Israel

[punkinside]

Do you think the UN had the mandate to create the state of Israel back in 1948? Was it really necessary? Vote and explain.

[Alice Shade]

Basically... Yes.

Though, I don`t agree with explicit "UN mandating".

Let`s face it... Jews lived there long enough, just as well, as arabs. So, both have fairly reasonable claim of the land. Now, cultural differences make it impossible for both of them to coexist - mainly because of gross sillyness of both sides. Thus, the only solution to situation was an armed conflict - since both sides are unable to work out a compromise.

Generally, I believe, that they should duke it out themselves, or they`ll never get to the end of it. It`s OK to SELL them means to fight, as well as mercenary forces, as long as they don`t get too eager, and smash surrounding states or too whiny, and request everyone around to intervene and fight for them.

Though... I`m with jews on this one.
Main beef here lies in religious and sociological differences - both sides want a country, where they can practice their religious/national habits freely, and governmentally-approved.
Now, arabs have whole middle east as their conclave, and frankly, even tenth of war spendings would be enough to terraform a whole new Palestina river in Saudi Arabia, and relocate whole muslim Palestina there.
Jews, on the other hand, have no place they could possibly move out, if they`d be forced out of Israel. Considering, that they have equal "I lived here for all my life" rights... They need it more.

The goals are different here.
Arabs fight for principle - "Won`t let them have it, even if we can`t do shit about what we already have!".
Jews fight for homeland - "I`ve nowhere else to run, if I`ll give in here!"

So... Yes. Israel has the right to exist, and arabs need to scoot over. They have place to do so.

[punkinside]

I must say I disagree. Israel was created as an artificial state. Jews didn't have a claim for that land since rulers were being called "cesar".

The land that we now know as "Israel" was occupied by arabs and was a colony of England when the UN "assigned" it to Zionists, who had been talking about returning to their promised land long before that and pretty much everybody agreed that they didn't have a claim over the land. Enter Hitler, six million dead jews later they suddenly need a place to stay because nobody else wants them? Seems bogus to me. The majority of Israelites that now occupy that land are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. They came from somewhere didn't they? Well, I think they should go back.

Now, you know I have a pet peeve with muslims who happen to be arabs also. That dosen't change the fact that that land belonged to them prior to 1948. Would you agree that, since the Europeans committed the largest genocide on the history of mankind on the indigenous people of america, every one in, say, Boston should relocate to allow Native Americans to live and form their own state there?

How would you feel if someone came to your house one day and said: "You gotta move cause we have some homeless people here who need a place. You can go live with your parents"

[Alice Shade]

Ah, but you are not exactly right.

Jews had been living there for ages. They were GOVERNED by arabs, yes, but they lived there.

A lot of people immigrated back in Israel simply because it provides better environment for them, now, but most of native jews had roots there for hell knows how long.

Let`s be honest here - Jerusalem was NOT arab city. They governed it, but it was founded and populated by Jews.

And since arabs had conquered Israel a good while ago, I have no problem with jews taking it back.


Regarding your example - it`s not correct, on historical scale. It`s rather, if someone grabbed me, when I was sleeping, tossed me out on street, and took residence in my place. So, I think I`d be perfectly justified in coming back with a piece of rebar, and beating the bastards the hell out of my place.

[AaronD]

If someone grabbed me, when I was sleeping, tossed me out on street, and took residence in my place. So, I think I`d be perfectly justified in coming back with a piece of rebar, and beating the bastards the hell out of my place.

I vote this to be the best sentence I have ever read on these forums.

[punkinside]

Ah, but you are not exactly right.

Jews had been living there for ages. They were GOVERNED by arabs, yes, but they lived there.


Arabs had been living there for at least 1000 years too. The British isles were conquered by vikings somewhere around the year 1000 and all their royal bloodline descends from them. Many things change in the course of time, specially landmasses. Arizona and New Mexico were ceded to the US after the Mexican-American war. Does Mexico hold a rightful claim to these lands?

I'm saying that the claim to the land of Palestine had to be at least equal for both parties. If a secular government with no ties to any religion had been formed maybe this there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. But it has always been about forming a state based on some religion.



Let`s be honest here - Jerusalem was NOT arab city. They governed it, but it was founded and populated by Jews.

There are christians living there too y'know. Three major religions of this world claim it to be their "holy city". Once again, simply claiming that, historically, jews have "owned" that land does not give them a direct claim over it for it has changed hands so many times in history through war and conquest that such a claim is no longer relevant.


And since arabs had conquered Israel a good while ago, I have no problem with jews taking it back.

See my point above. Many nations have been formed and destroyed throughout history. An "executive decision" from the UN does not make it necessarily right.

[Alice Shade]

Well, let me put it this way.

If you argue, that Jerusalem and Israel lands had changed hands often enough not to let someone claim "rights" to them, what beef do you have with Jews, then?

They are conquering it for their own, and they are perfectly justified in doing so, just like arabs and cruzaders were justified in their conquering.


As for your examples with New Mexico and British islands... Answer is pretty simple - assimilation. In Palestina, you can easily go on a street, and spot segregated warring nations. In Britain - you just see one solid nation. Since neither Muslims nor Jews would agree to be assimilated into other society, the only solution they have is to fight for the lands.

When we come to that, though, it has nothing to do with UN. Jews are in Israel only because they say "it`s ours", and they are ready to kill any arab, which disagrees, simple as that.


And considering, that arabs did the same earlier, I sincerely don`t see, how jews are at fault here. Try as you might, they have historical rights to the lands - as much as arabs, at least. And if they are willing to be a country, and have own laws/religion/borders - more power to them.




Honestly, arabs have a legitimate reason to attack jews - and jews have just as legitimate reason to attack arabs.

There is no abstract good and bad in this conflict - both sides are somewhat good and somewhat bad.

On that note, I`d like to note, that from this point, Jews vs. Arabs becomes entirely personal issue.

I root for jews, personally.
First, that they finally stuck it out, and decided to strike it out on their own, without having to conform to others` rules.
Second - because frankly, arabs and their national habits are outrageous. Call me prejudiced, if you wish, but jews and Judaism in my book always win over arabs and Islam. At least Jews respect their women.

[punkinside]

Well, let me put it this way.

If you argue, that Jerusalem and Israel lands had changed hands often enough not to let someone claim "rights" to them, what beef do you have with Jews, then?


Because jews didn't form an army and went over there to take it back. They cashed in the "sympathy" points they earned from the holocaust and got it handed over to them.


They are conquering it for their own, and they are perfectly justified in doing so, just like arabs and cruzaders were justified in their conquering.


Once more, they didn't conquer it on their own.


As for your examples with New Mexico and British islands... Answer is pretty simple - assimilation. In Palestina, you can easily go on a street, and spot segregated warring nations. In Britain - you just see one solid nation. Since neither Muslims nor Jews would agree to be assimilated into other society, the only solution they have is to fight for the lands.

I will have to agree with you there.


Honestly, arabs have a legitimate reason to attack jews - and jews have just as legitimate reason to attack arabs.

There is no abstract good and bad in this conflict - both sides are somewhat good and somewhat bad.


Completely Agree.


On that note, I`d like to note, that from this point, Jews vs. Arabs becomes entirely personal issue.

I root for jews, personally.
First, that they finally stuck it out, and decided to strike it out on their own, without having to conform to others` rules.
Second - because frankly, arabs and their national habits are outrageous. Call me prejudiced, if you wish, but jews and Judaism in my book always win over arabs and Islam. At least Jews respect their women.

Here's where we don't agree. If you remember I have called for a complete annihilation of muslims, so, its not about muslims at all for me I couldn't care less about those SOBs . Its about recognizing that their claim for that land was bogus and that they only got it because Hitler decided he wanted to kill a bunch of them. They didn't conquer it. Their "war of independence" in 1948 was mostly fought with help of the brittish and americans. I gotta hand it to them in subsequent wars, but if they've gone in with a rebar like you said in the first place I don't think I'd feel this way anyways.

[Alice Shade]

Oh... I see. Abstract ideal seeking here.

Care to explain, just why jews are wrong with cashing in "sympathy" points?

There is no rules at war - if you can whine your way into victory, why not? Obviously, they succeeded in what they wanted, so it doesn`t really matters, how they did it.

Remember, you don`t question the winner. All I know, that they are willing and able to kick ass to anyone, who grabs for what`s theirs, right now. That`s called conquering, in my book.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Let me sum it this way... It`s their war. If US, UK, Russia or anyone else wants to intervene in, and help one of the sides, it`s their business - and they will deal with consequences. So, if jews or arabs are successful in getting someone to do their dirty job for them, it only attributes to their intelligence.

[punkinside]

Oh... I see. Abstract ideal seeking here.

Care to explain, just why jews are wrong with cashing in "sympathy" points?

There is no rules at war - if you can whine your way into victory, why not? Obviously, they succeeded in what they wanted, so it doesn`t really matters, how they did it.

Remember, you don`t question the winner. All I know, that they are willing and able to kick ass to anyone, who grabs for what`s theirs, right now. That`s called conquering, in my book.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Let me sum it this way... It`s their war. If US, UK, Russia or anyone else wants to intervene in, and help one of the sides, it`s their business - and they will deal with consequences. So, if jews or arabs are successful in getting someone to do their dirty job for them, it only attributes to their intelligence.
Well, one could put it like that. I still can't agree with the whole whining your way to victory approach. And I can certainly think of a few better ways to have handled the situation.

Thats the problem with history. The winner is the one who gets to tell the story much to his own glorification. Since the first apes started throwing rocks at each other up until the cold war and beyond. My guess is that you would agree that the image of the USSR has been smudged by capitalist remembrance.
*Ducks waiting for the incoming rant about how capitalism didn't win, but the USSR defeated itself... or something*

So yes, I do like to question the winner once in a while, if only to balance out the story, even if the ones getting their ass handed to them are people I hate.

[AaronD]

The reason that Israel still isn't Palestine isn't because of whining, though. It has an army, a damn good one at that, and one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, if not the best. So, they may have been given the country as some kind of compromise, as a place to stay and regain their strength after they were nearly anhialated, or they may have been given it because they were good at negotiation. To "balance out the story" as you put it, you would have to realize that compensation for near annihilation isn't a slimy, underhanded thing. They weren't sympathy points, they were more of an apology, as in "We're sorry we turned our back and ignored you being needlessly slaughtered until far too late, take this land as compensation." And the Jews have been fighting tooth and nail to keep their land since they got it. Alisa is right, the Arabs have the whole Middle East, with the exception of Israel. What you've got left is the equivalent of three fighters back to back trying to hold off a circle of enemies. Would you begrudge them one final stand, however long it takes? And that's what Israel is, a final stand. It's been at war nonstop for several hundred years, and its army's fiery determination alone maintains it at this point.

[punkinside]

The reason that Israel still isn't Palestine isn't because of whining, though. It has an army, a damn good one at that, and one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, if not the best. So, they may have been given the country as some kind of compromise, as a place to stay and regain their strength after they were nearly anhialated, or they may have been given it because they were good at negotiation. To "balance out the story" as you put it, you would have to realize that compensation for near annihilation isn't a slimy, underhanded thing. They weren't sympathy points, they were more of an apology, as in "We're sorry we turned our back and ignored you being needlessly slaughtered until far too late, take this land as compensation." And the Jews have been fighting tooth and nail to keep their land since they got it. Alisa is right, the Arabs have the whole Middle East, with the exception of Israel. What you've got left is the equivalent of three fighters back to back trying to hold off a circle of enemies. Would you begrudge them one final stand, however long it takes? And that's what Israel is, a final stand. It's been at war nonstop for several hundred years, and its army's fiery determination alone maintains it at this point.

There was nothing the international community could've done at that time to prevent the massacre of jews. No one to blame but the nazis, IMO. And zionists wouldn't have been able to get hold of it as soon if it weren't for all the support from the US and British.

But well, I can't disagree that they've held their position very, very well over the last couple of decades since the war of Yom Kippur. I just don't see legitimacy in the way the state was founded. I'd much rather see a secular state formed there where arabs, jews and christians could feel represented. After all, the land has been occupied by all of them historically. "Jews were there first" is just not an argument for me. And the fact that it is a "modern democracy" aside, its still a state grounded on a single religion and bent on staying that way.

[AaronD]

Notice that I didn't use the "Jews were there first" argument. Yes, ideally it would be better if all three of the warring religions put aside their differences and joined hands and all of that idealist shit, but let's be realistic here: That's not going to happen anytime soon. For this, I'll have to quote Poor Richard's Almanack by Ben Franklin: "Quarrels never could last long, if on one side only lay the wrong." Do you really, honestly believe that any side is going to admit they're wrong and embrace the other two/agree to peacefully coexist in the same exact spot with the other two, let alone all three sides doing this?

[Alice Shade]

Well.... Yes. Israel is based on Judaism, and wants to keep this religion predominant.

You think they should`ve made accomodations for muslims, punkinside?

Alright. Why arabs won`t make accomodations for Jews, as well? If muslims get to have predominantly-islamic countries (governed by religion-based shariat, I must add), what problem do you have with jews?

Sure, OK, let`s make Israel a secular country, let`s enforce equality of religions. Alright? Now, let`s do the SAME with every other country. With Saudi Arabia, with India, with China, with USA? Let`s go into Vatican (which IS a separate country), and demand them to allow other religions in, while we`re at it?

No? Then let`s let Jews have jewish country. Everyone else got a country with their religion predominant. Don`t begrudge jews the same chance.

[punkinside]

Notice that I didn't use the "Jews were there first" argument. Yes, ideally it would be better if all three of the warring religions put aside their differences and joined hands and all of that idealist shit, but let's be realistic here: That's not going to happen anytime soon. For this, I'll have to quote Poor Richard's Almanack by Ben Franklin: "Quarrels never could last long, if on one side only lay the wrong." Do you really, honestly believe that any side is going to admit they're wrong and embrace the other two/agree to peacefully coexist in the same exact spot with the other two, let alone all three sides doing this?

Its not idealist shit, if it could've been done from the very beginning. I don't believe any side is going to admit anything, the whole point of this thread being that I see the way the state of Israel was founded as illegitimate. I don't wish it would just disappear altogether in the next minute or so. One could do the same for many other African countries in which the Europeans just drew borders where they felt like it without even thinking about ethnic or tribal borders and resources. And guess what? Africa is one big war and famine infested continent.

Well.... Yes. Israel is based on Judaism, and wants to keep this religion predominant.

You think they should`ve made accomodations for muslims, punkinside?

Alright. Why arabs won`t make accomodations for Jews, as well? If muslims get to have predominantly-islamic countries (governed by religion-based shariat, I must add), what problem do you have with jews?

Sure, OK, let`s make Israel a secular country, let`s enforce equality of religions. Alright? Now, let`s do the SAME with every other country. With Saudi Arabia, with India, with China, with USA? Let`s go into Vatican (which IS a separate country), and demand them to allow other religions in, while we`re at it?

No? Then let`s let Jews have jewish country. Everyone else got a country with their religion predominant. Don`t begrudge jews the same chance.

The thing is, no one is contesting the right to have a nation/state right where the vatican is, or the US, or whatever. The geo-political history of this land does make it special. Once more, I am not arguing that Israel should disappear right now, I am arguing that this situation is a direct consequence of the way the land was initially "assigned".

[Alice Shade]

So what?

Historically, jews have roots there. Now, they conquered the land for themselves, and are keeping it by their own force.

So, what difference some paper makes?

Would it be any different, if Jews first declared themselves as nation, and then signed an official non-aggression treaty and economical treaty with UN countries? (Which, essentially, is what they did.)

I don`t see, how "assigned" has any bearing on this. Such "assignments" were in practice since prehistorical times, actually. It`s been pretty often in medieval, when king said - "Sir Notalot, I hereby award you with county of Backwardistanshire. You hereby have my royal persmission to conquer this land, and claim it for your own." Knight went with his private army (or landsknehts, or even hired king`s army), conquered the land, and became a vassal of king with brand new county.
UN did exactly the same, and frankly, with same results. So, jews are not really any better or worse, then all others - they just happened to do this at the time, when everyone is overobsessed with "legal rights" and paperwork.

[punkinside]

It a piece of paper does make a difference. I can gather that the facts are not contested here, just the interpretation. King "assigning" a land in medieval times does not justify doing it over and over, and, like you said, with the same results. Back in those days, bakers were drowned in the moat for baking bread with the wrong weight. Medieval law and practices is without consequence here.

Anyone who tries to conquer a land and impose a single view/religion on the people who previously occupied it is going to get what the jews have right now. Its true for Israel, Iraq, Chechnya [sic], and many African countries with artificial borders.

And once, more, its not much about the present situation as it is how it came to be.

[Alice Shade]

So what do you suggest? You can`t stick jews anywhere else, but you can`t forbid them to have country as well.

Besides, historically, they`ve been living there all the while, like I`m keeping telling over and over. So, no dice over rights here.

Jews can`t be evicted from there just as well, as arabs from this standpoint of view, that they historically were there.

So, that leaves us with "who conquered" there. How are you going to kick out jews from where they are, right now? They`ve been there for 50 years, two generations had already passed on there. It`s already established country.

[Googler]

We recently got an email from someone about a blog that seems to cover this issue http://www.terrorism-in-israel.org/blog.