end point, but it actively prevents the ideal end point - the constant segregation along ethnic lines simply makes it increasingly less likely that these groups of people will coexist as an all-inclusive democracy. We see this happening in Eastern Europe. Once you allow a couple of states to separate into ethnic enclaves, it snowballs and every other ethnic group wants their own country.

Worse yet, the more ethnically distinct nations you have, the more difficult it becomes for the UN to function - simply look at the various blocs appearing in the UN amongst nations that are not all-inclusive. Instead of being a forum for the world communities to come together in equality, it becomes a competition to see who can build the biggest bloc in the General Assembly and thus attempt to dictate policy to the globe.

I think the UN thing for me is a whole different thread. I like the idea of the UN and have visited it but find it ineffective and also sometimes hypocritical.

[gumboot]

Of course they are relevant!! Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself!!

You've just specifically defined the area of the Levant and above that you've said " a state which is predominantly set aside specifically for the Jewish people."

So the status of other inhabitants is entirely relevant.


This is false. A Jewish Homeland in the Levant could comprise a single hill in the middle of the Negev Desert, or one of the many Jewish settlements in that part of the world. You're changing my statement from "a homeland in the Levant" to "the Levant as a homeland".

There's a very specific reason that I have put aside the size of this theoretical homeland and the status of other inhabitants; to prevent them from clouding discussion of the central foundation question. If you do not think the Jews have a right to a Jewish homeland in the Levant, obviously the size of such a homeland, and the status of other inhabitants, becomes entirely irrelevant.

Only once the question is answered, does it become necessary to deal with the other issues.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Sorry pal, its a personal attack on members here for their views. You dont need to use it. It makes you look a little kooky and detracts from the miniscule amount of sense you do sometimes make.

Sorry pal it's NOT a personal attack it's a description. And I make a lot of sense. Sense that a lot of the Zionist Apologists try and deny. Often with failure as I've proved many times.

[funk de fino]

This is false. A Jewish Homeland in the Levant could comprise a single hill in the middle of the Negev Desert, or one of the many Jewish settlements in that part of the world. You're changing my statement from "a homeland in the Levant" to "the Levant as a homeland".


Who would have guessed someone was going to do that:rolleyes:

[Oliver]

In my many discussions on this topic, a common central point of conflict seems to boil down to this question. Those tending to support the Israeli position argue that Jews have a right to a homeland, while those who support the Palestinian position often argue from a position that the Jews have no right to a homeland.


Do you have quotes of people in here who argue for the Palestinians and claim that Jews have no right for a Homeland? That would be news to me. The major argument for Palestinians is that they have the right of a Homeland as well, including all of WB and fair compensations for all the Refugees without Israel dodging peace until all of them passed away.

[funk de fino]

Sorry pal it's NOT a personal attack it's a description. And I make a lot of sense. Sense that a lot of the Zionist Apologists try and deny. Often with failure as I've proved many times.


Incorrect. You rant and rave and call anyone this term who disagrees with any of your arguments. Disagreeing with you does not make everyone a Zionist Apologist. There is no need to use the term.

Most people can probably picture you shreiking away as you type it.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

This is false. A Jewish Homeland in the Levant could comprise a single hill in the middle of the Negev Desert, or one of the many Jewish settlements in that part of the world. You're changing my statement from "a homeland in the Levant" to "the Levant as a homeland".

There's a very specific reason that I have put aside the size of this theoretical homeland and the status of other inhabitants; to prevent them from clouding discussion of the central foundation question. If you do not think the Jews have a right to a Jewish homeland in the Levant, obviously the size of such a homeland, and the status of other inhabitants, becomes entirely irrelevant.

Only once the question is answered, does it become necessary to deal with the other issues.

Of course the size of the homeland is relevent.

I'm perfectly happy for the Jewish people to have a homeland ANYWHERE, including the Levant, but only if it doesn't mean displacing, persecuting or discriminating against anyone else.

So the size and placement of this homeland is 100% relevant.

Unless you're expecting a bunch of anti-semites to turn up and join the thread then if you remove those qualifications of size, etc then it's no discussion as everyone is simply going to say yes.

If you want a discussion then the issue if the size and placement of this homeland is relevant.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Incorrect. You rant and rave and call anyone this term who disagrees with any of your arguments. Disagreeing with you does not make everyone a Zionist Apologist. There is no need to use the term.

This is the last time i'm going to address this nonsense in order not to spoil the thread. See my last post on the matter for explanation.


Most people can probably picture you shreiking away as you type it.

grow up.

[Mitchell314]

OP:

Create a new homeland (If the current Israel didn't exist)? No. Unless it's an uninhabited part of the world.

Have a homeland? No doh. Everybody has a homeland, if you were born on earth. Just not special to you.

Keep what's given? Yes.

[The Fool]

Do the white afrikaans people have a right to a homeland in africa? One where they setup the government system to ensure control of the nation by white people.

if not, why not...

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Do you have quotes of people in here who argue for the Palestinians and claim that Jews have no right for a Homeland? That would be news to me. The major argument for Palestinians is that they have the right of a Homeland as well, including all of WB and fair compensations for all the Refugees without Israel dodging peace until all of them passed away.

Exactly Oliver. :)

I'm an ardent supporter of the rights of the Palestinians and I fully support the rights of the Jewish People to have a homeland.

I can't remember anyone saying they don't believe the Jewish people would not have a homeland. I would imagine the poster MagZ would have that view but I haven't seen him in here for a long time.

[gumboot]

Do you have quotes of people in here who argue for the Palestinians and claim that Jews have no right for a Homeland?

Why does everyone interpret the question wrong? I mean, it's a pretty straight forward question. It's a simple sentence, with a single clause, and the biggest word has only two syllables. I even explained the meaning of several words. Granted there's a typo in it (Jew instead of Jews) but c'mon people!

The question, Oliver, is Do Jews have a right to have a homeland in the Levant?

Not, "Do Jews have a right to a homeland?" or "Do Jews have a right to have the entire Levant as a homeland?" or "Do Palestinians not have a right to a homeland?".

I will not be drawn into derails. Discuss the topic, or go away.

[gumboot]

Of course the size of the homeland is relevent.

It is not, and I have explained why not.


Unless you're expecting a bunch of anti-semites to turn up and join the thread then if you remove those qualifications of size, etc then it's no discussion as everyone is simply going to say yes.

Nonsense. I have already hinted at some basic arguments for why the answer could be "no". Are you calling me an Antisemite? Bear in mind that a short time ago you called me a Zionist Apologist.


If you want a discussion then the issue if the size and placement of this homeland is relevant.

No it isn't.

[gumboot]

Do the white afrikaans people have a right to a homeland in africa? One where they setup the government system to ensure control of the nation by white people.

if not, why not...


Please don't derail my thread. The topic is specifically a morality of a Jewish homeland in the Levant, or generally the morality of the UN establishing nations along ethnic lines.

If you want to discuss South Africa I suggest you create your own thread.

[funk de fino]

This is the last time i'm going to address this nonsense in order not to spoil the thread.

Too late, you already did that when you twisted gumboots OP

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Why does everyone interpret the question wrong? I mean, it's a pretty straight forward question. It's a simple sentence, with a single clause, and the biggest word has only two syllables. I even explained the meaning of several words. Granted there's a typo in it (Jew instead of Jews) but c'mon people!

The question, Oliver, is Do Jews have a right to have a homeland in the Levant?

Not, "Do Jews have a right to a homeland?" or "Do Jews have a right to have the entire Levant as a homeland?" or "Do Palestinians not have a right to a homeland?".

I will not be drawn into derails. Discuss the topic, or go away.

It's not your forum. You've no right to dictate to people.

Oliver was discussing the merit of your arguments for starting the thread. You said ....

" ....In my many discussions on this topic, a common central point of conflict seems to boil down to this question. Those tending to support the Israeli position argue that Jews have a right to a homeland, while those who support the Palestinian position often argue from a position that the Jews have no right to a homeland. "

Oliver was asking how you arrive at that premise. Have you any quotes?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Please don't derail my thread. The topic is specifically a morality of a Jewish homeland in the Levant, or generally the morality of the UN establishing nations along ethnic lines.

If you want to discuss South Africa I suggest you create your own thread.

If the Zionist Apologists can bring up the world's other injustices whenever someone criticizes Israel in order to try accuse them of anti-Semitism then why cannot The Fool bring up the analogy of South African Apartheid?

Why not just discuss the issues instead of dictating that people go away if their contributions don't meet your criteria. You don't own the thread just because you started it.

[The Fool]

Please don't derail my thread. The topic is specifically a morality of a Jewish homeland in the Levant, or generally the morality of the UN establishing nations along ethnic lines.

If you want to discuss South Africa I suggest you create your own thread.
sorry, I think I was a bit subtle and it went straight over your head.

ok, you can go back to whining about your thread being derailed.

[Thunder]

Who you callin' "Jew"????

It is my humble opinion that the Roman conquest destruction of Judaea was a crime. The dispersal of the Jews and banning them from Jerusalem was also a crime. I see a great deal of historic justice in the return of the Jews to Judaea.

However, this could have been done with much more cooperation with the local Muslim and Christian peoples. The Jews missed a historic opportunity to make our return a peaceful one.

Nevertheless, I do believe that the Jews have a historic right to return.

[gumboot]

Now that some semblance of discussion has arisen, I'd like to share my conflicting views on this matter.


The Answer Is Yes

The relationship between community and land is an important and fundamental part of many human societies, and always has been. It establishes a sense of "belonging" which is fundamental to identity.

The Jewish people, as a culture, have a very strong tradition of association with the Levant. The exact origin of this association is not clear, however it was a strong association for at least 1,500 years between the creation of the Kingdom of Israel and the final supression of Galilee by the Byzantines. During this time the Jews spent much of it ruled by foreign entities, however a substantial Jewish population remained, at least until the Roman purges under Hadrian (this marks the downward spiral of Jewish presence in the area).

However I don't think a historic link is in itself, sufficient justification. The second half of this is failure by the Jews, for the following 1,500 years, to integrate into the new societies they found themselves in.

This failure to integrate was partially due to Jewish cultural practices, however the major blame has to lie with the societies in which they lived. Jews were systematically and often officially persecuted throughout the Christian world through this entire period.

The climax of the lack of Jewish integration came with the Holocaust in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Though this came as a part of an entirely unique sequence of events, Jewish persecution reached a climax in Russia at about the same time, and initial talk of a Jewish homeland by European powers was more about getting rid of their Jewish populations than anything else.

The lesson learned, from this long period of history, is simply that no society actually really wants to integrate the Jews, and therefore it's just easier if we give them their own Jewish state.

The former Ottoman Empire was the perfect choice because it was an enormous tract of land that Europe could essentially do whatever they wanted with. Further, the Levant specifically was the ideal location because it already had a not insignificant Jewish population, the Jewish people had strong associations with the land, and it was sparsely populated.


The Answer Is No

This is a much simpler explanation. The principles of western ideology, which gave birth to the UN, are for the advance of human society, and the emphasis on our common humanity rather than our differences. It is contended that it is the focus on differences which drives the majority of war and oppression in human history, and that by focusing on our common humanity much of that war and oppression can be eliminated.

As a result of this, a serious of important declarations were made, which make it very clear that segregation and suppression of people is not acceptable, and particularly not acceptable on discriminatory grounds such as race, ethnicity, gender, and so forth.

In order for societies to advance forward into the common fellowship of humanity, they must let go of prejudices and accept all fellow humans as equal, without condition.

As such, the establishment of societies along discriminatory lines is in direction violation of the fundamental principles of western ideology. It encourages segregation, and encourages people to focus on differences.

ETA. It should be added, as an important point, that a major problem with granting a nation exclusive ethnicity is what happens in order to maintain it. Simply put, you cannot maintain a society for a single ethnicity without a wide range of discriminatory laws and attitudes. Nations built on the premise of one ethnicity's dominance fall into the trap of having to maintain that dominance in the face of changing social dynamics.

[gumboot]

sorry, I think I was a bit subtle and it went straight over your head.


It wasn't the least bit subtle and I understood precisely what you meant.

[moon1969]

They can have their homeland. But how many if the jews would help Finland if Russia would attack Finland like it did on November 30 1939? :D Jews are as much as pro-russian as the arabs.

[gumboot]

Oliver was discussing the merit of your arguments for starting the thread. You said ....

" ....In my many discussions on this topic, a common central point of conflict seems to boil down to this question. Those tending to support the Israeli position argue that Jews have a right to a homeland, while those who support the Palestinian position often argue from a position that the Jews have no right to a homeland. "

Oliver was asking how you arrive at that premise. Have you any quotes?


No I don't have any quotes. It's a general trend I have observed in my exposure to Palestine/Israel issues. It's not the sort of thing that comes out in handy sound bytes that can easily be quoted.

As an example, The Fool's comment about South Africa reflects that trend, as do many remarks in the threads discussing Israeli apartheid or banning or Arab parties from the Israeli parliament. They are all arguments against the right of a Jewish homeland.

[Tricky]

This is obviously a "hot-button" issue, but a reasonable question. Seeing as how these things tend to erupt in bickering and insults (and this one is already showing signs) I'm putting it on moderated status for now. Perhaps if it develops into a rational discussion, we can take it off. It's up to you guys.

[gumboot]

I'd like to take a moment to explain a little more why this question is so important to me; as you can see I honestly don't know myself how to answer the question. I am torn between the two important ideological principles that drive the "yes" and "no" answer. But finding an answer is important.

Because I don't have an answer to this question, whenever a new incident arises in Palestine/Israel, I really have no choice but to ignore the history, and focus on the specific incident.

Take the recent invasion of Gaza as an example. Focusing entirely on the immediate incident, it is clear that Israel invaded in response to rocket attacks by Gazans.

But!... comes the reply. And the horrible conditions of Gazans, their desperation, and their issues with Israel are raised.

But!... comes the rejoinder. And the circumstances that led to Israel establishing the blockade are raised.

And so on, back and forward, as we descend further and further into history. And ultimately, at some point, we hit the creation of Israel, which was fundamentally driven by the UN's yes answer to this question.

But for me, if I follow history back to that question, I can't answer it, which renders me incapable of making a complete determination on anything relating to Palestine/Israel.

And while it's easy enough for me to discuss the Gaza War or the Lebanon War or any other specific topic simply by ignoring the history and focusing on the direct factors, the people of Israel and the people of Palestine do not have that luxury, and that will never lead to peace.

[TriskettheKid]

It is a difficult question to answer.

As a Jew, I'd LIKE for there to be a homeland, but my learning leads me to a different answer.

Jews do not have a RIGHT to a homeland, just like no one else has a RIGHT to a homeland, or any other land. What they do have, and what is, essentially, the way the western world works in stately matters, is more of an issue of power.

If the Jews can HOLD the land, and not lose it (in other words, if they can remain sovereign), then it is there's. If they (we) want to call it their (our) homeland, so be it. In matters of state, it comes down to power. It comes down to sovereignty. No state has a right to exist. The only thing that has a right to exist is a person. Not a state.

[Oliver]

Why does everyone interpret the question wrong? I mean, it's a pretty straight forward question. It's a simple sentence, with a single clause, and the biggest word has only two syllables. I even explained the meaning of several words. Granted there's a typo in it (Jew instead of Jews) but c'mon people!

The question, Oliver, is Do Jews have a right to have a homeland in the Levant?

Not, "Do Jews have a right to a homeland?" or "Do Jews have a right to have the entire Levant as a homeland?" or "Do Palestinians not have a right to a homeland?".

I will not be drawn into derails. Discuss the topic, or go away.


Okay, I see your semantics here, so let me rephrase the question so you can understand it the way I meant it:

I have yet to see a Palestinian-supporter who argues that Israel doesn't have the right to exist - and that therefore, the Jews have no right to have a homeland in the Levant.

So could you post quotes that supports your claim that people in here who support the Palestinian efforts for their homeland are arguing that "Jews have no right for a Homeland in the Levant". Or are you making this up?

[casebro]

My reading indicated that in the years leading up to the creation of Israel, the Jews had bought up about 2/3 of the area. Making them the local majority. Creating the state was therefor pretty democratic. And they have held it for sixty years. So I'd say yes, they do have the right to statehood. So far as Golan and Gaza, the areas were taken fair and square, as spoils of war. Israel can keep them, if they can.

The Palestinians don't pack up and leave. Why not? It's the economy, stupid. Jews bring Jobs. Jobs= food, health, pursuit of property.

[Pardalis]

Okay, I see your semantics here, so let me rephrase the question so you can understand it the way I meant it:

I have yet to see a Palestinian-supporter who argues that Israel doesn't have the right to exist - and that therefore, the Jews have no right to have a homeland in the Levant.

So could you post quotes that supports your claim that people in here who support the Palestinian efforts for their homeland are arguing that "Jews have no right for a Homeland in the Levant". Or are you making this up?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4402501#post4402501

[Thunder]

However I don't think a historic link is in itself, sufficient justification. The second half of this is failure by the Jews, for the following 1,500 years, to integrate into the new societies they found themselves in.

This failure to integrate was partially due to Jewish cultural practices, however the major blame has to lie with the societies in which they lived. Jews were systematically and often officially persecuted throughout the Christian world through this entire period.

The climax of the lack of Jewish integration came with the Holocaust in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

Woooooooahh there. Are you actually suggesting that the Jews' "failure to integrate" is somehow responsible for anti-Semitism?? What about Christian theological anti-Semitism? Did that worry about integration? What about Hitler's own writings about how he saw the integration of German Jews as a major threat?

Jews were FORCED to wear seperate clothes, forced to live in seperate communities, forced to only hold certain jobs. We did not choose this, it was FORCED upon us by anti-Semites.

You are totally blaiming the victim here dude.

[Oliver]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4402501#post4402501


Uhm, that's a fact but does in no way relate to Gumboot's question since Jewish immigrants and natural born Jews back then actually bought and owned the land they settled on. Legally. But that was no free pass to take the majority of Land. You still fail to understand the difference, why is that?

[gdnp]

It is a difficult question to answer.

As a Jew, I'd LIKE for there to be a homeland, but my learning leads me to a different answer.

Jews do not have a RIGHT to a homeland, just like no one else has a RIGHT to a homeland, or any other land. What they do have, and what is, essentially, the way the western world works in stately matters, is more of an issue of power.

If the Jews can HOLD the land, and not lose it (in other words, if they can remain sovereign), then it is there's. If they (we) want to call it their (our) homeland, so be it. In matters of state, it comes down to power. It comes down to sovereignty. No state has a right to exist. The only thing that has a right to exist is a person. Not a state.
This comes closest to my feelings on the subject. No state has an inherent right to exist. No people have the right to others' property. But I do support several concepts: self-determination, minority rights, equal protection, etc.

Did the Jews have the right to to form a state on land owned by others? No. Should the people who currently live there have a say in how their land is governed? Yes.

Part of the problem is that some time in the last 100 years or so the rules changed. No one used to ask whether a strong country had the right to invade, conquer, pillage, and colonize someone else's land. Well, maybe philosophers did, but governments did these things as a matter of course. The question was not whether Germany or France had the right to the Alsace, only who had the military power to hold it. Did Europeans debate whether the Spanish had the right to loot the new world, on only whether they had the military strength to take it from them?

This leaves the Jewish people in limbo: the borders of their current state were formed through military conquest at a time where the world no longer (officially) recognizes the rights of states to expand in this manner.

My reading indicated that in the years leading up to the creation of Israel, the Jews had bought up about 2/3 of the area. Making them the local majority. Creating the state was therefor pretty democratic. And they have held it for sixty years. So I'd say yes, they do have the right to statehood. So far as Golan and Gaza, the areas were taken fair and square, as spoils of war. Israel can keep them, if they can. I'm not sure where you got your numbers: I'd swear someone posted that Jews only owned aobut 4% of the land. And as for land taken as the spoils of war, you are still left with a quandry: How do you annex the land without annexing the people? Israel clearly does not wish to give citizenship rights to Muslim inhabitants of Gaza and the west bank, although they are fully willing to give citizenship rights to Jews living in the same areas. They are also willing to create settlements in the occupied territories reserved for Jews. These actions fail the "democracy" and "equal protection" rules that a state should follow if it wants my support.

The Palestinians don't pack up and leave. Why not? It's the economy, stupid. Jews bring Jobs. Jobs= food, health, pursuit of property.I might also point out that they have no where else to go. There are no countries out there willing to accept Palestinian refugees.

Woooooooahh there. Are you actually suggesting that the Jews' "failure to integrate" is somehow responsible for anti-Semitism?? What about Christian theological anti-Semitism? Did that worry about integration? What about Hitler's own writings about how he saw the integration of German Jews as a major threat?

Jews were FORCED to wear seperate clothes, forced to live in seperate communities, forced to only hold certain jobs. We did not choose this, it was FORCED upon us by anti-Semites.

You are totally blaiming the victim here dude.
While I do not doubt that the Nazis did all of these things, that does not imply that the Jews did not also strive to remain separate. There are still strong negative feelings in the Jewish community about intermarriage.

I live in an area with a significant orthodox population. They live in specific neighborhoods so they will be within walking distance of their temples and so they can stay within the eruv on the sabbath. They are easily recognized by their manner of dress. They send their children to private religious schools. Many of them work for Orthodox-owned businesses. They have even organized their own sports leagues. None of this is forced upon them by the citizens of northern New Jersey. They maintain their separation on their own.

[MarkCorrigan]

Woooooooahh there. Are you actually suggesting that the Jews' "failure to integrate" is somehow responsible for anti-Semitism?? What about Christian theological anti-Semitism? Did that worry about integration? What about Hitler's own writings about how he saw the integration of German Jews as a major threat?

Jews were FORCED to wear seperate clothes, forced to live in seperate communities, forced to only hold certain jobs. We did not choose this, it was FORCED upon us by anti-Semites.

You are totally blaiming the victim here dude.

Don't let facts spoil your sense of righteous indignation, but he actually directly puts most of the blame on the society said Jews found themselves in. If you don't believe me take a look at what you quoted. Where it says "however the major blame has to lie with the societies in which they lived. Jews were systematically and often officially persecuted throughout the Christian world through this entire period."

[FireGarden]

In my many discussions on this topic, a common central point of conflict seems to boil down to this question. Those tending to support the Israeli position argue that Jews have a right to a homeland, while those who support the Palestinian position often argue from a position that the Jews have no right to a homeland.

I've argued a couple of times for a one-state solution. My reasons are pragmatic: what will work to end the violence? The two-state solution is currently impossible. The facts on the ground, which Israel has worked so hard to build, make it impossible.

Sandy Tolan wrote about it recently:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-tolan/mitchells-challenge-after_b_161386.html

Twelve years later, these post-Oslo "facts on the ground" have all but doomed the traditional path to peace. The two-state solution, the central focus of efforts to end the tragedy of Israel and Palestine since 1967, has been undermined by the thickening reality of red-roofed Israeli settlements, military outposts, surveillance towers, and the web of settlers-only roads that whisk Israelis from their West Bank dwellings to prayer in Jerusalem's Old City, or to shopping and the beach in Tel Aviv. So dense had the Israeli West Bank presence become by 2009, so fragmented is Palestinian life -- both physically and politically -- that it now requires death-defying mental gymnastics to imagine how a two-state solution could ever be implemented.

[...] Some Israeli negotiators, including deputy speaker of the Knesset Otniel Schneller, a longtime leader of the settlers' movement, have called upon Israeli engineers to design workarounds. Their answer: a network of tunnels, "flyover" ramps, and bridges to ferry Palestinians under and around the settlements. For Schneller, these concrete fixes would keep a prominent Jewish presence in "Judea and Samaria," while allowing Palestinians ostensible "freedom of movement" through tightly controlled funnels: Not exactly what Palestinians had in mind during the decades of their liberation struggle.

Israel in the 1967 borders? Sure, I'll agree to that. Nearly similar borders, with land swaps of equal value? Sure, that too. Palestine as an independent state with control of imports, an army to protect itself -- even an airforce. Sure.

Do I like the idea of an ethnic state? No. I think it is racist. I liked Obama's line from his inauguration speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

(Still not made my judgement of Obama, btw. Just admiring what he said above.)

But, as I said above, I'm a pragmatist. You can't force people to forget about race. If I thought the 2-state solution could work, I would argue for it. But I think too much time has been wasted on that idea. It's time for other ideas to be put forward. At the very least, it might make Netenyahu change his mind and accept less than everything. As Olmert has already said, the clock is ticking on the two-state solution. More people need to hear that ticking.

The Answer Is Yes

The Answer Is No

I appreciate your yes and no answers. I just come about it from a different direction. I agree with you on your attitude to an ethnic state: It isn't modern; It isn't the democratic ideal.

The best thing about Britain, Australia, New Zealand, America, etc is that you don't need the benefit of an accident of birth to be a member. But our taste for such shouldn't be the end all.

Do I ever complain about the Amish and their closed society? No -- I'm not motivated to do so because (as far as I know) they do not force anyone to stay and the cost of not being able to join them is not one which seems to adversely affect too many people.

ETA. It should be added, as an important point, that a major problem with granting a nation exclusive ethnicity is what happens in order to maintain it. Simply put, you cannot maintain a society for a single ethnicity without a wide range of discriminatory laws and attitudes. Nations built on the premise of one ethnicity's dominance fall into the trap of having to maintain that dominance in the face of changing social dynamics.

In Israel it is reffered to as "the demographic threat".

[Hutch]

That is a good question, Gumboot, and one that should be given more thought.

Like you, I am undecided. Israel is a fact, and it is not going away, so the argument is academic, but how different would the world look today without an Jewish state in the center of the Islamic Middle-East?

I think the question comes down, in my mind, as to how long a people/religion/tribe can hold claim to their 'ancestral homeland'. The dispersal of the Jewish people by the Romans until the founding of Israel is well over 1800 years. The land was occupied/ruled/inhabited by numerous other peoples during that long period, none of whom were Jewish. The only claim besides "we lived there once" (which also applies to many people in many places (American Indians for one) that is recognized is "God gave us this land" in a book of moderately dubious scholarship and shaky legal grounds to base a claim for nationhood.

So when does the title run out? Upon reflection, I think it expired a long time ago.

Jews have a right to practice their faith and live according to their practices and not be discriminated against. This I believe. Does that equal a right to a Homeland in the Levant based on old memories and ancient scrolls? I have serious doubts.

As I note above, it is all academic; Israel exists, it will in all probability continue to exist for some time (however, as readers of the Torah/Old Testament know, the State of Israel had bounced in and out of existence before Roman times (see Babylon captivity) and given past internal stresses within the Jewish body politic (where did those 10 tribes get too, anyway?), wither Israel in, say, 200 years, is not predictable, at least by me.

About the first Israel-Palestinian thread I've contributed to in the last two years. Good on you, Gumboot.

[gumboot]

Okay, I see your semantics here, so let me rephrase the question so you can understand it the way I meant it:

I have yet to see a Palestinian-supporter who argues that Israel doesn't have the right to exist - and that therefore, the Jews have no right to have a homeland in the Levant.

So could you post quotes that supports your claim that people in here who support the Palestinian efforts for their homeland are arguing that "Jews have no right for a Homeland in the Levant". Or are you making this up?


Hi Oliver,

As I already pointed out, I aren't able to provide quotes because that sort of position isn't really present on the surface of most discussion, but lies at the heart of the argument, if you look deep enough. It's through the general trend of remarks that this view is realised.

I've already pointed to an example in this very thread; The Fool's remarks about South Africa. The Fool quite rightly points out that a Jewish Homeland can only remain a Jewish Homeland if the government treats non-Jews poorly. This is an argument against a Jewish homeland. Examples can also be found in my thread about the question of Israeli Apartheid.

Meanwhile, to point out the obvious, many Muslim leaders (both political and religious) and also many regular Muslim Arabs quite clearly hold the position that the Jews have no right to a homeland in the Levant. This includes Hamas, the rulers of Gaza. If you're unfamiliar with the views of these people, I can only suggest you need to do a bit more research on the topic.

I've also come across quite a common argument (not in this forum however) that there should be a one-state solution, and that should be a democratic, secular state in which Jews and Muslims and everyone else live equally side by side. I used to hold that view myself, though now I am not so sure. That argument, likewise, is an argument against a Jewish Homeland.

Now, I'm aware that you're talking about posters in this forum, but my reason for bringing up the above is quite important; I haven't made a claim that this particular view is standard in this forum. Nor is this forum the only place I have encountered discussion on this topic.

You're trying to play a semantic game and distract from the topic at hand. Why, I don't know. I can take a guess; you may view this as one of those "call out" threads where I'm somehow "tricking" people into agreeing that Jews have a right to a homeland, as if that validates the existence of Israel.

I can understand that concern, but you're wrong. I see nothing wrong with answering "no", and am half inclined that way myself, as I explained. Even if one answers "yes" that still has no bearing at all on Israel, because as I clearly explained to TFT, I intentionally put aside the scope of such a homeland and the fate of other inhabitants. Like I said, you might consider a suitable Jewish Homeland to be a village in the Negev Desert.

The reason is because I'm trying to frame Palestine/Israel within a much more fundamental question which is whether the UN's policy of dividing nations along ethnic lines is a good one or not.

[gumboot]

I've argued a couple of times for a one-state solution. My reasons are pragmatic: what will work to end the violence? The two-state solution is currently impossible. The facts on the ground, which Israel has worked so hard to build, make it impossible.

I tend to agree. I think maintaining the separate states doesn't help because it continues the division. In the past I've speculated that had the world community not become involved, either Israel would have simply grabbed the lot, or the Arabs would have destroyed Israel. While there may have been much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the time, the reality is right now the place would probably be peaceful.

In the interests of avoiding a massacre, perhaps an interim UN state could be a solution. If Israelis and Palestinians need a babysitter for a while until they learn to play nice, the world should be that babysitter.

I think anyone who thinks that continuing to divide them along ethnic lines will one day magically lead to them living happily side by side is really not thinking things through.

I'd point to Israeli Arabs as evidence that once you put them all into a single state, they live peacefully. Get rid of that "it's a Jewish state" nonsense and it would work even better.

Next question... what do you call it? Obviously Palestine and Israel are out.


Israel in the 1967 borders? Sure, I'll agree to that. Nearly similar borders, with land swaps of equal value? Sure, that too. Palestine as an independent state with control of imports, an army to protect itself -- even an airforce. Sure.

I think a major problem with Palestine/Israel is that it's so volatile, a tiny tiny percentage can easily ruin it for everyone else. The many surveys done seem to suggest the majority could settle for the above. But that acceptance is very tentative, and entirely rests on the other side playing ball. It only takes one or two idiots on either side to stir up trouble and the entire house of cards falls down.


Do I like the idea of an ethnic state? No. I think it is racist. I liked Obama's line from his inauguration speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm

(Still not made my judgement of Obama, btw. Just admiring what he said above.)

It's a great sentiment, and I agree completely.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[gdnp]

I think the question comes down, in my mind, as to how long a people/religion/tribe can hold claim to their 'ancestral homeland'. The dispersal of the Jewish people by the Romans until the founding of Israel is well over 1800 years. The land was occupied/ruled/inhabited by numerous other peoples during that long period, none of whom were Jewish. The only claim besides "we lived there once" (which also applies to many people in many places (American Indians for one) that is recognized is "God gave us this land" in a book of moderately dubious scholarship and shaky legal grounds to base a claim for nationhood.

So when does the title run out? Upon reflection, I think it expired a long time ago.


I think an equally important question is how long a people/religion/tribe need to hold possession of a piece of land before they can claim title to it. Part of my feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian issue come down the position "well, maybe the UN had no right to give this land to the Jews, but now they are there what are we supposed to do with them if we decide to give it back to the Arabs?" There is no good answer to that: they are not going to go away without a fight, and they have nuclear weapons that have already been loaded for launch once when Israel's survival was threatened. So whatever solution is proposed must include a Jewish presence whether it is their "right" or not.

Unfortunately, Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have not demonstrated themselves to be particularly tolerant of the Jews in recent years. Perhaps in another 100 years or so attitudes will change on both sides. Perhaps they will both realize that their invisible friends have caused them more harm than good. We can but hope.

[Jontg]

As much of a right as the Nazis had to a homeland on Aldebaran. Writing propaganda stating something doesn't make it true, no matter how old it is.

[gumboot]

Like you, I am undecided. Israel is a fact, and it is not going away, so the argument is academic, but how different would the world look today without an Jewish state in the center of the Islamic Middle-East?

You're quite right that it is of course academic; Israel exists and will do so for some time. I think it's quite an interesting question, however, for guiding future policy, as questions of ethnic independence are likely to keep cropping up.


I think the question comes down, in my mind, as to how long a people/religion/tribe can hold claim to their 'ancestral homeland'. The dispersal of the Jewish people by the Romans until the founding of Israel is well over 1800 years. The land was occupied/ruled/inhabited by numerous other peoples during that long period, none of whom were Jewish. The only claim besides "we lived there once" (which also applies to many people in many places (American Indians for one) that is recognized is "God gave us this land" in a book of moderately dubious scholarship and shaky legal grounds to base a claim for nationhood.

I think that's part of it, but I don't think that's all of it. The fact remains that when the Palestine Mandate was divided up into Jordan, Palestine, and Israel, there was a sizeable population of Jews there. Certainly the number of Jews increased after Israel was formed, but the fact remains that the justification for a homeland was not entirely historic.

I think perhaps the historic aspect of the claim probably had a lot to do with how big the homeland ended up being, but I think as far as the notion of creating a homeland at all, the presence of Jews in the Mandate played a key role.



About the first Israel-Palestinian thread I've contributed to in the last two years. Good on you, Gumboot.

That's music to my ears, and precisely what I was hoping by creating this thread.

[TriskettheKid]

This comes closest to my feelings on the subject. No state has an inherent right to exist. No people have the right to others' property. But I do support several concepts: self-determination, minority rights, equal protection, etc.

Rights? No.

Power? Absolutely.

Did the Jews have the right to to form a state on land owned by others? No.

Careful.

The state they "formed" was given to them by the previous sovereign power. It may have been owned by others, but it doesn't matter. They were not the sovereign power.

Thus, as I said before, no one has the RIGHT to a state. Power is what matters in a case like this.

Should the people who currently live there have a say in how their land is governed? Yes.

Don't really see the point, here.

If we're not talking hypothetically, then those who live in Israel do have a say.

That leads to an interesting question, though:

What happens when you have a non-sovereign entity, which is unable to maintain a social contract with those who live there?

Part of the problem is that some time in the last 100 years or so the rules changed. No one used to ask whether a strong country had the right to invade, conquer, pillage, and colonize someone else's land. Well, maybe philosophers did, but governments did these things as a matter of course. The question was not whether Germany or France had the right to the Alsace, only who had the military power to hold it. Did Europeans debate whether the Spanish had the right to loot the new world, on only whether they had the military strength to take it from them?

That is in agreement with my previous statements.

It's not about rights of the state, as the state itself has no inherent rights.

This leaves the Jewish people in limbo: the borders of their current state were formed through military conquest at a time where the world no longer (officially) recognizes the rights of states to expand in this manner.

You confused yourself, I think. Your previous paragraph discusses how states do things because they have the sovereign power to do so.

As I see it, there is no real limbo here.

Again, let's move away from the hypothetical and into the actual:

You have a sovereign nation (Israel) interacting with several other sovereign nations (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc). There is no sovereign entity known as Palestine. The land was either controlled by other sovereign powers (Egypt, Jordan, etc), or Israel (sovereign power itself).

Now, the land was not taken by Israel, but taken by other sovereign powers, which Israel captured during war. What land did belong to OTHER sovereign nations from the get-go (such as the Sinai), was given back. So, it was one nation giving back land to another nation.

In the case of Palestine, there was no sovereign nation.

Say what you want about the process, but Israel is doing something in the same vein as what happened in 1947:

They are giving land over to someone else, despite being the controlling sovereign nation.

So, to keep from derailing my own point:

There is no limbo here, at least from my point of view. This is not about rights.

[Oliver]

Hi Oliver,

As I already pointed out, I aren't able to provide quotes because that sort of position isn't really present on the surface of most discussion, but lies at the heart of the argument, if you look deep enough. It's through the general trend of remarks that this view is realised.


Well, my personal opinion is that given the Jewish origin in the Levant, it's obvious that they have a right to have their homeland exactly there. But if you really "look deeper", you may find out that the whole western frustration isn't about the question of their right of a homeland in the Levant but rather about the right to give Palestinians a fair share of the Pie to stop this crappy annoying conflict once and for all.

In my personal opinion after reviewing the facts is that the state of Israel is built on injustice since they didn't care about the Palestinian question in the first place. Unfortunately, I should add. Yet, this opinion has nothing to do with your question nor do I have the impression that the majority of People arguing for equal Palestinian opportunities deny the right for Israel to exist.

So it usually comes down to disproportionateness, not to racism, Anti-semitism or the right for a Homeland in the Levant. It also isn't about Jews and Palestinians as people, because the arguments on both sides would be pretty much the same way if "European Australians" and Aborigines would be stuck in a similar conflict.

I've already pointed to an example in this very thread; The Fool's remarks about South Africa. The Fool quite rightly points out that a Jewish Homeland can only remain a Jewish Homeland if the government treats non-Jews poorly. This is an argument against a Jewish homeland. Examples can also be found in my thread about the question of Israeli Apartheid.


How is that an argument against a Jewish Homeland? The fact is that Israeli Arabs [currently 20%] are growing in higher percental numbers than the Jewish Israelis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Population_growth_rate), thus this is a natural and logical threat to Israel's future as a Jewish State.

Here's how Bibi explained it (http://www.peterberkowitz.com/demographyandsecurityinisrael.htm):

"If Arab inhabitants are wonderfully integrated and their numbers increase to 35-40 percent of the total inhabitants of the state, then the Jewish state will have been abolished, and it will have turned into a binational state. If their numbers remain at about 20 percent, as they are today, or fall, but relations are stiff, contentious, and violent, this too will hurt our democratic character. Therefore, we need a policy that balances these two needs. First of all, it is necessary to assure a Jewish majority in Israel. I say this as a liberal, as a democrat, and as a Jewish and Zionist patriot."

Therefore, I suspect that at one point in time, Israel will be forced to establish undemocratic laws or actions to do something about the Arab growth within. That's when Israel may have to adopt some kind of fascism.

Meanwhile, to point out the obvious, many Muslim leaders (both political and religious) and also many regular Muslim Arabs quite clearly hold the position that the Jews have no right to a homeland in the Levant. This includes Hamas, the rulers of Gaza. If you're unfamiliar with the views of these people, I can only suggest you need to do a bit more research on the topic.


I'm familiar with their views and how they came about. My solution to Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and all the other factions would be a fair offer the Palestinians couldn't refuse. That would undermine any support of those groups radical ideologies instantly and they would vanish over a rather short period of time.

I've also come across quite a common argument (not in this forum however) that there should be a one-state solution, and that should be a democratic, secular state in which Jews and Muslims and everyone else live equally side by side. I used to hold that view myself, though now I am not so sure. That argument, likewise, is an argument against a Jewish Homeland.


Quite frankly, after decades of hate, the idea of a one-state solution is pretty abstract. Not to mention that over time, Arab's may outnumber the Jewish citizens of the state anyway. So it's a strange idea to start with.

Now, I'm aware that you're talking about posters in this forum, but my reason for bringing up the above is quite important; I haven't made a claim that this particular view is standard in this forum. Nor is this forum the only place I have encountered discussion on this topic.


Oki doki, it just sounded that way to me.

You're trying to play a semantic game and distract from the topic at hand. Why, I don't know. I can take a guess; you may view this as one of those "call out" threads where I'm somehow "tricking" people into agreeing that Jews have a right to a homeland, as if that validates the existence of Israel.


Actually, no. I just thought that your argument that it all comes down to "Right of Levant Homeland" was moot since the majority of people here acknowledge that Israel exists and don't argue about changing or denying that.

I can understand that concern, but you're wrong. I see nothing wrong with answering "no", and am half inclined that way myself, as I explained. Even if one answers "yes" that still has no bearing at all on Israel, because as I clearly explained to TFT, I intentionally put aside the scope of such a homeland and the fate of other inhabitants. Like I said, you might consider a suitable Jewish Homeland to be a village in the Negev Desert.


...

The reason is because I'm trying to frame Palestine/Israel within a much more fundamental question which is whether the UN's policy of dividing nations along ethnic lines is a good one or not.


I don't know if it's a good idea since Israel didn't wait with it's declaration of Independence until the UN would've figured out how to come to a consensus between Arab and Jewish Palestinians. But I assume the Levant would've seen a less violent history in recent decades. What do you think?

[Oliver]

Also, I would like to see more argumentations from the predominantly Pro-Israeli side to learn something that proves me wrong.

[gdnp]

I would like to see the thread released from moderated status so that we could participate in a bit more give and take. Thoughts?
Based on the posts we've received so far, this thread has not reached the level of civility required for unmoderated threads. If that changes, we will reconsider removing "moderated" status

[gumboot]

Well, my personal opinion is that given the Jewish origin in the Levant, it's obvious that they have a right to have their homeland exactly there.

I think if the Jews are going to be given a homeland you're probably right that the Levant is the obvious place for it, but there is the question of whether the Jews should have their own homeland at all.


In my personal opinion after reviewing the facts is that the state of Israel is built on injustice since they didn't care about the Palestinian question in the first place.

Who didn't care about the Palestinian question?


Unfortunately, I should add. Yet, this opinion has nothing to do with your question nor do I have the impression that the majority of People arguing for equal Palestinian opportunities deny the right for Israel to exist.

Well, I think someone else already pointed out this entire exercise is somewhat academic, because like it or not, good idea or not, the simple fact is Israel does exist. So I think any rational person is going to avoid arguing that Israel has no right to exist. But "Israel has no right to exist" is a little different to "Israel never should have been created".


How is that an argument against a Jewish Homeland?

You actually answer your own question a little later:


Therefore, I suspect that at one point in time, Israel will be forced to establish undemocratic laws or actions to do something about the Arab growth within. That's when Israel may have to adopt some kind of fascism.

Any argument that follows the above basic points is a de facto "no" to the question because it recognises that creation of a state based on a single ethnicity guarantees that the state will have to become a "bad" state in order to remain based on a single ethnicity.


I'm familiar with their views and how they came about. My solution to Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and all the other factions would be a fair offer the Palestinians couldn't refuse. That would undermine any support of those groups radical ideologies instantly and they would vanish over a rather short period of time.

I think you're being a little naive, or at least a bit wishful. But anyway, I only raised them as examples that when I said "when I am exposed to discussions about Palestine/Israel" I wasn't just talking about this particular website, but discussion in general - which includes the rhetoric from Israeli politicians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and so forth.


Quite frankly, after decades of hate, the idea of a one-state solution is pretty abstract. Not to mention that over time, Arab's may outnumber the Jewish citizens of the state anyway. So it's a strange idea to start with.

I think you're contradicting yourself here. The sole reason for a two state solution is to keep Jews and Arabs apart. If Israel will one day become an Arab state with a Jewish minority anyway (which it will) the entire two state solution is fundamentally flawed, and will probably lead to a one state solution eventually.

I think the "decades of hate" are, in fact, primarily caused by the two state solution. I think I touched on this when I gave my thoughts about why I'd answer "no" to a Jewish homeland in the Levant.


Actually, no. I just thought that your argument that it all comes down to "Right of Levant Homeland" was moot since the majority of people here acknowledge that Israel exists and don't argue about changing or denying that.

I think there's a fundamental difference between "does exist" and "should have been created". And again, "majority of people here" may be true, but I think you'll find outside these forums in the wide world, it's a different story.


I don't know if it's a good idea since Israel didn't wait with it's declaration of Independence until the UN would've figured out how to come to a consensus between Arab and Jewish Palestinians. But I assume the Levant would've seen a less violent history in recent decades. What do you think?

You seem to be asking if things would have been better if the UN spent the time to come up with a division both Jews and Arabs were happy with. I think you're missing the fundamental point here, which is that the conflict did not start between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs - it started between Israel and it's other Arab neighbours, and they were always going to attack Israel regardless of what the Palestinian Arabs wanted. They didn't want a Jewish state, end of story. Were that Jewish state all of Palestine, or merely a single village, those countries still would have attacked.

So in the end, even making some sort of assumption that agreement could have been found between Palestinian Arabs and Jews (I think this was an impossibility, myself), I don't think it ultimately would have made any difference.

The key thing is the policy of dividing countries along ethnic lines simply does not work. Everywhere that this has happened, we have serious conflict and problems, or one side eventually conquers the other.

[Oliver]

I think if the Jews are going to be given a homeland you're probably right that the Levant is the obvious place for it, but there is the question of whether the Jews should have their own homeland at all.


I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have the right for a homeland in the Levant. But I also understand people who don't agree with that for good reasons, or as Ben-Gurion acknowledged it himself (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion):


"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."

As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.
Public opinion surveys show (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=public+opinion+survey+palestinians+hamas&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=) that many Palestinians don't care about that question that much as long they have their independent State and therefore, the same rights and privileges as Israel. So there's nothing wrong with supporting Palestinians to settle the conflict Zionism created for Palestinian Arabs.

Who didn't care about the Palestinian question?


Those who did and do set the laws and borders of the Israeli state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Property_laws_in_Israel

Well, I think someone else already pointed out this entire exercise is somewhat academic, because like it or not, good idea or not, the simple fact is Israel does exist. So I think any rational person is going to avoid arguing that Israel has no right to exist. But "Israel has no right to exist" is a little different to "Israel never should have been created".


So where did you get the impression that "those who support the Palestinian position often argue from a position that the Jews have no right to a homeland." I didn't see that underlying view of Palestinian-supporters in here yet - although I usually don't read much of the posts from the very view people in here who tend to argue based on racism/antisemitism. [you adressed that point of the discussion later on]

Personally I would argue that the way Israel was created was foolish as long the "State of Palestine"-question wasn't solved. Why? Because the resulting conflict was well understood beforehand by the "founding fathers" and therefore avoidable before the State of Israel was established.

You actually answer your own question a little later:


Then you have a different view about that issue, because I completely see that natural developement as a matter of "Israel's future" not as a question about "Israel's right to exist in the Levant" in the first place. You somehow conclude that the aim of the discussion is the focus on the past, not the future. Sure, the past plays a major role about the discussion concerning a fair share for both sides, but the main focus is the future based on the fact that Israel exists today. A fact that nobody can deny, even if they're not willing to accept that now.

Any argument that follows the above basic points is a de facto "no" to the question because it recognises that creation of a state based on a single ethnicity guarantees that the state will have to become a "bad" state in order to remain based on a single ethnicity.


No, that problem is rather new in historical context, but what other policies could Israel adopt if not un-democratic ones to confront the problem of "maintaining a Jewish majority"?

It always will be a lose-lose situation for Israel unless the Arabs decide to join the Palestinian State that doesn't exist yet. For that to happen, there has to be an attractive, flourishing Palestinian State and attractive compensations for their currently owned land for them to decide to resettle in a Palestinian-Arab Homeland. So it's a Israeli policy matter in any case.

I think you're being a little naive, or at least a bit wishful. But anyway, I only raised them as examples that when I said "when I am exposed to discussions about Palestine/Israel" I wasn't just talking about this particular website, but discussion in general - which includes the rhetoric from Israeli politicians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and so forth.


Wishful: Yes - Naive: Not really since all major problems of Israel are solvable if they make a deal the majority of Palestinians can agree on. Hamas and co are a rather unimportant side-show of the conflict in this regard since they came about due to the lack of achieving peace and equality, not the other way around. edited for civililty -- moderated thread.
I think you're contradicting yourself here. The sole reason for a two state solution is to keep Jews and Arabs apart. If Israel will one day become an Arab state with a Jewish minority anyway (which it will) the entire two state solution is fundamentally flawed, and will probably lead to a one state solution eventually.

I think the "decades of hate" are, in fact, primarily caused by the two state solution. I think I touched on this when I gave my thoughts about why I'd answer "no" to a Jewish homeland in the Levant.


No, the two-state solution isn't the center of the conflict. It's the view that Israel took too much in the first place combined with the fact that a Palestinian State doesn't exist because of that. If Palestinians would have the same share of the Pie, the State of Palestine would have been established by now and the vast amount of opposition wouldn't exist anymore, especially the radical one since the public opinion would drastically change and the Palestinian State would be forced to fight radicalism itself due to the fact that radicalism would threaten the fundamental security of their new Palestinian State.


I think there's a fundamental difference between "does exist" and "should have been created". And again, "majority of people here" may be true, but I think you'll find outside these forums in the wide world, it's a different story.


That's fine. But not necessarily true if you read up related surveys of the people directly involved. You will see that the answer is far away from being a black and white issue, and changing all the time - depending on events.

You seem to be asking if things would have been better if the UN spent the time to come up with a division both Jews and Arabs were happy with. I think you're missing the fundamental point here, which is that the conflict did not start between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs - it started between Israel and it's other Arab neighbours, and they were always going to attack Israel regardless of what the Palestinian Arabs wanted. They didn't want a Jewish state, end of story. Were that Jewish state all of Palestine, or merely a single village, those countries still would have attacked.


Not necessarily: Just like you wouldn't want a sharia state taking away the majority of New Zealands territory, the creation of a State of Israel by just taking the Land was seen as a declaration of war just like you would interpret such a developement in your country.

If, on the other hand, Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Jews would've come to an agreement in the first place, that wouldn't have been interpreted as a declaration of war to Israel's Neighbors. Israel then still might have been seen as an unwanted entity by it's neighbors, but the reactions wouldn't have been as radical as it was and is. You know, there's a big difference concerning the discussion and outcome of: "Let's make a fair deal." and "It's ours now".

So in the end, even making some sort of assumption that agreement could have been found between Palestinian Arabs and Jews (I think this was an impossibility, myself), I don't think it ultimately would have made any difference.

The key thing is the policy of dividing countries along ethnic lines simply does not work. Everywhere that this has happened, we have serious conflict and problems, or one side eventually conquers the other.


Well, I guess that this is an argument of yours against a Palestinian and an Israeli state then?

For me, the key in this whole issue is moderation due to a fair share on both sides. Israel's economic, territorial and military strengh actually represents it's weakness to find a rational solution for it's future because "Bully vs. opressed" also never turned out to be a solution for anything in the long run.

[gumboot]

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have the right for a homeland in the Levant.

I've already explained several in detail.



Those who did and do set the laws and borders of the Israeli state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Property_laws_in_Israel

The borders of Israel were set by the UN, who most certainly did care about the Palestinians.



Personally I would argue that the way Israel was created was foolish as long the "State of Palestine"-question wasn't solved. Why? Because the resulting conflict was well understood beforehand by the "founding fathers" and therefore avoidable before the State of Israel was established.

When Israel was created, Palestine was created at the exact same time. The Palestinians could have elected to declare their own independence, and team up with the Israelis to repel the invaders, but they didn't. They chose to join the side of the aggressors, and they suffered for it - their own "allies" took most of their land and forced them into perpetual chaos.


Then you have a different view about that issue, because I completely see that natural developement as a matter of "Israel's future" not as a question about "Israel's right to exist in the Levant" in the first place. You somehow conclude that the aim of the discussion is the focus on the past, not the future. Sure, the past plays a major role about the discussion concerning a fair share for both sides, but the main focus is the future based on the fact that Israel exists today. A fact that nobody can deny, even if they're not willing to accept that now.

The aim of the discussion is really to focus on a particular policy. One of the reasons for questioning the policy is because it naturally leads to an undesirable situation - that being a facist and racist state. If you accept the premise that a facist and racist state is undesirable, and if you accept that dividing a state along ethnic lines will naturally lead to a facist and racist state (in order to maintain the ethnic division of the state), I honestly cannot see how you could argue other than to say Israel should not have been created as a Jewish homeland.


No, that problem is rather new in historical context, but what other policies could Israel adopt if not un-democratic ones to confront the problem of "maintaining a Jewish majority"?

You're still just reinforcing my point. There are no other policies they can adopt. Israel must, to remain a Jewish state, become a bad state. Ergo creating a Jewish state is bad. That's the logic of the argument. You keep saying you disagree, yet everything you argue suggests you do agree.


It always will be a lose-lose situation for Israel unless the Arabs decide to join the Palestinian State that doesn't exist yet.

The Palestinians can declare a state any time they want. If they were genuine about co-existence with Israel they would have declared one in 1948.


For that to happen, there has to be an attractive, flourishing Palestinian State and attractive compensations for their currently owned land for them to decide to resettle in a Palestinian-Arab Homeland. So it's a Israeli policy matter in any case.

The simple fact is the Israeli Arabs are mostly quite happy living in Israel, and have no interest whatsoever in living in Palestine.


Wishful: Yes - Naive: Not really since all major problems of Israel are solvable if they make a deal the majority of Palestinians can agree on. Hamas and co are a rather unimportant side-show of the conflict in this regard since they came about due to the lack of achieving peace and equality, not the other way around.

The bolded point is what I am talking about. That you describe Hamas as an "unimportant side show" is even more astounding. Hamas is about the only thing Palestinians do agree on. Hamas are their elected government. You consider the Government of Palestine to be an "unimportant side-show"? Really?

The only "deal" Israel can make that the "majority of Palestinians can agree on" is that Israel ceases to exist. It is as simple as that.


No, the two-state solution isn't the center of the conflict. It's the view that Israel took too much in the first place combined with the fact that a Palestinian State doesn't exist because of that.

Oliver, with all due respect, the above is total nonsense. Go back to the history books and read up on 1948. The Arab states made it abundantly clear that they would never accept anything even remotely resembling a Jewish homeland, regardless of how big it was. The Arab states didn't even want a Palestinian homeland - as evidenced by the fact that Jordan, Egypt and Syria between them swallowed up the parts of Palestine that Israel didn't grab in the 1948 war.

They wanted Palestine for themselves, plain and simple.


If Palestinians would have the same share of the Pie, the State of Palestine would have been established by now and the vast amount of opposition wouldn't exist anymore, especially the radical one since the public opinion would drastically change and the Palestinian State would be forced to fight radicalism itself due to the fact that radicalism would threaten the fundamental security of their new Palestinian State.

The Palestinians had their share of the pie in 1948, and didn't make any effort to establish a state.


That's fine. But not necessarily true if you read up related surveys of the people directly involved. You will see that the answer is far away from being a black and white issue, and changing all the time - depending on events.

I think if you did a survey of the world's population asking "Was it a mistake to create Israel" you would have an overwhelming majority answer "yes".


Not necessarily:

Oliver, yes. Yes necessarily. Go read what the leaders of the Arab states were saying in the years leading up to the creation of Israel. They were never going to accept a Jewish state, period.


Just like you wouldn't want a sharia state taking away the majority of New Zealands territory, the creation of a State of Israel by just taking the Land was seen as a declaration of war just like you would interpret such a developement in your country.

Oliver you've tried that analogy before and just like last time your analogy is so fundamentally flawed that it's meaningless. Stop trying to personalise the issue.


If, on the other hand, Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Jews would've come to an agreement in the first place, that wouldn't have been interpreted as a declaration of war to Israel's Neighbors. Israel then still might have been seen as an unwanted entity by it's neighbors, but the reactions wouldn't have been as radical as it was and is.

No, no, no, no, no. Oliver, do you know who suffered the most from the 1948 war? It wasn't Israel. It was the Palestinians. They lost territory to the other Arab states, and millions became refugees. How did you get this ridiculous notion in your head that the Arab state gave the slightest care about what the Palestinian Arabs wanted? They didn't, and they don't.

Had Israeli and Palestinian Arabs come to an agreement and both declared independence at the same time, the 1948 war would still have occurred.


Well, I guess that this is an argument of yours against a Palestinian and an Israeli state then?

Obviously. And North and South Korea. And North and South Vietnam. And Bosnia. And Kosovo. And East Timor. And Pakistan. And on, and on, and on.

[Oliver]

The borders of Israel were set by the UN, who most certainly did care about the Palestinians.


I know. But what does that have to do with Israel ignoring the UN's proposal? :confused:

When Israel was created, Palestine was created at the exact same time. The Palestinians could have elected to declare their own independence, and team up with the Israelis to repel the invaders, but they didn't. They chose to join the side of the aggressors, and they suffered for it - their own "allies" took most of their land and forced them into perpetual chaos.


WTF? They "joined the aggressors"? Israel set it boundaries wayyy beyond the UN's proposal. They took the majority of Palestine without any logic argument other than "God said so". How in the world should the Palestinians have accepted that in the first place?

The aim of the discussion is really to focus on a particular policy. One of the reasons for questioning the policy is because it naturally leads to an undesirable situation - that being a facist and racist state. If you accept the premise that a facist and racist state is undesirable, and if you accept that dividing a state along ethnic lines will naturally lead to a facist and racist state (in order to maintain the ethnic division of the state), I honestly cannot see how you could argue other than to say Israel should not have been created as a Jewish homeland.


My opinion is that Israel should've been created based on a compromise - or should be settled with a compromise that Palestinian Arab's can live with. The issue of Israeli Arab's somehow being a threat to Israel came about in recent years and by Israeli fanatics. And they who brought it up don't think that Israel shouldn't be there in the first place. Ask them how they manage to accept both realities concerning Arab's in Israel and Israel's right to exist.

You're still just reinforcing my point. There are no other policies they can adopt. Israel must, to remain a Jewish state, become a bad state. Ergo creating a Jewish state is bad. That's the logic of the argument. You keep saying you disagree, yet everything you argue suggests you do agree.


My point still is that Israel has to come to a fair compromise that will make everyone happy besides a minority of radicals in Israel and the "rest of Palestine". That's why US-support and Israel's military predominance wasn't helpful in the past, nor will it be helpful in the future.

The Palestinians can declare a state any time they want. If they were genuine about co-existence with Israel they would have declared one in 1948.


"They" already declared the Palestinian State in a pretty similar stupid manner because they gave a damn about a Jewish State just like the jewish state gave a damn about the Arabs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Declaration_of_Independence

The simple fact is the Israeli Arabs are mostly quite happy living in Israel, and have no interest whatsoever in living in Palestine.


Given the economic and prosperous circumstances within Israel in contrast to the Arab territories, that doesn't surprise anyone - does it?

The bolded point is what I am talking about. That you describe Hamas as an "unimportant side show" is even more astounding. Hamas is about the only thing Palestinians do agree on. Hamas are their elected government. You consider the Government of Palestine to be an "unimportant side-show"? Really?


Hamas came about pretty late in this conflict. Just like Hamas, Fatah pretty much was a terrorist organisation as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah#History). Yet, Fatah nowadays is accepted as a positive entitiy from Israel's side.

Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, Israel's failure to come to a compromise just creates one aggressive opposition after another. Unintentionally, of course - but not surprisingly.

The only "deal" Israel can make that the "majority of Palestinians can agree on" is that Israel ceases to exist. It is as simple as that.


No, it's not. You may ask yourself why Fatah rules the WB if you think that almost all Palestinians oppose the Israeli state. And you might look up public surveys that clearly contradict your rather stupid or ignorant assessment.


Oliver, with all due respect, the above is total nonsense. Go back to the history books and read up on 1948. The Arab states made it abundantly clear that they would never accept anything even remotely resembling a Jewish homeland, regardless of how big it was. The Arab states didn't even want a Palestinian homeland - as evidenced by the fact that Jordan, Egypt and Syria between them swallowed up the parts of Palestine that Israel didn't grab in the 1948 war.

They wanted Palestine for themselves, plain and simple.


Yes, that's correct and back then. Now things have changed but that doesn't mean that any Palestinian does have to accept Israel's current borders dominating the majority of Land, does it? And if so, for what reason?

The Palestinians had their share of the pie in 1948, and didn't make any effort to establish a state.


So it was fair that Israel took the majority of land in your opinion - even if the Arab's outnumbered the Jewish Palestinians? :boggled:

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg


I think if you did a survey of the world's population asking "Was it a mistake to create Israel" you would have an overwhelming majority answer "yes".


That might be true given the way Israel was created while ignoring the Palestinian Arabs. But it isn't an argument against a Jewish Homeland in the Levant given the fact that the majority around the world most probably would acknowledge the fact that the state exists and won't go away.


Oliver, yes. Yes necessarily. Go read what the leaders of the Arab states were saying in the years leading up to the creation of Israel. They were never going to accept a Jewish state, period.


And why shoud they have accept it in the first place? :confused:
Israel exists and most Palestinians accept this truth as an unchangeable
one, including todays politicians.

No, no, no, no, no. Oliver, do you know who suffered the most from the 1948 war? It wasn't Israel. It was the Palestinians. They lost territory to the other Arab states, and millions became refugees. How did you get this ridiculous notion in your head that the Arab state gave the slightest care about what the Palestinian Arabs wanted? They didn't, and they don't.

Had Israeli and Palestinian Arabs come to an agreement and both declared independence at the same time, the 1948 war would still have occurred.


And I'm still saying that if Palestinian Arabs and Jews would have come to an inconvenient compromise for both sides before declaring any state whatsoever, todays conflict and all the trouble throughout the years wouldn't have surfaced in the first place.

Also: The main argument to vote Hamas wasn't the "Right of a Jewish Homeland" issue but the fact that many Pals thought that Fatah is corrupt.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21163/Gallup-Palestinian-Survey-Reveals-Broad-Discontent-Status-Quo.aspx


Obviously. And North and South Korea. And North and South Vietnam. And Bosnia. And Kosovo. And East Timor. And Pakistan. And on, and on, and on.


I was talking about oppression from foreign forces. Come again.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The borders of Israel were set by the UN, who most certainly did care about the Palestinians.


That's not the case.

The UN drafted a 'plan' for the borders of Israel.

In reality Israel has set it's own borders and ignored the borders set by the plan.

[IDB87]

That's not the case.

The UN drafted a 'plan' for the borders of Israel.

In reality Israel has set it's own borders and ignored the borders set by the plan.

Which Israel is it that set its own borders?- pre-1948 Israel or post 1948 Israel? If it is the pre-1948 Israel you are referring to, there were several factions that were doing their own thing during the formation and defense of the state of Israel. Would you argue the Irgun or Lehi group represented mainstream Jewry in Israel?

[Oliver]

That's not the case.

The UN drafted a 'plan' for the borders of Israel.

In reality Israel has set it's own borders and ignored the borders set by the plan.


I assume that's a point which is rarely expressed by the western media to fully understand the whole issue. And I still wonder who in here claims otherwise concerning that part of history in light of the rather reluctant amount of replies.

In fact, the UN partition plan for the Israeli and Palestinian State is completely opposed to the borders the Israelis set shortly afterwards, ignoring the partition plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_plan

Therefore, it would be illogical to claim that everyone does have to accept the Israeli Borders the way they are today.

[gumboot]

I know. But what does that have to do with Israel ignoring the UN's proposal? :confused:

They didn't.


WTF? They "joined the aggressors"? Israel set it boundaries wayyy beyond the UN's proposal. They took the majority of Palestine without any logic argument other than "God said so". How in the world should the Palestinians have accepted that in the first place?

Israel didn't set any borders at all. It merely declared its existence. And the Arab states attacked them on the basis of their existence.

The land they took after this was a response to the war, which they didn't start. This is pretty common - simply look at what the allies did after WWI and WWII.


My opinion is that Israel should've been created based on a compromise - or should be settled with a compromise that Palestinian Arab's can live with.

And how does the fact that Palestinian Arabs don't want Israel to exist fit into your opinion?


The issue of Israeli Arab's somehow being a threat to Israel came about in recent years and by Israeli fanatics. And they who brought it up don't think that Israel shouldn't be there in the first place. Ask them how they manage to accept both realities concerning Arab's in Israel and Israel's right to exist.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the above, but you don't seem to be grasping the point.

1) Do you accept that a facist oppressive regime is bad?
2) Do you accept that Israel, in order to remain a Jewish state, must eventually become facist and oppressive towards non-Jewish Israelis?
3) Do you accept that creating fascist states is not a good thing?

If you answer yes to all of the above it follows logically that creating Israel is a bad thing.


My point still is that Israel has to come to a fair compromise that will make everyone happy besides a minority of radicals in Israel and the "rest of Palestine".

Yes, yes, I'm well aware of your fantasy-land ambition. And every beauty pageant contestant wants world peace. How does it affect your "point" if "a fair compromise that will make everyone happy" is not possible?


"They" already declared the Palestinian State in a pretty similar stupid manner because they gave a damn about a Jewish State just like the jewish state gave a damn about the Arabs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Declaration_of_Independence

That makes no sense whatsoever.


Given the economic and prosperous circumstances within Israel in contrast to the Arab territories, that doesn't surprise anyone - does it?

No. And why is it that Israel enjoys so much more economic success?


Hamas came about pretty late in this conflict. Just like Hamas, Fatah pretty much was a terrorist organisation as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah#History). Yet, Fatah nowadays is accepted as a positive entitiy from Israel's side.

Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, Israel's failure to come to a compromise just creates one aggressive opposition after another. Unintentionally, of course - but not surprisingly.

Address my point, Oliver. Do you really considered the elected government of the Gaza Strip to be an "unimportant side show"?


No, it's not. You may ask yourself why Fatah rules the WB if you think that almost all Palestinians oppose the Israeli state. And you might look up public surveys that clearly contradict your rather stupid or ignorant assessment.

It's pretty common knowledge that if elections were held in the West Bank today Hamas would win by an overwhelming majority.

The simple fact is Palestinians want, as their leaders, an organisation that refuses to recognise Israel, and wishes to completely destroy it. This is ample evidence that Palestinians are not currently serious about a two-state solution.

Yes, that's correct and back then. Now things have changed but that doesn't mean that any Palestinian does have to accept Israel's current borders dominating the majority of Land, does it? And if so, for what reason?

We were talking about the other Arab states, not Palestine.


So it was fair that Israel took the majority of land in your opinion - even if the Arab's outnumbered the Jewish Palestinians? :boggled:

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

I think the partition plan was completely stupid. Bear in mind that a substantial percentage of the allocated Jewish land consisted of the Negev Desert.

(And bear in mind, when looking at your map, that this was 3 years before the partition and at the time Jews were immigrating into Palestine and buying land in large numbers.)


That might be true given the way Israel was created while ignoring the Palestinian Arabs. But it isn't an argument against a Jewish Homeland in the Levant given the fact that the majority around the world most probably would acknowledge the fact that the state exists and won't go away.

Oliver, you keep sending us around in circles. The above particular thread of discussion comes from me trying to get you to register a distinction between "should exist now" and "should have been created". You've just successfully muddled that distinction once more.



And why shoud they have accept it in the first place? :confused:

Oh good, so you agree with me then.


Israel exists and most Palestinians accept this truth as an unchangeable
one, including todays politicians.

Except, of course, the "politicians" they elect as their leaders...


And I'm still saying that if Palestinian Arabs and Jews would have come to an inconvenient compromise for both sides before declaring any state whatsoever, todays conflict and all the trouble throughout the years wouldn't have surfaced in the first place.

Yes it would, because the conflict was started by the other Arab states, not by Israel or Palestine.


Also: The main argument to vote Hamas wasn't the "Right of a Jewish Homeland" issue but the fact that many Pals thought that Fatah is corrupt.

If you choose to elect a party that has a single prominent position on a major issue, you are giving silent support for that position, even if you didn't elect them for that reason.

Palestinians kicked out Fatah because of corruption. They didn't have to choose Hamas instead. Why Hamas, instead of someone else?


I was talking about oppression from foreign forces. Come again.

You weren't talking about anything. I was talking about the policy of dividing territory along ethnic lines.

North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Pakistan are all territories created by the division of countries along ethnic lines (in the case of the two Koreas by the ethnicity of the two occupying powers and in the case of the two Vietnams along Communist/Pro-French/West lines).

[viverravid]

Ah... a good thread.

Gumboot, I think your question is actually not the root of the issue as you suggest, but in truth, irrelevant.

To ask "Do Jews have a right to a homeland in the Levant?" in 2009 is basically to ask "if we could do Palestine 1900 - 1950 over again, what would we do?".

One person's rights start being abridged once exercising a right involves abridging another persons rights, so the questions of time and place, and the other inhabitants of the Levant at that time and place, are critical. Similarly you can't ignore the size of the homeland, as to be a homeland it has to cater for a good proportion of the world's Jews.

Given that, asking this question would probably lead most reasonable people to decide that the best solution is that a Jewish Homeland should have been created, but not in the Levant if the existing inhabitants didn't want it there.

But in the same way people argue the Palestinians should not have been punished for something that wasn't their fault, to declare the modern State of Israel illegitimate because you would answer the question in this way is to punish the modern Israelis for something they didn't do.

Israel was not created ex-nihilo by decree in 1948 as an answer to the "Jewish homeland" question, it was done over a period of 60 years prior to that, by people with a variety of motivations. The first Zionists were on the whole naively unaware of the hostility from the local Arabs, the later ones had the explicit sanction of the League of Nations and the UK for their project, so can't really be blamed for pursuing it.

Asking questions based on abstract principles does not acknowledge the reality of the situation at the time. Wether the Jews had a right to a homeland in the Levant or not, by the end of WWII they basically had built one in reality. Given the situation in 1947, the UN partition plan was (imo) a fair solution. That things didn't work out that way is mainly the fault of the surrounding Arab countries. Their mistake (and their subsequent one in 1967) had consequences.

I admire your attempt to reduce the argument to the core issue, but I think the only fair core issue can be "where do we go from here?" - what is the best resolution given the reality of the situation now?

It's pretty clear "2 States for 2 Nations" is the answer to that. It is also clear that most of Israeli society has reconciled to the realities of that, and most of Palestinian society has not.

[gumboot]

Ah... a good thread.

Gumboot, I think your question is actually not the root of the issue as you suggest, but in truth, irrelevant.

To ask "Do Jews have a right to a homeland in the Levant?" in 2009 is basically to ask "if we could do Palestine 1900 - 1950 over again, what would we do?".

One person's rights start being abridged once exercising a right involves abridging another persons rights, so the questions of time and place, and the other inhabitants of the Levant at that time and place, are critical. Similarly you can't ignore the size of the homeland, as to be a homeland it has to cater for a good proportion of the world's Jews.

Given that, asking this question would probably lead most reasonable people to decide that the best solution is that a Jewish Homeland should have been created, but not in the Levant if the existing inhabitants didn't want it there.

But in the same way people argue the Palestinians should not have been punished for something that wasn't their fault, to declare the modern State of Israel illegitimate because you would answer the question in this way is to punish the modern Israelis for something they didn't do.

Israel was not created ex-nihilo by decree in 1948 as an answer to the "Jewish homeland" question, it was done over a period of 60 years prior to that, by people with a variety of motivations. The first Zionists were on the whole naively unaware of the hostility from the local Arabs, the later ones had the explicit sanction of the League of Nations and the UK for their project, so can't really be blamed for pursuing it.

Asking questions based on abstract principles does not acknowledge the reality of the situation at the time. Wether the Jews had a right to a homeland in the Levant or not, by the end of WWII they basically had built one in reality. Given the situation in 1947, the UN partition plan was (imo) a fair solution. That things didn't work out that way is mainly the fault of the surrounding Arab countries. Their mistake (and their subsequent one in 1967) had consequences.

I admire your attempt to reduce the argument to the core issue, but I think the only fair core issue can be "where do we go from here?" - what is the best resolution given the reality of the situation now?

It's pretty clear "2 States for 2 Nations" is the answer to that. It is also clear that most of Israeli society has reconciled to the realities of that, and most of Palestinian society has not.



Thanks for your comments. You're quite right that the question is fundamentally academic today; the simple fact is there is a Jewish homeland in the Levant.

But I think discussing this question is useful, not only as an academic exercise, but to determine future action by the UN in other parts of the world.

What are your thoughts on the basic principle of dividing land along ethnic lines? Further, what are your thoughts on an ethnically-defined territory making proactive efforts to maintain the ethnic definition of their territory in the face of a demographic shift?

Finally, I believe this question does still have relevance to the Palestine/Israel conflict today. While Israel is currently a Jewish homeland, the simple fact is that in a short time Jews will be a minority in Israel. Thus the original question is valid, because if the Jews have a right to a Jewish homeland, they have a right to preserve that Jewish homeland - by ensuring their primacy in Israel as a minority regime.

On the other hand, if you are to argue that the Jews do not have a right to a Jewish homeland in the Levant you would probably argue that it is immoral for Israel to take any action to try preserve the Jewish status of the state of Israel.

To rephrase the question in the specific context of the future:

"Do Jews have a right to preserve Israel as a Jewish homeland, or should Israel become a secular and ethnically all-inclusive state?"

I think this is very pertinent to the issue because near as I can tell a significant portion of the actions for which Israel are criticised are essentially efforts by the government to preserve the "Jewishness" of Israel.

[viverravid]

What are your thoughts on the basic principle of dividing land along ethnic lines? Further, what are your thoughts on an ethnically-defined territory making proactive efforts to maintain the ethnic definition of their territory in the face of a demographic shift?

Finally, I believe this question does still have relevance to the Palestine/Israel conflict today. While Israel is currently a Jewish homeland, the simple fact is that in a short time Jews will be a minority in Israel. Thus the original question is valid, because if the Jews have a right to a Jewish homeland, they have a right to preserve that Jewish homeland - by ensuring their primacy in Israel as a minority regime.

On the other hand, if you are to argue that the Jews do not have a right to a Jewish homeland in the Levant you would probably argue that it is immoral for Israel to take any action to try preserve the Jewish status of the state of Israel.


My answer to these questions is similar. Talking in the abstract about religious or ethnically based states is a distraction.

We rarely have the option to define a state de novo with no historical baggage. We have to deal with reality as it is, and making moral judgements on the basis of ideal abstractions is unfair.

Given the reality of the situation in Israel/Palestine today - specifically the extent of genocidal Jew-hatred amongst Arab Muslims, and Palestinian Arab Muslims in particular - then I see maintaining Israel's Jewish majority as the lesser of two evils. A one state solution with an Arab majority would result in endless reprisals by those previously victimised.

To maintain this I think Israel should disengage from the Palestinian territories as much as possible - probably getting Egypt and Jordan to resume control a la pre-1967 is the best bet, as the Palestinians have clearly demonstrated they aren't up to running a civil society yet. A 2 state solution would be better, but the Palestinians aren't ready for it.

To return to ideal abstractions: The issues you raise about ethnic/religious states would not really be issues if such a state was founded de novo somewhere uninhabited, as the only people living there would be doing so voluntarily. The only concern then would be to ensure that any people who wanted to do things differently have a viable way out, and that the laws of the state fairly represent mainstream opinion of the inhabitants. I wouldn't want to live in a state defined by religion or ethnicity, but if others do, and they don't disadvantage anyone else, then have at it.

As Israel wasn't created somewhere uninhabited, there is the additional complication of people incorporated in the state against their will. If these people don't want to live in a Jewish majority Israel they should be assisted to move elsewhere. (Israeli Arabs moving to Palestinian territories does not seem to be a popular option for some reason :) ). If they wish to stay they should not be disadvantaged.

I dislike the way many state institutions in Israel are handed over to the Orthodox religious authorities, which effectively discriminates against the more secular Jews, and I think this should be changed. I think Israelis have maybe mistaken "Jewish State" for "Orthodox Jewish State". There are atheist Jews, they shouldn't have to abide by Orthodox restrictions if they don't want to.

[Oliver]

They didn't.

Israel didn't set any borders at all. It merely declared its existence. And the Arab states attacked them on the basis of their existence.

The land they took after this was a response to the war, which they didn't start. This is pretty common - simply look at what the allies did after WWI and WWII.


It's correct that the declaration of independence refers to the creation of Israel within Eretz-Israel without naming the borders. But you miss the fact that whole Eretz-Israel is considered as Jewish Terretory - or as Kadima drafted it a rather short while ago:

"The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel," the draft said. "However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, we must give up part of the Land of Israel to maintain a Jewish and democratic state." Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20051130030757/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/651003.html)

However: Weizmann along with the rest of the Zionist representatives of the ZO [Now WZO] already outlined the borders of the new state as early as 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. That means they already had the exact outlines of the new State in mind:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Faisal-Weizmann_map.png
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc!OpenDocument (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc%21OpenDocument)

And how does the fact that Palestinian Arabs don't want Israel to exist fit into your opinion?


Is this a guess or do you have evidence for your claim that Arabs don't want Israel to exist. Actually the agreement between Faisal and Weizmann that never came into force disproves your assessment that there was no chance for an Israeli state from arabic side. And ironically enough, persian Iran was the second country that accepted the new state after the US did accept it. That of course was due to the formerly close relationship with Tehran. But I assume you're talking about Arabs today that don't want Israel to exist. So how many percent of Arabs do you think hold this position - and which Arab countries do accept Israel and which ones don't accept it?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the above, but you don't seem to be grasping the point.

1) Do you accept that a facist oppressive regime is bad?
2) Do you accept that Israel, in order to remain a [I]Jewish state, must eventually become facist and oppressive towards non-Jewish Israelis?
3) Do you accept that creating fascist states is not a good thing?

If you answer yes to all of the above it follows logically that creating Israel is a bad thing.


1. Yes, but not necessarily as bad as civil war and anarchy
2. It seems that they have to - but maybe there is a third solution I fail to see here
3. Most probably unless the fascist state is created on a seperate Planet :p

But why do you think that the creation of Israel was a bad thing then?

Yes, yes, I'm well aware of your fantasy-land ambition. And every beauty pageant contestant wants world peace. How does it affect your "point" if "a fair compromise that will make everyone happy" is not possible?


Well, the fantasy land ambition is true for the third reich and promised land ambition as well - now look how much effect both ideologies had - speaking about fantasy lands. Also, I never said that everyone will be happy by anything, no matter what the proposal is about. By "happy" I'm talking about the later outcome of a deal that the majority on both sides could agree on and that, in my opinion would mean that Israel would've to back down concerning the open claims.

No. And why is it that Israel enjoys so much more economic success?


More economic success than the Palestine territories? The economic success started by the flow of immigrants, the build up of a working infrastructure, the financial and military support from outside, the working import and export markets and the control of the borders in the occupied territories. Feel free to add additional points.

Address my point, Oliver. Do you really considered the elected government of the Gaza Strip to be an "unimportant side show"?


In light of the obvious reality that Israel played for time throughout the decades due to the interest in the whole of Eretz Israel and the lack of liberal forces to address that elephant in the room against right-winged interests.

It's pretty common knowledge that if elections were held in the West Bank today Hamas would win by an overwhelming majority.

The simple fact is Palestinians want, as their leaders, an organisation that refuses to recognise Israel, and wishes to completely destroy it. This is ample evidence that Palestinians are not currently serious about a two-state solution.


Well, you could say that assassinating elected Politicians you don't like doesn't speak for any interest in Peace, either - does it? I think that the lack of diplomatic efforts from the US and Israel concerning Hamas are quite pathetic and gutless because as bad the fired rockets from Hamas and Islamic Jihad are, the assasinations and military interventions that cause so much innocent victims, is at least as bad.

You might also ask how Hamas came about:

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas launched numerous suicide bombings against Israel,[5] the first of them in April, 1993.[6] Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April, 2006.[7] Hamas has also been responsible for Israel-targeted rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced most of those operations in 2005 and 2006.[8] Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)

And are you surprised by statements like that? : "The Hamas movement is prepared to stop terrorism against Israeli civilians if Israel stops killing Palestinian civilians ... We have told (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister) Abu Mazen in our meetings that there is an opportunity to stop targeting Israeli civilians if the Israelis stop assassinations and raids and stop brutalizing Palestinian civilians."[199] Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)


I think the partition plan was completely stupid. Bear in mind that a substantial percentage of the allocated Jewish land consisted of the Negev Desert.

(And bear in mind, when looking at your map, that this was 3 years before the partition and at the time Jews were immigrating into Palestine and buying land in large numbers.)


So what? Look up the "MacDonald White Paper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939)" and the frustration it created concering immigration efforts against the will of the majority of Arabs. Another example of ignoring the majority.

Oliver, you keep sending us around in circles. The above particular thread of discussion comes from me trying to get you to register a distinction between "should exist now" and "should have been created". You've just successfully muddled that distinction once more.


How so? Given the fact the the state exists, I see no possibillity to change that nor a reason to do so. Or are you trying to talk me into something I don't believe in anyway?


Oh good, so you agree with me then.


What what what? I'm not an Arab - so why should I agree with them - or with you?

Except, of course, the "politicians" they elect as their leaders...


In Gaza, yes. But that doesn't mean that Hamaz most probably will share the same fate as Fatah - being moderated by time or diplomacy.

Yes it would, because the conflict was started by the other Arab states, not by Israel or Palestine.


That's quite a stretch here since the declaration of Independence was seen as a declaration of War to them. And the founders obviously knew that beforehand. In this light it is rather hard to argue that "the conflict wasn't started by Israel but by others", isn't it?


If you choose to elect a party that has a single prominent position on a major issue, you are giving silent support for that position, even if you didn't elect them for that reason.

Palestinians kicked out Fatah because of corruption. They didn't have to choose Hamas instead. Why Hamas, instead of someone else?


Well, I posted some links to related articles showing into this issue quite closely.

You weren't talking about anything. I was talking about the policy of dividing territory along ethnic lines.

North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Pakistan are all territories created by the division of countries along ethnic lines (in the case of the two Koreas by the ethnicity of the two occupying powers and in the case of the two Vietnams along Communist/Pro-French/West lines).


So where were the ethnic lines in Irael then? - Don't you think that this certainly is a big part of the problem?

Anyway: The thread would've been interesting if we would have some Palestinian Arabs in this forum or if there would be actually people arguing that Israel doesn't have the right to have a homeland in the levant. But since some prominent members regarding their views on Jews aren't around, this thread doesn't seem to provide some new insights concerning the very core of the debate.

[Oliver]

(Israeli Arabs moving to Palestinian territories does not seem to be a popular option for some [obvious*] reason :) ).


*Fixed. Compared to Israel, the Palestinian territories are third world regions. To encourage Israeli Arabs to move out of Israel, that has to be fixed - in contrast to making it worse using military destructive forces and economicly desasterous sanctions because of some obviously-lousy rockets.

[Thunder]

Israel was founded in 1948. It is recognized by the United Nations and the great majority of nations throughout the world. The whole question of "does Israel have the right to exist?" and "do the Jews have the right to a state in the Middle East?" is a little outdated.

its like asking:

"do the Saxons and the Normans have the right to settle on the island of Brittania?"

[Pardalis]

*Fixed. Compared to Israel, the Palestinian territories are third world regions. To encourage Israeli Arabs to move out of Israel, that has to be fixed - in contrast to making it worse using military destructive forces and economicly desasterous sanctions because of some obviously-lousy rockets.

Not just rockets. Does the word "Intifada" mean anything to you?

[Oliver]

Not just rockets. Does the word "Intifada" mean anything to you?


It literally means "Shaking off". The WP, however, describes it this way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/23/AR2007082301933.html): "It is seen by many Arabs as a valid term for popular resistance to oppression, while for many English speakers it has come to conjure images of violent attacks on civilians."

What is your definition?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Not just rockets. Does the word "Intifada" mean anything to you?

What? Like an understandable response to oppression? We cannot let countries bully their way into expanding their boundaries by barbaric and racist practices.

[Pardalis]

It literally means "Shaking off". The WP, however, describes it this way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/23/AR2007082301933.html): "It is seen by many Arabs as a valid term for popular resistance to oppression, while for many English speakers it has come to conjure images of violent attacks on civilians."

What is your definition?

Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, riots...

[Oliver]

Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, riots...


Or in other words, a counter reaction to Israeli Politics. But you still didn't address your opinion concerning the OP, Goury.

[Oliver]

Pardalis?

[Oliver]

Weizmann along with the rest of the Zionist representatives of the ZO [Now WZO] already outlined the borders of the new state as early as 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. That means they already had the exact outlines of the new State in mind:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Faisal-Weizmann_map.png
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc!OpenDocument (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc%21OpenDocument)


I should add that the final and major discussion before declaring independence also was about the borders. I would appreciate if someone could point out the full content of the discussion [or transcipts of the "first session of the new government, on the following Sunday*"] since I did not find any historic source about that point other than remarks about it from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs :

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/4/Shelley%20Kleiman%20-%20The%20State%20of%20Israel%20Declares%20Ind

The Declaration was subsequently presented at the final meeting of the National Council that afternoon. The question of Gods name was once again raised (to no avail), as was the issue of boundaries, this time by the revisionist camp. Committed to a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan, they insisted that the words "within its historic borders" be added. Wanting to go to the ceremony with the full support of the council,
Ben-Gurion suggested that all objections and reservations be raised at the first session of the new government, on the following Sunday.

[dudalb]

I would still like the Anti Zionists to explain what would they do with the Five Million Jews in Israel if Israel was destroyed.

[gumboot]

Israel was founded in 1948. It is recognized by the United Nations and the great majority of nations throughout the world. The whole question of "does Israel have the right to exist?" and "do the Jews have the right to a state in the Middle East?" is a little outdated.

its like asking:

"do the Saxons and the Normans have the right to settle on the island of Brittania?"


Not really... the issue is not settlement, but the maintenance of a state along ethnic lines. To use your example, if to this very day the Normans maintained rule of England as a "Norman state" by oppressing the rights of the non-Norman majority, it would be entirely valid to ask "Do Normans have a right to a Norman homeland in England?"

And I think most people would say the answer is "no".

Please be clear, the question here is not "does Israel have a right to exist?" or "Do Jews have a right to live in the Levant" the question is whether Jews have the right to maintain a Jewish homeland in the Levant.

[Pardalis]

Or in other words, a counter reaction to Israeli Politics.

But that's not what I was answering to. You said Palestinian terrorists were just firing rockets at Israel. They've shown they can do alot worse, and I understand why Israel would want to stop any further terrorist attacks on their citizens.

But you still didn't address your opinion concerning the OP, Goury.

As I said before, the question in the OP is irrelevant IMO, Israel has its homeland in the Levant. I don't care what happenned 60 or a thousand years ago. Israel is there now.

[gumboot]

It's correct that the declaration of independence refers to the creation of Israel within Eretz-Israel without naming the borders. But you miss the fact that whole Eretz-Israel is considered as Jewish Terretory - or as Kadima drafted it a rather short while ago:

"The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel," the draft said. "However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, we must give up part of the Land of Israel to maintain a Jewish and democratic state." Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20051130030757/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/651003.html)

However: Weizmann along with the rest of the Zionist representatives of the ZO [Now WZO] already outlined the borders of the new state as early as 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. That means they already had the exact outlines of the new State in mind:

None of which changes the fact that Israel (the country) did not ever lay claim to all of the territory, and did not expand beyond the UN borders until after it was attacked.


Is this a guess or do you have evidence for your claim that Arabs [I assume as a whole] don't want Israel to exist.

Yes, the fact that they overwhelmingly want Hamas as their government is evidence..



Actually the agreement between Faisal and Weizmann that never came into force disproves your assessment that there was no chance for an Israeli state from arabic side.


Are you really bringing up the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement as evidence? C'mon Oliver you can do better than that.


And ironically enough, persian Iran was the second country that accepted the new state after the US did accept it.

Persians are not Arabs.


But I assume you're talking about Arabs today that don't want Israel to exist. So how many percent of Arabs do you think hold this position - and which Arab countries do accept Israel and which ones don't accept it?

No, Oliver. I said Palestinian Arabs. Please read more carefully.


1. Yes, but not necessarily as bad as civil war and anarchy
2. It seems that they have to - but maybe there is a third solution I fail to see here
3. Most probably unless the fascist state is created on a seperate Planet :p

But why do you think that the creation of Israel was a bad thing then?

:eye-poppi

Edited. Moderated thread.

Well, the fantasy land ambition is true for the third reich and promised land ambition as well - now look how much effect both ideologies had - speaking about fantasy lands. Also, I never said that everyone will be happy by anything, no matter what the proposal is about. By "happy" I'm talking about the later outcome of a deal that the majority on both sides could agree on and that, in my opinion would mean that Israel would've to back down concerning the open claims.

This makes no sense at all.


More economic success than the Palestine territories? The economic success started by the flow of immigrants, the build up of a working infrastructure, the financial and military support from outside, the working import and export markets and the control of the borders in the occupied territories. Feel free to add additional points.

The main reason Israel is more successful than the Palestinian territories is because Israel primarily focused its efforts on improving its own country, and not on destroying its neighbour.

Palestine has never, ever made a serious effort to establish a functioning state.


In light of the obvious reality that Israel played for time throughout the decades due to the interest in the whole of Eretz Israel and the lack of liberal forces to address that elephant in the room against right-winged interests.

So basically your argument boils down to "it's all Israel's fault". No matter what Palestinians do, or other Arab states do, ultimately that's irrelevant, and all that matters is what the Jews do.

Sad.


Well, you could say that assassinating elected Politicians you don't like doesn't speak for any interest in Peace, either - does it? I think that the lack of diplomatic efforts from the US and Israel concerning Hamas are quite pathetic and gutless because as bad the fired rockets from Hamas and Islamic Jihad are, the assasinations and military interventions that cause so much innocent victims, is at least as bad.

I'm sorry, but no nation should have to work diplomatically with an entity that was founded on the principle of ceasing your existence. That's fundamentally a violation of the most basic principles of evolution.


So what? Look up the "MacDonald White Paper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939)" and the frustration it created concering immigration efforts against the will of the majority of Arabs. Another example of ignoring the majority.

That's a separate issue all together.


How so? Given the fact the the state exists, I see no possibillity to change that nor a reason to do so. Or are you trying to talk me into something I don't believe in anyway?

Again, the point was not "should exist now" nor "should exist in future" but "should have been created". Can you understand those distinctions, yes or no?


What what what? I'm not an Arab - so why should I agree with them - or with you?

I didn't say you agreed with them? I said you're agreeing with me about what they thought, which you appear to be doing in that most recent post.


In Gaza, yes. But that doesn't mean that Hamaz most probably will share the same fate as Fatah - being moderated by time or diplomacy.

Unlikely. Everyone (including Fatah) knows if elections were held in the West Bank, Hamas would win. The population is becoming more radical, not less.


That's quite a stretch here since the declaration of Independence was seen as a declaration of War to them. And the founders obviously knew that beforehand. In this light it is rather hard to argue that "the conflict wasn't started by Israel but by others", isn't it?

Yet more of the "no matter what the Arabs do, it's always the Jews' fault" argument.

So where were the ethnic lines in Irael then?

You mean in British Palestine?

The ethnic lines were Arab-Jew. Seriously, did you just ask that? :faint:


Don't you think that this certainly is a big part of the problem?

Yes I think you could probably say that... ;)


Anyway: The thread would've been interesting if we would have some Palestinian Arabs in this forum or if there would be actually people arguing that Israel doesn't have the right to have a homeland in the levant. But since some prominent members regarding their views on Jews aren't around, this thread doesn't seem to provide some new insights concerning the very core of the debate.

Primarily because people like you seem quite literally allergic to actually addressing the point of the OP. So far you have continuously failed to even once address the pertinent point - that being a policy of dividing countries along ethnic lines.

What is the great fear in discussing this point? Are you afraid of what people might think of you for your opinions? I've already made what I consider to be rational and legitimate arguments both in favour and against the practise. I did this on purpose to make it absolutely clear that I am seriously interested in reasoned debate, and this is not some sort of silly "gotcha" trap.

Yet you refuse to discuss the point. Why?

[FireGarden]

I would still like the Anti Zionists to explain what would they do with the Five Million Jews in Israel if Israel was destroyed.

I think you've missed the point of the thread.
The question you ask is like asking "what would those who are against Apartheid do with all the white South Africans if South Africa was destroyed?"

The question being asked in the thread boils down to whether or not people support nations being based on ethnicity rather than simple citizenship. As I said before, the idea is not to my taste but I would be willing to support such a state for pragmatic reasons. However, the idea didn't work in South Africa. I can't see it working in the Mid-East.

[Marc39]

Do the Jewish people have a right to set up a homeland that's set aside specifically for the Jewish people comprising of the area known as the Levant ( as per definition above )? NO - Why? because other people already live there and own land there and no one has any right to just go stampeding their own selfish agendas at will, displacing others in the process.

Do the Jewish people have a right to set up a homeland that's set aside specifically for the Jewish people comprising of the area known as Palestine ? NO - Why? because other people already live there and own land there and no one has any right to just go stampeding their own selfish agendas at will, displacing others in the process.

Very little of the land in Palestine during the Zionist immigration into the region was owned by Arabs. Most of Palestine, which was not a sovereign Arab nation but a territory, was "owned" by the Ottoman Empire and wealthy absentee Arab landowners. Very little land was owned by ordinary Arabs who, for the most part, were poor tenant farmers and peasant Bedouins. Zionists did not "stampede" into Palestine, they were permitted entry by the Turks and, later, by the British under the British Mandate, and ,they purchased the land on which they settled from the Arab landowners, at highly inflated prices. Incidentally, the Turks were Muslim, like the "Palestinians" and did not grant the Palestinians their own homeland during the 400 year reign of the Empire.