The question is simple: does Israel have a right to be a country?

A little background information:

Modern day Israel was created as a result of agreements, particularly one within the UN. It was created for the Jews, because they had no country at the time, and the land was considered holy to them. Originally, the UN split Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. However, this "agreement" was never agreed upon by the Arab League, and today, many Arab countries oppose the existence of Israel, as territorial conflicts have escalated into violence.

I think it should be one county shared by the Israelis and Palestinians, Neither Israel or Palestine, They should both be able to vote on who leads it, Palestinians and Israelis can be a sort of...Political party thing.

I don't think any religion has it's own country, does it?

Jewish people aren't necessarily classified by religion.

Much yet you have to learn, my young padawan.

That makes me think that the JEWS Which is a religion, want their own exclusive holy land, and no other religion has that so, its better to blend in than to stick out.


Anyway Zhou, what you said contradicts itself, you can't have a Jew who isn't necessarily Jewish. And whats wrong with the Idea of One united country inhabited by the Jews and Arabs? Its better than all this selfish fighting thats getting nowhere.

First of all, @sonic: problem is that each time it has been suggested (a few times since the 1920s) the Arabs disagreed - violently.

Thing you failed to add to your post is that the Jewish state was proclaimed for jews because they have been persecuted for their beliefs all over the world, and im not talking just about Natzi Germany.

Before WWII had begun there was a meeting between state officials of many countries in the world. the question was who can take the unwanted 4 million or so Jewish souls that were in Europe at the time: The USA claimed it could not take any, same most other countries. The only real offer was of the Dominican Republic who accepted half a million Jews, but they had no means to get them there.
Funny story about that: Australia (at the time it was even more empty than it is now) said that 'they are not anti-semitic, but if Jews will come they are afraid there will be.' - now that is epic even in todays term.

So, basically if we don't have a state which has Jewish leadership will will once again start being hated. And if you think that the world isn't anti-jews now, then you're wrong. If we weren't a US ally, and if we weren't one of the strongest (if not the strongest) states in the middle east - no one would want anything to do with us.

As for a "right" - who are you to suggest we need a right. you think the Arab League supports the existence of the US? why not discuss the right of any western country who the Arabs hate

Seriously, rethink this idea. The Jewish settlers since the 1890s agreed to any of the UN and Brittan's suggestions for how to run the land. All options were suggested (as well as living together side by side and ruling together - what sonic suggested). Each suggestion was disagreed upon by the Palestinians and most of the time they retaliated with violence.

Add that to your background information.

Bottom line - even without the 'bible claim'. We now have a solid claim on the land which was approved by the UN in November 29th 1947, and the rest of the lands - well we just conquered those like any other country. It's way passed a matter of "think if we should be a country" - we are, and as long as we have a thing to do (and thats a lot) we will stay one. Personally im offended by this topic, Who the ---- do you think you are questioning the right for me not to be persecuted and killed in acts of random violence. No thanks for that Sit tight son, when you know what the hell you're talking about here give me a call.

Yes, you can. There are many people who claim to be of "Jewish Descent" and yet have no affiliation with the religion. Judaism was merely attributed to these people, and thus was the area chosen.

Perhaps I posed the question in a wrong way, or you took it in the wrong manner. For the purposes of clarification, ask yourself whether the UN had a right to create the State of Israel.

I will not doubt the prejudice and stubborness of many countries on their parts to deal with the Jews. That only means that they should've allowed immigrants instead of forcing an exodus to a newly created country in the midst of insurgency.

It's not necessarily whether the Jews have a legitimate claim to the land, but rather whether the UN had a right to just hand it to them. It's like the UN deciding that Taiwan is a country.

Just look at Jerusalem as to why that's a bad idea. The problem is - as is so often the case - the minority of people causing the majority of problems. Much of the Arabic populace wouldn't be terribly opposed to a united state as it offers them better education, healthcare, freedom and more opportunities. Similarly, much of the Jewish populace wouldn't be opposed to the majority of the Arabic populace as migrant workers are an economic necessity. Of course, on both sides there are the problem people. In Palestine (Well, not really Palestine as Palestine doesn't exist) this is Hezbollah, the Hamas government and the various extremist, Anti-Zionist organisations. In Israel it refers to the military.

And of course, with a demographic such as:
Jewish 5,499,000 (75.5% of total pop.)
Non-Jewish Israeli Arab 1,461,000 (20% of total pop.)
Do you really think there's much chance of a free and fair election? I can't personally see many of the 75.5% of the Jewish population voting for the ruling Anti-Zionist Hamas Party in an election.

But as to whether the UN had any right to pass Resolution 242 - of course it didn't. But then none of the European Imperialists had any right to partition Africa during the scramble for Africa. Whether or not there's a right rarely matters to the countries which are unaffected. Realistically, the Security Council resolution is unfair on both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples as it brings no resolution to the conflict and possibly even escalated it on a civilian level because - as usual - it's civilians who suffer the tyrannies of the warmongers.

note that those statistics don't include the Gaza strip and the West bank inwhich there are around 1 additional million Arabs.

Thing is why Israel is screwed up with that matter of either an autonomy for the Arabs or a joined country is that they want to be separate from Israel, and Israel can survive well good without supporting that million, but they can't. They get fuel, electricity and other necessities from Israel and of course neighboring Jordan or Egypt don't want anything to do with them.

So as long as we support them even though they bomb us they complain that they want autonomy, and if we stop supporting both the Arabs and international pressure demand we renew our support lines. (basically the US tells us and we have to do it )

I for one believe we should give the autonomy and let them try and solve their own problems themselves. I support taking out all the settlements out of the West bank, but I think the separation wall is essential. We can't be on the fence about that as we have been for the last 10 years or so. It's either we support them and they accept a joined country (which they don't ATM) or we sever all connections and thats it. In that matter Rob is exactly right but missed the actual point of his argument. In the Israeli side the problem is the radical right-wing (some of which still believe the old "whole Israel" which includes most of Jordan). The army has nothing to do with it - it does exactly what the government tells it. And the main point - our government failed it's people for the last few years horribly.

Israel has a right to exist because it serves as the Jewish homeland.

Is there not a Christian homeland of Rome/Vatican City?
Is there not an Islamic homeland of Mecca/Medina?

Why can there not be a Jewish homeland?

The UN had every right to establish a Jewish state, wherever it was. The atrocities of WWII happened not because Hitler shut the gate on the Jews, Gypsies, and minorities exit, but because the Western World close their door to those that tried to flee. Once Hitler saw that the others wouldn't take them, he was then able to kill them. He would have been fine with having them leave Europe while he conquered it. In his mind, they would be exterminated once he ruled the rest of the world.

Needless to say that from history, having a Jewish homeland would have helped to avoid persecution. The expulsions and inquisitions could have been avoided if there was a place for the Jews to go, but sadly all the countries were killing or converting (and killing) for miles around.

Whether or not Israel would have been an actual Jewish state had it not been for the UN, the land around the area would have become Jewish. There was a large influx of Jewish settlers in the lowlands and deserts of then Palestine during the early 20th century, and it was steadily growing.

You're a ----ing idiot if you think you know everything.

Yes they deserve to be a country, just read Barak and Aaron's posts. I have nothing to say.

Good job, you call out my minor satire by asserting an unrelated rhetoric. Bravo.

Silver, I think that you're classification is a bit unfair. As all three "religions" have legitimate religious claim to the land. I don't think it should be the fault of the Arabs for what Hitler did. The Arabs fought and died for that land, and what did the UN do? Use 20th Century diplomacy (which is a completely different spectroscope with the rise of nuclear weapons) to exodus the unwanted Jewish people. I think this was a racist way to deal with it. What the Jews should REALLY be angry about is the fact that these countries would NOT accept them. Tolerance should've been taught. It would've been like creating a special land for the slaves because you didn't want them to assimilate.

There's no conflict for the Vatican City (nor is it considered "holy"). Nor is there a conflict over Mecca/Medina. However, I think that by right of conquering, the Arabs (for lack of a better word) "own" that land (Crusades...). What the UN did was essentially annex this land in hopes of gaining the favor of the world.

Though Jews won't be persecuted within their own homeland, the creation has lead to an onslaught of international conflict. In fact, it incited 9/11 (according to bin Laden).

So all in all, it was just inappropriate to deal with the Jews by merely getting rid of them. The fact that countries would not let them assimilate was a signal that tolerance was not met internally. It wasn't the UN's job.

Once again you are lead to believe something that is not true. you have much to learn, you noobcake .

First of all: 9/11 and all the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about oil and money - nothing else.

next: It wasn't just Hitler, it was all of Europe even going back till the start of the 19th century. Jews we're presecuted by the Russians, the French and practically every nation. What made the holocaust so different is that Hitler and his men made this a national hate and created a killing machine. literally machine.

About fighting for the lands: Did you know that some of the holocaust survivers, left with no family or relatives, came to Israel and fought in the Independance war. They lost everything already and yet they came to fight for a country they have just set foot on and has been around for less than a few months. over 6000 Israelis died, when there were less than 300,000 Jews here. so thats 5% - fought and died.

Fact is there are less than 25 million Jews all over the world. We will never be fully accepted because that is the nature of man. We can't wait for the world to find it in their hearts to accept us while extremists go a head and slaughter us. If Israel wouldn't exist there will be another holocaust with in the next 50 years.

That's a horrible generalization. You follow up a horrible response, and then you exemplify your ignorance. Clearly you did not understand the point I was making. To say that 9/11 and "the war in Iraq and Afghanistan" is all about oil and money is one of the most ridiculous statements to be made. Reality check: it's not that simple. However, this discussion is for another topic at another time. Furthermore, I did not mention the war. (Oil made terrorists attack us? Did we invade Iraq first or get attacked first?) You misunderstood my point.

That is, the reason bin Laden gave for attacking the US was because of Israel. Why? Because of a little oppressive "diplomatic" organization called the UN creating the state of Israel. No argument is coming out of your statement. Rather, you state a generalization that is widely agreed upon but unrelated, and expect people to go with the flow.

Regardless of how much the Jews are persecuted, there's still absolutely no argument coming out of your post. The only thing you're stating is that people are intolerant. Good job. Africans weren't only enslaved in America. They were rejected on a societal level for a long time, but eventually they assimilated as a result of growing tolerance. What the UN did was put off this tolerance. To avoid Jews assimilating, they created Israel. That IS the reason you state, correct? That "no countries accept them?"

The biggest problem is that the UN created this nation in the midst of Arab hostility, which brought about huge international conflict and tension. What the UN did is essentially use this as propaganda to give them a humanitarian lever. There must be some reason for creating Jews. According to you, countries don't accept them (which is unacceptable), and according to me, political propaganda (which is also unacceptable).

The fact that Jews fought is not what ultimately decided the independence of Israel. You know this. In any case, you didn't cover any other facet of my arguments.

My comment was only for humor, not an attempt to be condescendent. What I said was true, no? If you want to make a response to that, fine. But don't cover half the arguments and use irrelevant examples.

in fact, during the medieval times jews were killed and burnt in europe.

Sorry for my ignorance but where did the jews live before WW2. Why can't they live in that place now?

Oil made the US interested in controlling (either directly or indirectly) the middle east. The Arabs obviously didn't want that - thats what brought the terrorism.

Sure Bin-laden will say that. Thats called by historians the catalyst, the reasons can be completely different. IE the 2001 Intifada - the main reason was a long turmoil between the two sides and more. they catalyst was Arik Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.


Thats exactly what it did.

Claiming the UN created the Jewish state so the need to assimilate Jews will be dismissed is incorrect as well. The UN didn't want anything to do with it. The British would have had it just as well keeping Israel for themselves for another 50 years. The Jewish state in Israel was the idea, commitment and result of the Zionist movement lead by Benjamin Ze'ev Herzel. The UN complied with the British suggestion since it was already impossible to control that region. The UN didn't decide to create the Israeli state, nor did it do it. They just said that they agree for said states to be build. It wasn't a contract to be followed to the line - it was a general acceptance of terms by the British and UN.

If you think the Afro-Americans in the US ATM are treated completely equal then you are living in a bubble mister. Trying to compare them with the Jewish position just shows you don't understand the core from which the problem in Europe came from.

Believe me I don't mind you dismissing my posts as irrelevent and having nothing to them. I really don't care what you think about them... Just making sure people who read this won't just read your side which for one - probably never even visited here. Just giving you my 17 years of experience from the region.

1. The Jews did not ask for Jerusalem, which I assume you are referring to as the claim. A map of the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) The map clearly shows that the UN Partition Plan, which the Jews agreed to, and also in which, despite having more land, there is less arable and highly habitable land, with the majority if the land given being in the Negev. In the UN Partition Plan, the Jews agreed to not only not having Jerusalem, but agreeing to having an entire Arab state around Jerusalem.
2. The Arabs aren't at fault for what Hitler did. The Arabs did fight and die for their country. The Arabs also began to sell land to Jews in what was then Palestine. The Arabs are, in lack of a better terms, responsible for bringing the Jews upon themselves. By not taking any notice of the fact that many, many Jews were buying large amounts of land in the early part of the 20th century, they negated their right to call it an Arab land. Not only that, but a majority of the Arab argument is that they did sell the Jews the poorer land (swamps, bad soil, desert land, etc.) and in turn, the Jews were able to still thrive and actually better their environment. The Arabs felt tricked.
3. The Jews are angry that these countries would not accept them. But after dealing with not being wanted for so long, it was a simple decision: return to being treated like crap around those that despise you, or go to a place where there are people like you. It is like the kid who has been picked on by the same group of kids from second grade to eighth grade, and then he changes schools for ninth grade.


The Vatican City may not be holy, but it is the center of Catholicism, by far. Whether or not it is as holy as Golgatha, more Christians (and Catholics) will be able to identify the Vatican as more important than the Golgatha. Despite no current conflict, in the Dark Ages and Renaissance of Europe, when the Papal States were more of an empire that ruled the Apennine Peninsula, people surrounding states would attack it, because it was a center of religion. There was also a large amount of wealth to be gained, but the Papal States were attacked daily.


Israel also was the cause of, oh 6 other wars that happened to actually involve Israel. Just because there is conflict, doesn't mean something shouldn't exist. There is conflict over whether or not over how capitalism should exist, but not if it should exist.
The fact that countries would not assimilate them was a sign to get them out. Its one thing if there are rough periods between Jews and non Jews for a couple years. It is another thing to be persecuted for the better part of 1500 years.

First off, those two CITIES aren't COUNTRIES, and they both allow people who are non-christian/non muslim to live in the area, and from what I know, Mecca is where Muhammad was born and where muslims perform pilgrimage, and Medina is where Muhammad is Buried and home to the worlds biggest mosque.

And when the jews needed refuge, the other countries should have let them come and not just clear off a piece of inhabited land just for them, I agree with Zhou the jews should be angry because other countries wouldn't accept them.

Actually, the Vatican city in some maps is considered a different state inside Italy itself, and Medina and Mecca are both obviously in Saudi Arabia.

And actually no. As in any country they have immigration laws that prohibit anyone without the proper certificates to live there. Same with Israel, moreover, half of Jerusalem's inhabitance are Arabs which were there for years and were never moved.

Once again: we are getting killed by the millions and we shouldn't start a country of refuge - just be angry about that? Thats whats called sitting on your --- and complaining. The Jews did that for hundreds of in Europe moving around each time a Pogrom destroyed their town or they were banished. Finally, someone had enough - Actually it was a few somebodies.

If you don't act you don't get results, and the fact that Israel is an independent, strong, powerful country proves just that.

I know I'm probably coming in a little late and tbh, I haven't fully understood all the arguments presented and I'm thinking i've been deluding myself for these past years by thinking I know whats going on in Israel.

I'll just try to answer the poll question.

Yes, it is true that Jews were originally allowed to settle in the place we now call Israel by the UN (after having been rejected in boatloads by the British until they just said stuff it, let's make it someone else's problem) but the true state was not given to us, it was fought for. You can state official reasons, papers and mandates as the reason Jews are there now, but in all honesty, if the Jew's hadn't fought and won against ridiculous odds there would be no debate now. Being brought up and raised as an Orthodox Jew of course I was taught with considerable bias and I was asking myself these questions a while ago until I took more of an interest in Israel after I visited it. I read Six Days of War by Michael B. Oren, The Yom Kippur War - Israel's Wake Up
and yes, Gideon's Spies - The History of Mossad.

After fighting for every single one of those 60 years (and before) in either military combat or politically, yes, Israel has a right to be there.

You can't question the rights of Israel without questioning the land gained via the European colonisation, the Hellenisation, etc etc.

Israel was formerly part of the Ottoman Empire.
Ottoman Empire dissolves at the end of World War I.
Britain conquers most of the lands formerly owned by the Ottoman Empire. This includes Palestine.
Britain fights and wins in World War II.
European anti-Colonize movements flourish.
Britain begins to decolonize, including ending its British Mandate of Palestine.
Big chunk of land is left there.

Thats how the land fell in and out of European power, in a nutshell.

As for Hellenization, I'm not sure what you are going at. Hellenization existed primarily 200-300 years BCE, and although there were cultures centered around it, the Islamic Empires and Dynasties (Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Mughal, Safavid, Ottoman) who inhabited the Asian areas of Hellenization, did away with such culture and used culture that was related to Bedouin societies.

Fisher:

First and foremost, I did not dismiss your post as irrelevant. Rather, you used an irrelevant example to counter my illustration of a point.

Secondly, how is it that the creation of Israel is a CATALYST? 9/11 did not happen as a result of tensions culminating with the creation of Israel? The situation had already been going on for a long time.

Perhaps the biggest problem for the Middle East was the employment of US hegemonic power. It's true that the US is an oppressive, imperialistic country. This has to be part of the reason why Arabs hate the US, not merely because of the cultural differences. This is your logic - that the Arabs are afraid of the US taking over for oil, thereby producing the terrorism. On a general level, this is correct, but not entirely.

The US has a huge stake within the UN. The Iraqi Invasion was a violation of the UN Charter (not sure which section), and what happened? Nothing.

I'm mentioning all of this for a reason. First, US is a strong ally of Israel. Hundreds of millions of dollars are given to the Israeli government under what the US government defines as "Foreign Aid." This isn't just green bills or bank data that the US is sending to Israel. The US sends tanks, ammunition, weapons, and more under what's defined as "Foreign Aid." I think that this is the reason why Israel can hold off the conflict. Jews win a fight surrounded by hostility just because they're valiant (by no means am I dismissing that Jews are valiant). Yes, I think that they do fight hard. Yes, I sympathize with them. No, I cannot imagine the atrocities that were truly commited. That being said, I don't think the UN dealt with the situation in a correct way.

This aid that the US gives Israel is the reason behind the tension between the Middle East and the US. With the rise of nuclear weapons, the stakes are higher. It is becoming increasingly dangerous for the US to help Israel. Not that the only reason why Israel exists is because of the "Foreign Aid" presented by the US, but that the "aid" helps. A lot.

I did intend to label African Americans as social equals to Whites. I merely drew an analogy, saying, "Look how far they've come."

I do not mean to offend you in any way. If you would like to add to the original post, just write some stuff out and I'll add it. I will admit that you're far more cognizant of the situation than I, regarding the history. That being said, I still think that the way Foreign Policy was executed following the creation of Israel was completely wrong.

Silver:

1. Sorry, I didn't intend to claim that Jews forced the UN to give them Jerusalem or wanted it or anything like that. I meant that it was incorrect for the UN to assume that the Jews should be placed there.
2. I don't really have a response to this, I mean, you could take it either way. I'll just concede it.
3. I also concede this point, because I don't think it impacts my arguments. People are mean. Okay. I realize it's a huge thing to ask of people to learn TOLERANCE, but I'm sure it would've been preferable.

More to come later.

My third point is relevant to the argument.

If the UN hadn't made Israel in Palestine, then they certainly would have made one somewhere.
The Jews needed a homeland.

Many people use the holocaust as justification for a Jewish state since 6 million Jews were killed during the final solution. However, there were up to 5 million people slaughtered who are merely classified as "others" - blacks, gays, Romanies, Russians and - in true eugenic form - people with various disabilities both mental and physical. I've never understood how on one side we can say that the survivors should get their own country and on the other we just don't classify them in the statistics as there are plenty more of them left. I would actually find being awarded a country for being an "endangered species" rather degrading; that the UN would offer me land much like an animal they ought to be attempting to conserve.

I completely agree that the Jewish populace were persecuted as soon as Christianity became a mainstream religion and there are still today thousands of neo-nazis who would further the Final Solution, not to mention simple holocaust deniers and - to a lesser extent - Anti-Zionists, but is the realisation that you're suddenly feeling guilty about past actions mean that you should simply give away that which isn't yours to give? What happens when Britain starts feeling guilty about Palestinians? Do we simply decide that actually, 60 years on we'd like to take our land back and let the Palestinians live under our stewardship again?

As to the points on intolerance - is this just like the Jewish populace are so entirely tolerant of the Arabs? It is human nature to be intolerant. Humans are creatures entirely of habit - change is not something to be sought or trusted as it brings us out of our comfort zones and deposits us somewhere new. You apply that concept to people of different skin colours or people with different ideals and you get a clash. Of course, any clash will lead to a resolution eventually; Marx's Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. To give you a simple example - in the 1980's in Britain, the flag of St George (The Red Cross flag of England) was flown primarily by skinheads - a borderline fascist societal group much akin to the KKK. However, after the 1990 World Cup, many black people took to flying the flag in order to show support for the English national football team - showing support for their nation. The synthesis of this was the the mainstream British populace - those who call Britain their home, regardless of colour or religion - can now feel comfortable flying the flag of St George and do so with pride in support of their national team. [Of course this does provide a rather amusing sidenote wherein now you have prejudice against people of Muslim or Arabic backgrounds whilst flying the flag of a Turk who joined the Holy Roman Army and likely never visited Britain.] Sooner or later, there would be a final resolution to the persecution of the Jewish people; mayhap that is the holocaust or mayhap the Jews who have successfully integrated in Britain, the USA, Germany and Poland have successfully found their own synthesis.

At the end of the day, the problem with this whole debate is the same thing that is the whole problem with humanity. We've got a huge problem which we're trying to solve by basing our opinions on what people have done before us. Aaron, Barak - with the greatest respect you're trying to talk with the authority of millions of people who have lived and died before you were born. Now most of the time, I rarely know what I believe, let alone what every person who has lived before me believes.
The other thing about tolerance which goes against human nature is that to be truly tolerant, we must accept that we are nothing. Realistically, what is any of us but one speck amongst the six billion other mites of dust on the planet? We are none of us any better, any more deserving or any more unique than any other person on this planet - yet every one of us - genetically, spiritually or even simply narcissistically - believes that we are. Perhaps it is a base need of humans that we need to feel special simply to exist - I really don't know and I don't pretend to know what everyone else thinks about the matter or if they even do think about it.
We can argue Zionism versus Anti-Zionism until we're grey in the beard and bent in the back but what would we have achieved apart from a lot of wasted time? The sooner we simply stop fighting amongst ourselves and blaming everyone else - The Jews and Arabs are both equally guilty in this matter, your posts do nothing but prove it - the sooner we might actually achieve something as a species.

The Vatican is its own country. And it is Catholic. Other than that, I agree with you.

There have always been wars, especially for Jerusalem which is considered the 'sacred city'. The problems that the Middle Easterns are having is that they don't want the Middle East to be westernised like many countries are across the world. This invokes the USA being involved with Israel, which is why Al Qaeda attacked USA in 2001.

So Al Qaeda, is in a way bullying the USA out of Israel and if they don't comply more destruction will happen.

Whats wrong with not wanting to be westernized? I don't exactly see a utopia over here either.

I'm not siding either way, I can see both positives and negatives. Just merely providing the facts.

"Not wanting to be westernized" is just the reason the Bush administration gave to everyone. In reality, it's well known that many Arab states surrounding Israel oppose its existence. I do believe that's the real reason why Al-Qaeda attacked the US.

Can you clarify .
Do you mean thats the reason the Bush administration gave for attacking, or being attacked?

Yeah, for being attacked. They spread a bunch of propaganda about how terrorists were against the awesome ideals of the west.