Israel - should it exist?

OP

Salastico7

Yes it wasn't the reason for Zionism, Zionism has existed for little over a hundred years.

Indeed... the school of thought was a product of the 1800s not the 1940s.

What i'm saying is if more countries accepted the jews and Palestine was a state we wouldnt have this problem. As there wouldnt be an Israeli state, which i believe shouldnt have existed, as it is morally wrong to take over large parts of a nation, just like it is morrally wrong for:

*Ethnic Albanians to take part of Turkey because the Genocide by the serbs

*Ethnic Tutsis to make a state in the middle of Australia because of the Rawandan Genocide

*The Africans in Darfur to occupy Glasgow because of their continued suffering at the hands of the Sudanese government.

But the thing is that the claim to Israel existed and was seriously considered well before the holocaust. I dont think we can tie it simply to hypotheticals linked merely to persecution.

Reply 62

Consie

15

I would really like CONSIE to answer to this.

Sure. Thats different becasue we're individuals, and as individuals we yeild to the power of the state, so the punisher gets punished becasue the state says he should. Of course there is a moral dimention, and that was likely part of the reason the governt takes the stance it does on crime, but the crooks of it dont involve morals, it just involves whose more powerfull. The punisher is punished becasue the state is more powerful than him. Its different at a state vs state level. ITs like general relativity and quantom mechanics - things change in the big league

Reply 63

Lawz-

But the thing is that the claim to Israel existed and was seriously considered well before the holocaust. I dont think we can tie it simply to hypotheticals linked merely to persecution.

I'm sorry my friend but the holocaust was the biggest factor.

Reply 64

OP

Bismarck

If you did any research, you'd know that the Muslims who lived in Palestine referred to themselves as Arabs or Syrians. In fact, the Jews in Israel were referred to as Palestinians until the '50s.

Bis - how would you go about justifying the intentional and deliberate importation of Jews from other regions of the world, specifically to create an artificial majority (in some cases in flagrant breach of the law of the land) in order to create a state?

Reply 65

OP

Salastico7

I'm sorry my friend but the holocaust was the biggest factor.

Not on the facts as I know them.

Prior to the holocaust Jews made up (as I recall) about 30-35% of the population of the mandate, and had been lobbying for a Jewish state for decades.

The holocaust quickened that process... but Im not sure it's accurate to describe it as the biggest factor in the existence of a Palestinian state.

Reply 66

Bismarck

13

Salastico7

I'm sorry my friend but the holocaust was the biggest factor.

You know, since you admitted to knowing virtually nothing about this topic, perhaps you shouldn't make such definitive claims. The Zionist movement started before WWI, let alone the Holocaust. And Britain agreed to create Israel in 1917, or more than 2 decades before the Holocaust took place.

Reply 67

Consie

Sure. Thats different becasue we're individuals, and as individuals we yeild to the power of the state, so the punisher gets punished becasue the state says he should. Of course there is a moral dimention, and that was likely part of the reason the governt takes the stance it does on crime, but the crooks of it dont involve morals, it just involves whose more powerfull. The punisher is punished becasue the state is more powerful than him. Its different at a state vs state level. ITs like general relativity and quantom mechanics - things change in the big league

Get rid of the UN then and its International laws? get rid of the International Court in the netherlands?

If your a Liberal like Harold Wilson, then liberty and the rights of the individual is the basis of and his national self-determination.

If your a Fascist, then yea its ok to invade other countries.

Reply 68

OP

Bismarck

You know, since you admitted to knowing virtually nothing about this topic, perhaps you shouldn't make such definitive claims. The Zionist movement started before WWI, let alone the Holocaust. And Britain agreed to create Israel in 1917, or more than 2 decades before the Holocaust took place.

I thought that had been a white paper, which was later contradicted by a subsequent white paper (called the "black paper" by many Jews) - something the likes of Churchill saw as gross betrayal.

Reply 69

Gilliwoo

Lawz-

I think though that the issue is more that the Jewish population who travelled to the area at the time deliberately and in a calculated manner sought to increase immigration (including through illegal means) in order to impose an artifical majority in the mandate.

That's a valid issue, but if we are to talk about the specifc area we call Palestine, I find that ethnic argument to be difficult when we consider that during the mandate years, the rate of Arab immigration from outside Palestine rose exponentially (I'm too lazy to get figures just now) so that the non-native Arab population doubled (at least) in just over 40 years. This seriously undermines the 'ethnic claim' I think. Are these immigrant Arabs to be considered more Palestinian because they were Arab even though they were as much immigrants as the later waves of Jewish migrants?

Many might say it was tantamount to theft in that the movement of Zionism was specifically designed in order to create a state in an area that at the inception of the movement, was excessively arab.

I'd imagine a question-begging defence could be used here: "Who is to say" that, in a Land which had traditionally passed from one ruler to another, and being one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the Middle East, one ethnic group have any natural claim to become the sole and undisputed rulers when the first power vacuum occurs? Right or wrong, claims to self-determination were being settled on an ethnic basis all over the world immediately after the first world war and right through to the end of the second. This was inevitably complicated considerably by the power vacuums left in the wake of the old empires.

Parallels can be drawn with say, Pakistanis moving as many people as possible to the UK in order to proclaim their own state. Or so the argument may run.

The analogy's makes a worthy rhetorical point, but I'd argue that considering there was always a not-insignificant latent Jewish population in Palestine, and many Jews had maintained strong links with the land. Now I'm not saying that justifies ceasing land, but geographically speaking, it does make it a somewhat more "logical" place to start thinking from.

Reply 70

OP

Clinical

Palestinians have been living in that land for thousands of years, that's why they have a right to that land.

As have Jews.

As have Native Americans (that land for this purpose being North America).

Reply 71

tbtommyb

11

Socrates

So, in your view, sovereignty is a Machaevillian(sp) concept rather than a legal one? There are good reasons why Israel does not accept the sovereignty of the Palestinians, but that is a very poor one.

Isn't it? Americans achieved sovereignty by defeating the British, are you going to tell them that's wrong? Ideally, countries should sort out independence and the like through diplomacy, but if not, what do they do? Israel tried via the UN, what did you expect them to do? Why shouldn't they have sovereignty? I'd also like to see Palestine have an independent state, but there's no reason for Israel to give them it. There's no obligation, is there?

Reply 72

Consie

15

Get rid of the UN then and its International laws? get rid of the International Court in the netherlands?

The UN is a fine example actually. Its difinative proof that if your powerful enough, laws dont apply. The USA, in reality, can do what the **** it wants without reprisal becasue its powerful enough. The UN has lost its teeth becasue none of its power - the armies of the nations, want to get involved in anything. Taking thigns ot the international court is optional if your powerful enough.

I am liberal. The freedom of the individual is key. But of course that also means the responsibilty of action is also shifted onto the individual. Thus, the individual has to deal with his own problems, and if he cant becasue another individual can deal with his responsibilties better, then thats fine. Thats liberalism.

The theory/morals isnt really the point of it all. You can debate till the cows come home the right to self determination, but that wont solve any problems. The reality is that power is all that counts, which is what everyone knows deep down, which is why all governments spend a lot on defence. The Jews dealt with their problems - finding a new home, better than the Palestinians did theirs - defending their home. Therefore the Jews win, regardless of what the losers moan about.

Reply 73

tbtommyb

11

Salastico7

what a joke! The first statement - i dont know how you came to that conclusion. Second - a bit bias isn't it?

Which bit of the first? Do you deny that the Israelis accepted the two state solution and the Arabs rejected it? Seems to me that the Israelis are the more reasonable ones, and they're the ones that managed to make a working state.

The second line might be biased yes, but I'm sure there is a decent explanation. Or maybe it was just that Jewish greed coming up again?

Reply 74

tbtommyb

11

Consie

...because they were more powerful? Its survival of the fittest, justice rarely comes into it. Im sure the Celts werent happy when the Romans turned up, but there was **** all they could do about it!

Exactly. National borders have changed shape for millenniums. New countries come, old countries go. As Tracey would say, "deal with it".

Reply 75

OP

Gilliwoo

That's a valid issue, but if we are to talk about the specifc area we call Palestine, I find that ethnic argument to be difficult when we consider that during the mandate years, the rate of Arab immigration from outside Palestine rose exponentially (I'm too lazy to get figures just now) so that the non-native Arab population doubled (at least) in just over 40 years. This seriously undermines the 'ethnic claim' I think. Are these immigrant Arabs to be considered more Palestinian because they were Arab even though they were as much immigrants as the later waves of Jewish migrants?

Indeed. I think that arguments based on the ethnicity of the population are indeed bile.

However, the vast majority of the native population at the time, were certianly not in favour of a Jewish state

I'd imagine a question-begging defence could be used here: "Who is to say" that, in a Land which had traditionally passed from one ruler to another, and being one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the Middle East, one ethnic group have any natural claim to become the sole and undisputed rulers when the first power vacuum occurs? Right or wrong, claims to self-determination were being settled on an ethnic basis all over the world immediately after the first world war and right through to the end of the second. This was inevitably complicated considerably by the power vacuums left in the wake of the old empires.

Indeed - though this seems more of an historical explanation than a moral justification.

I think that the difference here is that from the point of view of self-determination - the vot ewas, in effect "rigged" through artifical immigration.

The analogy's makes a worthy rhetorical point, but I'd argue that considering there was always a not-insignificant latent Jewish population in Palestine, and many Jews had maintained strong links with the land. Now I'm not saying that justifies ceasing land, but geographically speaking, it does make it a somewhat more "logical" place to start thinking from.

Yes - indeed, there are certainly distinctions, but are they distinctions with a relevance, or at least a relevance capable of justifying the creation of the Jewish state?

Reply 76

burntgorilla

Which bit of the first? Do you deny that the Israelis accepted the two state solution and the Arabs rejected it? Seems to me that the Israelis are the more reasonable ones, and they're the ones that managed to make a working state.

The second line might be biased yes, but I'm sure there is a decent explanation. Or maybe it was just that Jewish greed coming up again?

In the first statement i thought it was a joke to blame the Palestinians for not accepting a two state solution in 1945 or whatever date it was. If someone comes into my house im stupid if i dont share my house with them?

Reply 77

Gilliwoo

Lawz-

Indeed - the Sephardim were in the region for centuries, and indeed, some never even left.

However, as was put in a commons debate at the time (paraphrased from my memory) the Arabs of Palestine had been burying their people in the land for 50 generations, and simply asking them to hand over the prospect of sovereignty to the Jews simply because they had managed to promote immigration on a mass scale might be a hard thing to swallow.
Quite. But the sticking point for me is that let's assume in theory, there was no mass immigration (Arab or Jewish): when the Ottoman Empire fell, there is still that ethnic power-vacuum issue. Who gets the keys? That question would arguably have remained even if the Jewish population was comparitively small, and the right to a (smaller?) ethnically separate state could have been made on the basis of the self-determination claim. Empires have a distorting effect on specific ethnic claims, and in some respect I see a logic in some of Consie's remarks about the way they are realistically settled. Straight borders (or none at all!) are the curse of empires.

Reply 78

OP

Bismarck

I'm still waiting for the people making the argument you quoted to call for the Arabs and other Muslims who conquered territory to give the territory back to its former owners.

The argument may well run that, clearly, things and events are of their time, and the longer out we move in terms of a timeline, the harder it is to undo previous wrongs.

However, in the case of the formation of Israel, many might feel that the times themselves were not such that the morality of such a movement would be rendered acceptable and that were are still sufficently proximate to the events in order to properly and feasibly undo them - by undo here I mean undo in a relevant sense - not completely negate the events.

Reply 79