NationStates Jolt Archive

Although Israel is a country that one can give a great deal of respect to, should it have been created? In doing so, it has spawned an international incident. The nation itself should be rightfully Palestine's. Despite what the Jews went through after World War Two, was it the right decision to take land from a nation in order to form a new country? Should the US continue to back Israel?
What do you all think?

Wrong forum. *has the Thread Movers haul it into General*

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/threadmover.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Israel was formed from pressure due to the Zionist movement. The British caved in and gave them the land. The Jews thought they were getting their land back and the Palestinians thought their land was being stolen. In this case of history, the Israelis won out because they had the backing of bigger and better prepared governments. The British had issued the white papers and the blue papers. One set allowed for Jewish migration and the other set tried to prevent it when it got out of hand. the Jews, of course, ignored the second set.

In essence, I think that the Palestinians had their land stolen. Even going back into the bible, the land was theirs. I still have mixed feelings though. My father spent time in Israel and is a big supporter of theirs. As a result, I feel that the Jews have a right their as well as the Palestinians. You could say I support the Palestinians, but only the ones who just want to make a living there, not the militant ones blowing up buses.

Israel was formed from pressure due to the Zionist movement. The British caved in and gave them the land. The Jews thought they were getting their land back and the Palestinians thought their land was being stolen. In this case of history, the Israelis won out because they had the backing of bigger and better prepared governments. The British had issued the white papers and the blue papers. One set allowed for Jewish migration and the other set tried to prevent it when it got out of hand. the Jews, of course, ignored the second set.

In essence, I think that the Palestinians had their land stolen. Even going back into the bible, the land was theirs. I still have mixed feelings though. My father spent time in Israel and is a big supporter of theirs. As a result, I feel that the Jews have a right their as well as the Palestinians. You could say I support the Palestinians, but only the ones who just want to make a living there, not the militant ones blowing up buses.

Actually in the beginning the fighting was pretty well balanced. The Arab forces for a spell had Jeruslem surrounded and many Israelies died trying to run supplies on a road between two dug in positions.

Today it's pretty bad.

But things are changing. A few years ago you would be hard pressed to find an Israeli thinking the seatlements are wrong. Now you can find many.

The Palistine question is not going to be solved easily. Even if Israel pulls out the Palistine territories have major problems (water for example).

Here is a question, does any one truly believe that when they placed the Jewish people in the middle east that they really believed they would succeed? Do you think any one was just a little more then shocked that Israel won the 6 day war?

I think they were set up to fail.. but they didn't.. at least not yet.

However, in recent years I have become very upset with the way both Israel and Palestine have conducted themselves, I believe at this point neither side has the high ground.

As for a mistake, I suppose only history will judge that.

A difficult issue....I was going to write a speel on this, but after considering it, I'm going to have to take a little time to formulate my answer. Truly a difficult question to answer...

Perhaps people already know but the name Palestine is derived from the name given by the roman when they conquered the area: philisti (meaning sea invaders) because of the philistins that where living on the coast (the current gaza area is the homeland of philistins since they concered it, 2000 years do counts :) ) and had controled the land for a decade.
The people living in the cis-jordanian area are more recent resident (in truth syrian resident); the "true" resident (in the philisti sense) of the palestine are the people living in the desert; at this time, they number around 100 families I seem to remember.

Concerning other arabic people living in cities and villages, some have lived there for generations but the came later. Some say they came after israël was created to avoid a jewish country in their midst; but I cannot find any sources on this alegation so it is perhaps unfounded.

"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 A.D. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years...," the Muslim chairman of the Syrian Delegation attested in his remarks to the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919.3

The British Palestine Royal Commission reported in 1937 that "it is time, surely, that Palestinian 'citizenship' . . . should be recognized as what it is, as nothing but a legal formula devoid of moral meaning."

The real crust is that arabic people won't tolerate a country on what they see as their sacred land (although mahomet certainly never mentionned ownership on jerusalem):
The beginning article of a 1919 Arab Covenant proposed by the Arab Congress in Jerusalem stated that "The Arab lands are a complete and indivisible whole, and the divisions of whatever nature to which they have been subjected are not approved nor recognized by the Arab nation."

People say the palestinian are oppressed although:
PALESTINIAN STANDARD OF LIVING COMPARED TO WORLD
In the same week that a United Nations court condemned Israel's antiterrorism
barrier, another division of the UN cast a more honest and revealing light on
the situation of the Palestinians. The "Human Development Index" measures life
expectancy, health, education, environmental quality, and overall living
standards, ranking all nations from number one (Norway) to number 177 (Sierra
Leone).

The so-called "Occupied Palestinian Territories" earned a place near the middle
of the list, with numerical scores much closer to the privileged nations of
North America and Western Europe than to destitute areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
Despite Israel's much decried occupation, the Palestinians actually ranked above
both Syria and Egypt - the most powerful Arab nations of the region.

According to the UN's own rankings, Palestinians actually enjoy better living
standards than their Arab brothers in neighboring states - or, for that matter,
than citizens of the most populous Muslim countries, Indonesia or Pakistan.
See the report at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003

(By Michael Medved, Beyond the News, http://www.beyondthenews.com, July 28,

Is you are intersted by the subject, there is extensive material on the internet from both sides. Beware of propaganda ! :)

Although Israel is a country that one can give a great deal of respect to, should it have been created? In doing so, it has spawned an international incident.

This seems somewhat disengenuous. You could say the same thing about almost any country. (USA, Ireland & Northern Ireland, most of the countries in Africa, India & Pakistan, etc...)

The nation itself should be rightfully Palestine's.

Why? Could you explain your reasoning?

Despite what the Jews went through after World War Two, was it the right decision to take land from a nation in order to form a new country?

Except technically, Palestine has never been a nation. I recognize the Palestinians' national movement as being legitimate, and think they should have a state, but it's important to recognize that most of the land didn't belong to the Palestinians who lived there, and it wasn't its own country.

Should the US continue to back Israel?

I would prefer the US back a peace process, as opposed to merely paying it lip service. I believe a peace process would be most beneficial to all parties.

Israel was formed from pressure due to the Zionist movement. The British caved in and gave them the land. The Jews thought they were getting their land back and the Palestinians thought their land was being stolen. In this case of history, the Israelis won out because they had the backing of bigger and better prepared governments. The British had issued the white papers and the blue papers.

Black paper, I believe, was the name of the second one.

One set allowed for Jewish migration and the other set tried to prevent it when it got out of hand. the Jews, of course, ignored the second set.

That's actually not very fair. The Black Paper's goal wasn't to keep Jewish immigration from "getting out of hand"- it was to stop it almost entirely. This was largely due to pressure from the Arab population who thought there were too many Jews in "their" country.

And to simply state that Jews "ignored" the Black Paper without giving any context is extremely dishonest. Remember the time period here. Jews were being slaughtered wholesale in Europe, with many countries- the US included- refusing to take them in. Obviously Jews in Europe were going to try to escape their deaths, and many of the Jews in Israel were originally from Europe and had family and friends being killed. After the war, many of the survivors had- or felt they had- nowhere to go. The Jewish community in Israel offered them a place to live, where they could feel safe.

In short, it's not just about "the Jews ignoring the law because they didn't like it".

In essence, I think that the Palestinians had their land stolen.

Except it hadn't ever really been theirs. At the time, it was mainly owned by absentee Ottoman landlords.

Even going back into the bible, the land was theirs.

How so?

I feel that the Jews have a right their as well as the Palestinians.

That's the same conclusion I have reached.

Black paper, I believe, was the name of the second one.
Sorry, been a while since I've had European History

That's actually not very fair. The Black Paper's goal wasn't to keep Jewish immigration from "getting out of hand"- it was to stop it almost entirely. This was largely due to pressure from the Arab population who thought there were too many Jews in "their" country.

Which is basically what I said

And to simply state that Jews "ignored" the Black Paper without giving any context is extremely dishonest. Remember the time period here. Jews were being slaughtered wholesale in Europe, with many countries- the US included- refusing to take them in. Obviously Jews in Europe were going to try to escape their deaths, and many of the Jews in Israel were originally from Europe and had family and friends being killed. After the war, many of the survivors had- or felt they had- nowhere to go. The Jewish community in Israel offered them a place to live, where they could feel safe.

Okay, maybe I wasn't being entirly fair, but they did kind of ignore it. The British put out floatillas to try and stop Jews from entering and the Jews smuggled themselves in. This was almost immedialty after WWII though (around '48 I think) so yes there was still a fair amount of hostility towards the Jews. I'll admit that because it's true.

Israel was formed from pressure due to the Zionist movement. The British caved in and gave them the land.

The british were only the mandate:


The Ottoman Turks, who ruled this area from the year 1516 to 1917, regarded it as part of Southern Syria. The land later referred to as "Palestine" was divided into three separate districts.
The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's,(3) who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish People. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab.

It was only after World War I, at the Paris Peace Conference(1), that the name "Palestine" was applied to a clearly defined piece of territory - the area which today comprises Israel and Jordan. It was agreed that "Palestine" was to become a League of Nations Mandate, entrusted to Great Britain.

Under the terms of the Mandate, Britain's principal obligation was to facilitate the implementation of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, which pledged "the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people."(2) No territorial restrictions whatsoever - neither east nor west of the Jordan River were placed on the Jewish National Home. In fact, the Mandate stipulated that Britain was to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land."(3)

Nevertheless, in July 1922, the British divided Palestine into two administrative districts. Note the black line on the map. Jews would be permitted only west of the black line. To the east, in what became known as "Transjordan", the British installed a Hashemite ruler named Abdullah, who had been expelled from the Arabian peninsula.(1) By making this division, the British reduced the area available for the Jewish National Home to only 22% of the entire area of Palestine.

Concerning, the decision of the border, I have read that it corresponds to the areas the jewish had bought back from the people living there. The land was not stolen but sold. I must admit I don't have any source about that; if someone find any, I would be interested.

I think we should at the least support their moral right to exist. They do have that right to exist and not be harmed/murdered. I can also definetly see this whole arguement over land and in the end I when I read the bible find it to be the jews as the palestinians if you read the story is not their land do to the fact the truly chosen one was isaac not ishmael, so if it is their land I say they defend it to the end and we the USA should defend them from physical harm and stand for them verbally as well. Considering recently only three nations supported israel I'd say its likely biblical prophesy involving the world marching on israel is likely and that hopefully if not likely we the USA will be the lone or one of the few who stand in their defense

Okay, maybe I wasn't being entirly fair, but they did kind of ignore it. The British put out floatillas to try and stop Jews from entering and the Jews smuggled themselves in.

Yes, they smuggled themselves in because they were being murdered in Europe while the world ignored them. Even after the war, when Jews were still being harassed and murdered, they continued to be ignored- and denied the right to immigrate.

This was almost immedialty after WWII though (around '48 I think) so yes there was still a fair amount of hostility towards the Jews. I'll admit that because it's true.

Sorry, your facts are still a little off. The White Paper of 1939 did the most to curb Jewish immigration, limiting it to 75,000 over five years- the peak years of the Holocaust. Many could have been saved had they been allowed to immigrate.

Did some Jews and Zionists break the British immigration laws? Absolutely. Was that wrong? I would certainly be hard-pressed to call it such.

Here are some links, if you're interested.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Fifth_Aliyah.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/whitetoc.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Aliyah_during_war.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html

To answer your question, Lightseeker:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#e

Was it wrong? Yes and no. It gave the jews a homeland and prevented another holocaust. It also plunged a region into war and robbed a people of it's land.
Today it is too late to disband Israel (and personaly I think the bad results would outweigh the good ones) but Israel has a duty to look after the Arabs who's land it robbed. Also soon arab immigration to the extent of them forming a majority will mean one of the following things:
1) A bloody civil war.
2) The Jewish state being voted out of existance.
3) Apartheid of the Arabs.

Israel has every right to exist as a seperate nation state. The land was promised to the Jews by God himself as they came out of Egypt if they would keep the laws that He handed down to them. Unfortunately, like all humans, they didn't do a good job of keeping the law, that is why they had such a hard time in the Old Testament, being carted off to Babylon and all. After Jesus came and died, rose again, and the Jews rejected His message the Jewish state was again dispersed around 70 AD. The Isreali state was prophesied to return in the Old Testament, but it remains that Israel is the chosen people of God, that fact cannot change, I believe that they will never be conquered. There will never peace until the Anti-Christ comes and then it will only be a false peace.

If you want to view it practically, the Jews simply reconquered a land that they had previously been driven from. The Palestinians are not descendents of the Phoenicians, but Arabs, conquerers. Their claim to the land is based on the ancestry of the Muslim people, the ancestry shared by the Jewish people. Neither people have a more legitimate claim to the land than the other. So whomever can dominate the land can rule the land. For hundreds of years, that was the Arabs. Now it's the Jews. To the victor go the spoils, right?

I'd also like to add the Jews were being persecuted in Russia, as well as Europe. In all of history it has been about the Jews being oppressed against a greater power (Egypt and slaves, Romans and Jewish Kingdoms and Jews fleeing from Palestine, Hitler and the Holocaust, continual persecution across the world), but the Zionist movement has presented something for the first time in which the Jews have become the stronger nation, and they can finally win against oppression. The creation of Israel was a HUGE turning point for the Jews, and we should help them celebrate their success.

The Arabs are not looking to cooperate-- they want to see the end of Israeli success. The war in Iraq will be a great help in getting the Israelis and the Palestinians on the road to peace by helping spread democracy and show Palestinians that terrorism isn't the way to go.

The Isreali state was prophesied to return in the Old Testament, but it remains that Israel is the chosen people of God, that fact cannot change, I believe that they will never be conquered.

I have read a few lines of the Coran. I seem to have understood, muslim people consider themselves as the true chosen people because jewish lost this privilege when they sined. There is something of the same flavour in the christian dogma (that is why them call the books Old and New Testament, Jesus is supposed to have contracted a new alliance if I remember correctly).

It is also written that god will never forsake is alliance with jewish people but there must be an interpretation that confort this idea.
However, the legimacy of ownership is not that clear and I don't even talk about people who don't believe the bible is worth a bucket of h...

From the practical point of view, jewish bought the land and negociated to get a place to go (Ethiopia had been considered at one time to build the jewish country) and found a country. On the day of independance, they were attacked by 3 arabic army and have prooved long since they are able to defend their land and make it a prosper one (the only democaty of the area and with a good level of life in only 50 years); swamps have been dried up, canalizations have been dug ... more than has been done in centuries under other rulership.

Israel has every right to exist as a seperate nation state. The land was promised to the Jews by God himself as they came out of Egypt if they would keep the laws that He handed down to them. Unfortunately, like all humans, they didn't do a good job of keeping the law, that is why they had such a hard time in the Old Testament, being carted off to Babylon and all. After Jesus came and died, rose again, and the Jews rejected His message the Jewish state was again dispersed around 70 AD. The Isreali state was prophesied to return in the Old Testament, but it remains that Israel is the chosen people of God, that fact cannot change, I believe that they will never be conquered. There will never peace until the Anti-Christ comes and then it will only be a false peace.

Can you shut up until you can remember that not too many arabs agree with your bullshit that you seem to slip into every discussion?

Although Israel is a country that one can give a great deal of respect to, should it have been created? In doing so, it has spawned an international incident. The nation itself should be rightfully Palestine's. Despite what the Jews went through after World War Two, was it the right decision to take land from a nation in order to form a new country? Should the US continue to back Israel?
What do you all think?

Jews lived in Israel/Palestine alongside their Arab neighbours for centuries under the Turks. After the Turks lost WWI the English and French took over the Middle East. As the Europeans wished to withdraw, plans were devised to establish borders and give the natives their own sovereignty over their own nations. This included a plan that gave to the Jewish populatuion (40% by the Arab estimates at the time) roughly 40% of the land that is now Israel and Palestine. In terms of other borders, between Arab/Muslim states, there were problems and resentments but no wars. Only when it came to giving Jews any land in the Middle East, including land that they had lived on for centuries, the overwhelming Arab response was "push them into the sea".

You are totally wrong in your premise. 40% of the land of Israel rightfully belonged to Israel, as they had lived there for centuries. The Palestineans had the right to the rest of it, until they attacked Israel. Israel has every right to annex lands taken in a defensive war, as does any nation.

We must support Israel's right to exist, and if we had not the Holocaust would have moved to the Middle East. However while Israel had the right to annex any lands that they won, such as Jerusalem, they chose not to do so in the case of what is now Palestine. Instead they declared that they would continue to occupy those lands for security purposes; also a legitimate right of a defending nation. The problem is, under the leadership of Prime War Criminal Sharon, the right wing of Israel immediately began to build cities on the occupied lands. This we must not support.

You can have your cake, you can eat your cake, but you cannot do both.

Mostly good stuff, Druthulhu, although I think I should point something out:

We must support Israel's right to exist, and if we had not the Holocaust would have moved to the Middle East. However while Israel had the right to annex any lands that they won, such as Jerusalem, they chose not to do so in the case of what is now Palestine. Instead they declared that they would continue to occupy those lands for security purposes; also a legitimate right of a defending nation. The problem is, under the leadership of Prime War Criminal Sharon, the right wing of Israel immediately began to build cities on the occupied lands. This we must not support.

In fact, the first settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were built under (and with the support of) the Labor Party. And while Sharon was the settlement king for decades, his new positions seem genuine- or at least, that's how most of Israel- particularly the settlers- are viewing them.

Both the left and right are responsible for the settlement mess. But it should be noted that elements of both the left and right are trying to resolve it.

Mostly good stuff, Druthulhu, although I think I should point something out:



In fact, the first settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were built under (and with the support of) the Labor Party. And while Sharon was the settlement king for decades, his new positions seem genuine- or at least, that's how most of Israel- particularly the settlers- are viewing them.

Both the left and right are responsible for the settlement mess. But it should be noted that elements of both the left and right are trying to resolve it.

I must apologize for my imprecise post. Sharon was not the leader of Israel at the time, but I refer to him as a powerful leader in the right-wing, that is to say, the Zionist expansionists, which must be regarded as Conservatives because of their historical/religious imparative.