If you could go back in time, would you support the formation of Israel.

[meanlittlechimp]

Thanks in advance for participating. It's private, so be honest.

[Vortex]

If you wanted to stop the formation of Israel, your really need to stop the Balfour Declaration, and the mass settlement of Jews into that region in the early 1900's. By the time their national declaration came around in 1948, there was both political precedent, economic precedent, and actual residence; a forgone conclusion to the nations formation officially, and UN acceptance came just one year later.

You can argue against the Balfour declaration if you want, but those first immigrants arrived legally and had just as much put into the region as the Palestinians living there at the time. In a sense, its nothing more than a legal migration of people into a new region to the point where they outnumber the original inhabitants. The great irony, of course, is you see the exact opposite pattern in many EU countries today; Muslim immigration rapidly outstripping the native population's growth rates.

[polysylvester]

Two wrongs don't make a right! Running Palestinians out of their homes to get even with something that happened 2000 years ago is crazy. If the Jews wanted to return to Palestine they should have done so in a manner that worked for both them and the Palestinians in a common government with equal rights.

[Octavianus Caesar]

If you wanted to stop the formation of Israel, your really need to stop the Balfour Declaration, and the mass settlement of Jews into that region in the early 1900's. By the time their national declaration came around in 1948, there was both political precedent, economic precedent, and actual residence; a forgone conclusion to the nations formation officially, and UN acceptance came just one year later.

You can argue against the Balfour declaration if you want, but those first immigrants arrived legally and had just as much put into the region as the Palestinians living there at the time. In a sense, its nothing more than a legal migration of people into a new region to the point where they outnumber the original inhabitants. The great irony, of course, is you see the exact opposite pattern in many EU countries today; Muslim immigration rapidly outstripping the native population's growth rates.

Actually you would have to stop the falling Ottoman Empire and the conquest of the Ottoman Empire by Britain, the creation of Israel as "illegal" than would mean that Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and even Saudi Arabia are illegal countries because the same law that brought them into existence brought Israel into existence.

[Homini Lupus]

Obvoiusly you cannot change history. Israel would have formed anyway, with our support or not.
I think the claim of palestine as promised land of the jews had no real base for the very same reason. It had been but it was no more.
For a similar reason I think Israel has a right to exist right now. I would like to have a solution to the whole problem of the area, but all wich seemed reasonable failed since now; one is wronged then reacts in an endless chain, and those who want just basic rights (to learn history, to take the bus, to pray) get in the way of the endless conflict.
But you can't call Israel people outsiders of that land since most of them have made their living there, were born there, worked and improved that very land.

[thod]

If you wanted to stop the formation of Israel, your really need to stop the Balfour Declaration, and the mass settlement of Jews into that region in the early 1900's. By the time their national declaration came around in 1948, there was both political precedent, economic precedent, and actual residence; a forgone conclusion to the nations formation officially, and UN acceptance came just one year later.


Isn't it more the case though that the Jews didn't want to live alongside the native population but rather to displace them to neighboring countries. This is akin to a group arriving in your country and telling you to get out.

Year Jews Christians Muslims Total
First half 1st century CE Majority - - ~2,500²
5th century Minority Majority - >1st century
End 12th century Minority Minority Majority >225
14th cent. before Black Death Minority Minority Majority 225
14th cent. after Black Death Minority Minority Majority 150
1533-1539 5 6 145 157
1690-1691 2 11 219 232
1800 7 22 246 275
1890 43 57 432 532
1914 94 70 525 689
1922 84 71 589 752
1931 175 89 760 1,033
1947 630 143 1,181 1,970

As can be seen the Christians were the majority in 500 AD and later the Muslims. Palestine did not have a Jewish majority even in 1947.

If they had been smart they would have chosen an unpeopled island as Zion to prevent all these problems.

[stasis]

I don't think that a social subgroup is in any way entitled to some particular tract of land merely because it exists and says it does. I would say that social contract with those already dwelling on the land is essential for civilized entitlement, and I do not know that this is what occurred in Israel. If I could travel back in time I would neither support nor oppose the formation of Israel if it were carried out by way of social contract, and I would generally object to it if it were not. Only object to, though not oppose in that I would not act against it.

But what is the significance of the question? Israel exists, and has existed for what will soon approach a century. Not only would there be nothing special about the formation of Israel in the history of national formation even if it were accomplished entirely through violence and conquest, but those who formed it are dead or dying, and new generations who had nothing to do with it have arisen. Despite seeing it raised relatively often, I don't immediately see how the hypothetical is actually relevant to the Israel issue today.

[Antares]

Two wrongs don't make a right! Running Palestinians out of their homes to get even with something that happened 2000 years ago is crazy. If the Jews wanted to return to Palestine they should have done so in a manner that worked for both them and the Palestinians in a common government with equal rights.

Agreed; what my ancestor did would not be my responsibility. If my ancestor broke a valuable vase of A's ancestor and never paid back, his descendant cannot come to me and demand money for the broken vase. I would say that the Zionists have no objective and logical claim to the land, but seeing it today, I wouldn't change history even if I could. As others have mentioned before me, the Jews are no less Israelites than the Arabs who live in the same country; they were born, raised and contributed to the land and I would have just about as much rights to change that (assuming I could) as another would righting my ancestor's wrongs by coming to me.

I read the Jewish response to various criticism, and I think, judging from the below justification at least, they have a very weak case.

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. When exactly?
2. Oh yes. Ad Vericundiam
3. Happened ages ago.
4. More Ad Vericundiam.

[meanlittlechimp]

Agreed; what my ancestor did would not be my responsibility. If my ancestor broke a valuable vase of A's ancestor and never paid back, his descendant cannot come to me and demand money for the broken vase. I would say that the Zionists have no objective and logical claim to the land, but seeing it today, I wouldn't change history even if I could. As others have mentioned before me, the Jews are no less Israelites than the Arabs who live in the same country; they were born, raised and contributed to the land and I would have just about as much rights to change that (assuming I could) as another would righting my ancestor's wrongs by coming to me.


I see your point, but there has to be a cut off what people are called "ancestors". People are still alive today from when the Palestinians got pushed off their land. It can also be used to justify all invasions, a few decades after the fact. One country can always invade anyone, and just let the statute of limitations run out.

This just gave me a great idea! We could just push all the Iraqis into the least desirable parts of the land and just start settling the place; then simply wait it out until they don't have the right to bitch anymore!! Brilliant, No!? Or if we follow the Native American example, just put them in Gaza.... err I mean reservations, memorialize them by naming sports teams after them (the Washington Redskins) and even throw in a holiday Thanking them for teaching us how grow corn. I wonder how long before there is a football team named the Tehran Towel-heads? Probably when they don't make enough of a portion of the population to affect ticket sales.

or instead of a vase analogy... What if I broke into your house 50 years ago, and made you live in the basement at gunpoint. If you demand to have your living room back, and I bash you back down (cause I got gun); do I have a right to call you a terrorist after you punch me in my face?

[Vortex]

Isn't it more the case though that the Jews didn't want to live alongside the native population but rather to displace them to neighboring countries. This is akin to a group arriving in your country and telling you to get out.

Year Jews Christians Muslims Total
First half 1st century CE Majority - - ~2,500²
5th century Minority Majority - >1st century
End 12th century Minority Minority Majority >225
14th cent. before Black Death Minority Minority Majority 225
14th cent. after Black Death Minority Minority Majority 150
1533-1539 5 6 145 157
1690-1691 2 11 219 232
1800 7 22 246 275
1890 43 57 432 532
1914 94 70 525 689
1922 84 71 589 752
1931 175 89 760 1,033
1947 630 143 1,181 1,970

As can be seen the Christians were the majority in 500 AD and later the Muslims. Palestine did not have a Jewish majority even in 1947.

If they had been smart they would have chosen an unpeopled island as Zion to prevent all these problems.

Actually... (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._and_the_British_Mandate)

Turns out, history disagrees with you. 40,000 jews settled in the Palestinian region between 1904 and 1914 alone. The third immigration (Third Aliyah) brought in another 100,000 from 1919 to 1923.

It also wasn't the jewish immigrants to grow rowdy, but the arabs. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) This isn't an invading hostile force, this was people moving in legally, finding work and improving their lives. Even if it were an "invasion" no Palestinian would have legal right to their home either given that the entire region existed at the pleasure of the British Parliament. It was neither a state, nor was there the cohesive bond of a nation.

Like I said, if you want to stop Israel's formation, go back in time, stop the Balfour Deceleration, stop the waves of legal, peaceful immigration, and hope the British never get bored with taking care of them.

[Antares]

I see your point, but there has to be a cut off what people are called "ancestors". People are still alive today from when the Palestinians got pushed off their land. It can also be used to justify all invasions, a few decades after the fact. One country can always invade anyone, and just let the statute of limitations run out.

Now that the issue has settled already, I don't see the point of even pushing the original immigrants off the land because you're requiring that they change a large portion of their lives; although that might make some Palestinians very happy. They should be pushed off when they first came, not when the change is too irreversible. Thus the quote: "Justice delayed, is justice denied." I always believed in nipping a problem in the bud; and now I won't change things even if I could. The dust has settled; no need to dwell on it anymore, so at least in my book, it wouldn't be a justification for any invasion.

It also wasn't the jewish immigrants to grow rowdy, but the arabs. This isn't an invading hostile force, this was people moving in legally, finding work and improving their lives. Even if it were an "invasion" no Palestinian would have legal right to their home either given that the entire region existed at the pleasure of the British Parliament. It was neither a state, nor was there the cohesive bond of a nation.

Legally as in the Balfour Declaration made them legal and giving them superior authority to the native inhabitants? There should be a line drawn and some laws should not be enforced, like the crummy argument the Declaration offered. "Historical ties". Sure. The Palestinians have "everyday ties" to their land.

[SeaCzar]

The Balfour Declaration (1917) is just a start. It promised Jews a homeland in hopes of tipping the balance towards the allies in the Great War. The United States and Great Britain knew full well of the Holocaust in Europe during the Second World War, and did nothing to stop it. Afterwards, (most) Jews sure as Hell did not want to live in Europe. Fulfilling the promise of a Jewish homeland (the Balfour Declaration) was the least the Allies could have done (Britain was not helpful in this endeavor, by the way).

There will never be peace in the Middle East until the United States and the European Union put sufficient pressure on both sides to come to an agreement. Even then, a$$hole powers like Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezzbollah will continue to make trouble. Racial and religious groups in the Middle East have been fighting each other for centuries (they are worse than the British and the French!!). If you should think this is going to be otherwise anytime soon, you are deluding yourself.

[iamnotspock]

Do we get to debate the existence of America, too? How many Native Americans were here before we arrived? Do you support their genocide? Or do you think we should all pack up and go back to Europe?

See, the problem with these questions is that they are fundamentally anti-semitic, as only the Jews are held to this standard. And I personally think the mods should kick this crap off the forum.

[SeaCzar]

Do we get to debate the existence of America, too? How many Native Americans were here before we arrived? Do you support their genocide? Or do you think we should all pack up and go back to Europe?

See, the problem with these questions is that they are fundamentally anti-semitic, as only the Jews are held to this standard. And I personally think the mods should kick this crap off the forum.


I agree with this. Let's just kick the entire human race back to east Africa where it started.

[Vortex]

Legally as in the Balfour Declaration made them legal and giving them superior authority to the native inhabitants? There should be a line drawn and some laws should not be enforced, like the crummy argument the Declaration offered. "Historical ties". Sure. The Palestinians have "everyday ties" to their land.

They bought their homes in their immigration the same as everyone else. There was never any forced relocation of the Palestinians AFAIK until the wars started.

Also, my stance in this is not anti-Israel. I'm simply theorycrafting on the moment in history you'd have to change if you were this time traveling anti-Israeli person.

[stasis]

See, the problem with these questions is that they are fundamentally anti-semitic, as only the Jews are held to this standard. And I personally think the mods should kick this crap off the forum.
I can only agree in part. First, while questions like this are sometimes implicitly antisemitic, I suspect that they are not uncommonly expressions of a more culturally-applied 'background antisemitism' than conscious or deliberately held individual antisemitism. For example, I would want to draw a distinction between the bigoted person purposefully issuing neo-nazi rhetoric and the oblivious person echoing what turns out to be an antisemitic social prompt. Not that I'm an apologist; it is my opinion that any sort of destructive ignorance is something to address, no matter the degree of disconnection from its source.

At the same time, I am also concerned about the conflating of 'Israel' with 'Jews'. Much like any other state in the modern world, Israel as a political entity is capable of acting viciously or unethically. If critiquing a state becomes synonymous with the question of antisemitism, how is one to go about objecting to the aforementioned acts?

In contrast to the antisemitism sometimes implicit in the scenario presented by the OP, there are idealists who would want to ask that question in an appeal to the principle of some kind of time-delayed, impersonally redistributive 'fairness' over function. Idealists sometimes make similar appeals with regard to slavery reparations in the United States. In Israel's case, selecting an example that is frequently in the mainstream news is a convenient device for presenting the argument.

[meanlittlechimp]

See, the problem with these questions is that they are fundamentally anti-semitic, as only the Jews are held to this standard. And I personally think the mods should kick this crap off the forum.

Anti-semitic? Am I anti-American because I don't support the Iraqi Invasion? My posts are offensive and should be deleted? Are the Hasidic Jews who are, and were, against the formation of Israel also Anti-semitic self-haters? Gimme a break, it seems clear you don't know the difference between debate and prejudice. The we don't want them in Europe line was making fun of the Europeans who were slaughtering them in Gas Chambers, not the Jews btw - it might have went over your head though.

I was the one who brought up Native America. As I said, I was trying to discuss when the statute of limitation should be exactly, since everyone here seems to agree, that land grabs are fine as long as no one stops it IMMEDIATELY. Which is convenient, since stronger nations tend to invade EXACTLY when no one can stop it immediately.

So if Hitler didn't lose WWII, all his land grabs would have been fine. If the Poles or the Russians or whomever start fighting or taking their land back 20 or 30 years later, they are terrorists who have no right to fight according to your same thinking. Again, I pose the question, when does the statute of limitations run out? Is it 1 year? 10? 20? more?

Oh and another thing, I think Israel should exist but HALF the land should be Palestinian at a bare minimum, and not just the crappy parts. What pisses me off is that when the Muslim and Arab world are angry about the situation and did try to take the land back, I find it ignorant and dishonest when folks start talking about how bloodthirsty and savage the Arab/Muslim world is. Palestine allowed the people to immigrate there without realizing they would eventually lose their state - before and during the time they were getting horribly treated by Northern and Eastern Europe.


Do we get to debate the existence of America, too? How many Native Americans were here before we arrived? Do you support their genocide? Or do you think we should all pack up and go back to Europe?


No point in packing up now, we killed them all.

[Agile]

I am against taking another person's property by force, by moral, ethical, legal, or physical force, in every case I am against this. If Israel was formed by force, I most definitely would not have supported this. If we cleared Native Americans off of 'their land' by force, same result.

On the other hand, given that a person's claim to previously unclaimed land could be made by mixing one's labor with it, I am not sure it is such a simple case of Americans came in and destroyed the Native populations. I would like to see where history records actual theft at gunpoint, or a legitimate war between communities. (technology and firepower aside, also)

[meanlittlechimp]

If Israel was formed by force, I most definitely would not have supported this. If we cleared Native Americans off of 'their land' by force, same result.

I am not sure it is such a simple case of Americans came in and destroyed the Native populations. I would like to see where history records actual theft at gunpoint, or a legitimate war between communities. (technology and firepower aside, also)

What's with all the Ifs? Israel was taken by force. North America was taken by force. If you would like to see the records, there is plenty of evidence of this; I don't think I've ever heard anyone doubt it before quite frankly.

I mean I've heard of crackpots that don't believe the Holocaust happened, but I've never heard anyone doubt that we killed the Indians and took their continents. It's pretty much the single largest case of genocide in recorded history.

South and Central America, they did more inter-breeding and many indigenous peoples survived to this day (Brazil, Peru and Mexico for instance) but the North American Tribes were pretty much slaughtered without too much of a trace left. For some reason, the Spaniards and Portuguese were more likely to have sex with them, then completely wipe them out. If you want some historical evidence, look up the Trail of Tears or Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee (by Dee Brown).

There are hundreds of documents in the US Congress, where we make treaty after treaty (after slaughtering them) to move further west to less arable land. Then we break the treaty and slaughter them again, and take more land. This went on for a few hundred years until they were gone and the West was completely settled and the few remaining survivors were put on reservations. Native Americans have higher alcoholism, suicide rates, and poverty than either the Hispanic or Black communities and pretty much get shit on to this day. They have no political power because there isn't enough of them left, to be catered to like the other minority groups in the US.

[stasis]

As I said, I was trying to discuss when the statute of limitation should be exactly, since everyone here seems to agree, that land grabs are fine as long as no one stops it IMMEDIATELY. Which is convenient, since stronger nations tend to invade EXACTLY when no one can stop it immediately.

So if Hitler didn't lose WWII, all his land grabs would have been fine.
Fine with whom? Do you suppose there's a world government to which nations are legitimately subject, as opposed to their being individually sovereign as is and has always been the manner of affairs? On whose authority is a "statute of limitations" justly enforced once you've decided upon one here on the internet? In an anarchic environment like that which exists internationally, what is the distinction between a handful of self-justifying nations arbitrarily displacing people or establishing a state and some other handful of self-justifying nations arbitrarily displacing people or establishing a state? And then what is the distinction between one and a handful? Some kind of international gangland ad populum perhaps?


Anti-semitic? Am I anti-American because I don't support the Iraqi Invasion? My posts are offensive and should be deleted? Are the Hasidic Jews who are, and were, against the formation of Israel also Anti-semitic self-haters? Gimme a break, it seems clear you don't know the difference between debate and prejudice.
The issue iamnotspock raises isn't entirely without merit. This 'legitimacy of Israel' question is almost always apparently either antisemitic in character or, as above, a bit of idealist fantasy that tends to succeed only in encouraging it. We could ask ourselves why the legitimacy of the existence of Israel in particular seems to come up far more often than the legitimacy of the existence of the United States, or of Canada, or that of any other similarly manifest state in existence today. One plausible explanation for this is, when we look at the history of western civilization, we find that the Jews and particularly organizations perceived as being "Jewish interests" are traditionally fixated upon (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in just such a manner. If your question is strictly an exercise for the purpose of exploring an international "statute of limitations" ideal, why did you choose to build the question upon Israel in your OP instead of laying out other current examples such as Sudan and Tibet? More importantly, why wouldn't you conduct the exercise about the ideal itself instead of making it about Israel and not even mentioning the ideal you purport to be exploring? What makes Israel so much more insidious an example?

[Theodoric]

The formation of Israel was due to the fact that the British finally decided to leave. Not because of some Jewish invasion. Not because it was taken by force of war. But because the ruling state decided it didn't feel like ruling anymore and the settlers decided not to be absorbed by the neighboring countries.

When this occurred, the country was evenly divided into two separate states. One for the Jews, one for the Arabs. Jerusalem was to be an international city, not being held by either country but administered by the UN to avoid potential conflict over it. The Jews accepted this agreement, however the Arab League rejected this because they wanted everything and were not content with a compromise.

Israel was at first meant to be a compromise so that everyone would be happy. In that regard, I would support its formation. However, believing that forming the state of Israel is what led to violence and unrest in the region is a very ignorant assumption. Religious and ethnic groups have been fighting over territory in that region for centuries.

At worst, Israel is just a good scapegoat for it Arab neighbors who quickly point to "the evil Jew" for all their problems while they continue to ignore their own high unemployment, poverty, illiteracy, and inability to compete globally.

At best, Israel unites the Arabs against one perceived enemy instead of having everything quickly devolve into tribal and internecine warfare amongst each other like we are currently seeing in many African countries. They hate Israel, but learning from the lessons of the past do not dare attack in all out warfare because they know they would be crushed. At least this way they do not devolve into fighting each other, but are locked in a perpetual stalemate against a common foe.

[meanlittlechimp]

f your question is strictly an exercise for the purpose of exploring an international "statute of limitations" ideal, why did you choose to build the question upon Israel in your OP instead of laying out other current examples such as Sudan and Tibet? More importantly, why wouldn't you conduct the exercise about the ideal itself instead of making it about Israel and not even mentioning the ideal you purport to be exploring? I wonder, what makes Israel so much more insidious an example?

I don't think Israel is more insidious than Sudan or Tibet, but it's definitely more impactful in terms of the world stage. We invaded Iraq using pretenses of terrorism. Most people have a simplistic view of what terrorists are and how they got that way with no conception of the history of the region. This blind ignorance is causing stupid foreign policy blunders.

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the majority of the populace that terrorists are evil and we (the US) or our allies (the Israelis) are benevolent and just. It shocks me when people talk about terrorism and forget why their pissed off in the first place. I was trying to discern if people here actually though they had right to the land in the first place. The statute of limitations came later as a response to other's posts, that two wrongs don't make a right etc.

Lastly, I was also interested in how various MBTI types responded to this poll. There is a radical difference between how the other boards responded to this question. I got my money's worth, so thanks again for your responses (even the ones I didn't agree with); it truly was a learning experience.

[1OFMANY]

I dont believe in any "right" per se. But they are there to stay, so Jews and Palestinians better learn to get along cause neither are leaving.

[Colette]

In my opinion the reasons behind the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate, and the ultimate declaration of independence of the state of Israel, are extremely complex, and non susceptible to easy or glib answers or analysis for, or against, the existence of the state in the modern day.

The reasons behind the Balfour declaration and British manadate are fairly well established and accepted, I think. The Jews in Europe had been subject to a number of diasporas over a period of hundreds of years, dating back as far as the first conquests of the kingdoms around 6-8th century BCE. The Ottoman conquests later on also resulted in huge diasporas into Europe, which resulted (for the Jews) in a huge variety of social problems, and repeated pograms; escalating in the late 18th and 19th centuries in Russia and Eastern Europe. Huge numbers of Jews were killed, sent to work camps or prison, or simply 'disappeared' during this time, and they were stripped of wealth and assets in European countries.

The wealthy and influential Jewish lobby in Britain, the US, and European countries around the late 19th century led to the Zionist movement, which called for creation of a Jewish homeland in the traditional 'holy lands', where displaced Jews could return and be free to practice their religion, and be free from persecution.

Initially I think the British mandate worked quite well. Although the Arab League had opposed it vehemently, the initial boundaries of the British mandate were drawn in a fairly modest way, which preserved many traditional Arab settlements, and the British when they administered Palestine, did not actively encourage wholesale immigration of Jews back to Palestine - the policy was fairly "hands off".

It was really just before, and for a long time after independence, that in my view the problems arose. Again the reasons are complex. There was a huge influx of Jews during and just after WWII; resulting in Arab revolts, and violent conflict. After the 1948 Arab Israeli war, and the British conflict with the Jews resulting in independence, successive governments starting with David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, adopted aggressive immigration and resettlement policies, expanded the borders and territories controlled by the state, and poured huge amounts of money into creating gigantic military strength (including in later years a compulsory military draft) to protect Israel's sovereignty against an increasingly violent and vociferous Arab opposition (from around Africa, the Gulf states and the Middle East).

Hawkish Israeli prime ministers of the ring-wing Likud party (notably Menachim Begin, Yitzak Rabin, and later Ariel Sharon), which party seized power in the 1970s, pursued resettlement in contested areas (such as the West bank, Gaza strip and East Jerusalem) with increasing vigor, and at gunpoint and suppression of resistance.

It is small wonder then that what may have initially seemed like a 'bright idea' and a way of recompensing Jews for the persecution they had suffered for centuries, has turned into a religious, political, and social disaster, both for Jews and the Arab world. A disaster, indeed, that seems completely intractable, in terms of finding any sort of peaceful and durable solution.

What do I think? That's it's too complex for me to make a firm call on. It's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight and 20/20 vision, that something should never have been done, but that requires adoption of a theory of history that takes no recognition of the validity of and justification for decisionmaking based on information as it was at the time. I just hope and pray that a solution is found, before there is further terrible bloodshed.

[Antares]

They bought their homes in their immigration the same as everyone else. There was never any forced relocation of the Palestinians AFAIK until the wars started.

Also, my stance in this is not anti-Israel. I'm simply theorycrafting on the moment in history you'd have to change if you were this time traveling anti-Israeli person.

I'm not saying that they relocated there illegally. I was just trying to point out that Jews shouldn't be given superior authority in the land when it clearly originally belonged to the Palestinians. They should at least have equal authority and equal rights and no forced relocations. I know you're hypothesizing, but all I was saying in response to that is that I wouldn't do that even if I could change history; those present Jewish Israelites have lived there all their lives, and I don't think it's within my right to change history so that they never lived there in the first place. Though, if I could change history, no one would eve know that their rights have been violated and their lives changed, I just think it's not right somehow.

What I was saying about the Balfour Declaration is that their arguments aren't logical; Jews are a religious group, or an ethnicity, if you will, but it wasn't a nation and when they said they were "a nation in need of a home" (or something like that), it wasn't logical.

[Colette]

What I was saying about the Balfour Declaration is that their arguments aren't logical; Jews are a religious group, or an ethnicity, if you will, but it wasn't a nation and when they said they were "a nation in need of a home" (or something like that), it wasn't logical.

That's not quite accurate. It could be argued that when the semitic tribes were united under the kings (Saul and David), the Jews defined themselves at that stage as a 'nation'. When the exiles (to Egypt and Babylon) ended, and the Jews became settled in the holy lands, there is at least an argument that they were a nation under kings (even though there were Arab inhabitants, and other races). A 'nation' can be inchoate, in the sense of geography, I think; provided that it can identify and define itself by ethnicity/religion and previous geographical boundaries.

[Antares]

That's not quite accurate. It could be argued that when the semitic tribes were united under the kings (Saul and David), the Jews defined themselves at that stage as a 'nation'. When the exiles (to Egypt and Babylon) ended, and the Jews became settled in the holy lands, there is at least an argument that they were a nation under kings (even though there were Arab inhabitants, and other races). A 'nation' can be inchoate, in the sense of geography, I think; provided that it can identify and define itself by ethnicity/religion and previous geographical boundaries.

Yes, but the 'nation' they were referring to was in the early 20th century, and that certainly wasn't a nation, according to the definition of 'nation' anyway.

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

I don't think the fourth definition really applies, consistently speaking, because if it does, Great Britain and America would be one nation (if you would classify them as a 'nation, I guess that would apply). They certainly had no set 'territory' as far as I'm aware.

[Blaze2000]

Yes, I would support it. Given the treatment of Jews throughout European history, I think that they legimitately deserved a sactuary. That being said, I think that their current suppression of Palestinians is heavy-handed at best and needs to be stopped.

As the primary patron of Isreal, the US is in a position to affect this change, except for the fact the Isreali lobby here is something that neither party wants to cross.

[meanlittlechimp]

Yes, I would support it. Given the treatment of Jews throughout European history, I think that they legimitately deserved a sactuary. That being said, I think that their current suppression of Palestinians is heavy-handed at best and needs to be stopped.

As the primary patron of Isreal, the US is in a position to affect this change, except for the fact the Isreali lobby here is something that neither party wants to cross.

So do you think Native Americans should get their own state? Do you think all groups that have been treated horribly should be given land? The Armenians, the Gypsies, etc.

Secondly, since it was mostly the Europeans who were doing most of the bad treatment, shouldn't they give up some of THEIR land and NOT the Palestinians.

[yondyr]

I've always maintained the Jews should been given Germany...

[meanlittlechimp]

I've always maintained the Jews should been given Germany...

That wouldn't have worked even if they recieved a part of Germany. There would have been war within a decade, if we carved up Germany as pennance for the Jews. And we learned our lesson from too heavily penalizing them for WWI (they get mad and build weapons and attack). We actually treated them well after WWII (as well as the Japanese), and now they're both more peaceful, democratic and liberal by far than the Americans or the Russians (the victors), ironically. You can't hold down Germany through puppet governments like you can in the smaller less populous and technological sophisticated places in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

And it wasn't just the Germans, the Swedes were allies, the Dutch and the French were handing them over to the Germans gladly. Yeah I know about Schindler and the people who hid the Anne Frank in the attic, but for everyone one of those, there were 100 others selling muthafuckas out to one way train rides.

[gogurtdynasty]

I don't see any logical reason why any group of people deserves to carve out a section of priceless land from the home of so many people... the whole thing just seems like it has become a good way to get unnoticed militant control over a valuable area of land i mean... we only fund it? Then to top it off Israeli youth and Palestinian youth are kept blind to eachother and fed miconceptions that the opposite group is given enormous more opportunity than their own making it nearly impossible to peacefully live together in an area...

Too bad the typical american has no sympathy for anybody unless they're white and were subjected to some sort of prejudice torture

[yondyr]

Perhaps there would have been six million fewer Germans to get mad after the dust settled...

[iamnotspock]

I'll drink to that. But to be fair, Germany did fund much of Israel's early operations, in the form of war reparations.





iamnotspock added to this post, 12 minutes and 40 seconds later...


Lastly, I was also interested in how various MBTI types responded to this poll. There is a radical difference between how the other boards responded to this question. I got my money's worth, so thanks again for your responses (even the ones I didn't agree with); it truly was a learning experience.

Well, do tell...

[lordrrr]

No I wouldn't support the Jews. The formation of Israel was against what God told them, which was to wait for the Messiah. Even then (and this is in my opinion based on my Catholic religion) the Messiah already came in the form of Jesus, but because he wasn't "Holy" enough for the Jews, they rejected him. Still, this is just wrong to go against what God told them because they were unhappy about the effects of the Holocaust, despite how tragic of an event the Holocaust was. For any INTJ educated enough in this, I'm sure they would all pick what I think or something similar because when you look at it the formation of Israel was based almost completely on emotion. It was an impulsive thing to do and should have been delt with logically.

[futureperfect5]

Well done ...
:thumbsup:If you wanted to stop the formation of Israel, your really need to stop the Balfour Declaration, and the mass settlement of Jews into that region in the early 1900's. By the time their national declaration came around in 1948, there was both political precedent, economic precedent, and actual residence; a forgone conclusion to the nations formation officially, and UN acceptance came just one year later.

You can argue against the Balfour declaration if you want, but those first immigrants arrived legally and had just as much put into the region as the Palestinians living there at the time. In a sense, its nothing more than a legal migration of people into a new region to the point where they outnumber the original inhabitants. The great irony, of course, is you see the exact opposite pattern in many EU countries today; Muslim immigration rapidly outstripping the native population's growth rates.

futureperfect5 added to this post, 14 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Somehow, I had hoped that the information that I am about to write would come out without me being the one to contribute it ...

There is an assumption within the posts that all Jews were (or, are) in favour of having Israel exist ---this is not the case.

Moreover, many in the Jewish religious community a dead set against the State of Israel because to Return has not occurred as it was supposed to happen as intended from in the sacred texts.

Again, :scared: don't shoot the messenger.

If you want to know more about this got to Neturei Karta (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) ...

These are the anti-Zionists, orthodox jews -- religious, practicing jews.
Read their reasoning (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the matter also.

[By the way, I didn't vote ... I am a non-interventionist and non-partisan as well as having no intention to live in Israel. It is a regional concern, yes with global interests -- Of course, there is the Diaspora interest to consider, and large groups within the United States which are involved, if nothing else emotionally. Still, I think that extra-regional governments should stay out of the decisions there.]

[Antares]

No I wouldn't support the Jews. The formation of Israel was against what God told them, which was to wait for the Messiah. Even then (and this is in my opinion based on my Catholic religion) the Messiah already came in the form of Jesus, but because he wasn't "Holy" enough for the Jews, they rejected him. Still, this is just wrong to go against what God told them because they were unhappy about the effects of the Holocaust, despite how tragic of an event the Holocaust was. For any INTJ educated enough in this, I'm sure they would all pick what I think or something similar because when you look at it the formation of Israel was based almost completely on emotion. It was an impulsive thing to do and should have been delt with logically.

Whoa- they did the religion thing wrong too? Your arguments make sense that their appeal to the OT was invalid. Well, I've argued with my classmates on this, and their argument was: "But no one wants them! They've got nowhere else to go!" So Britain plopped them in Palestine, giving them 'legal' and 'heavenly' rights to take over their land. Well, just because you've got nowhere else to go doesn't mean you have the right to take over your neighbor's house.

[futureperfect5]

I wanted to alter my response on non-intervention because I thought of something else to consider.I have known many american friends and israelis living in the States with voting right who have served in the israeli military. In my view that earns them the right to be involved and represented on israel's existence.

Given the impact of the Holocaust to the jewish population and considering it against the recent american response to the extremists attacks on the United States ...
there is little black and white to be found in this situation.

So, I agree with the person who said that the events that led up to and desire for a nation-state were understandable. However, we like to think that it could have been handled in a way that was less inflammatory. Nonetheless, "possession is 9/10th of the law" view could be applied -- it was arab land.

As for the bible, I could acknowledge the book as a sacred text -- for those who view it that way. Yet, for the international community and law -- it should hold no bearing on rights, disputes, or legal notions. People use it all too conveniently in support of their interests.

I voted NO, although "formation" was not the concern -- I disagree with the approach.

[Antares]

I've always maintained the Jews should been given Germany...

They don't want Germany, as much as they don't want Italy. They want Jerusalem and the 'promised land'. Who is to say they wouldn't fight the Arabs over it anyway after Germany was given to them?

[tp6626]

No one's owed anything in this world. They should just get on with it. Yet another problem in the world today; thanks religion!

[Aronnax]

It would have been so much easier, long and short term, to give all the European Jews political asylum in the US instead.

[Erika Redmark]

What a coincidence–this was just posted today: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[meanlittlechimp]

What a coincidence–this was just posted today: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You think that site has any pretense to journalism? It doesn't even attempt to hide it's ultra right wing xenophobism. Jihadwatch? That's like having a site called JewishWarmongerwatch.org They have "distinguished" panels discussing whether Obama is really a Christian and imply he's a Muslim sympathizer. What a joke.

You honestly think most of the Palestinians left their homes and all their property, to move into nasty ghettos as some sort of ruse? :laugh:
Do you see the irony that many of the muslim fundamentalists also deny the holocaust? Both arguments are equally laughable.

No one's owed anything in this world. They should just get on with it. Yet another problem in the world today; thanks religion!

Yeah no shit. The people who think jihadwatch is intelligent, are the EXACT same people who would be fucktard fundamentalist terrorists, if they were born Arab or Persian. It's the same pathological, self-righteous, lunacy on both sides, with different fairytales supporting their cause. Religious nutjobs in both cultures fuck over the lives of everyone else. Just what God must have planned.

Let's not leave out the Catholics. We need more dipshits trying to stop the issuance of condoms in AIDS ridden Africa. God would have definitely wanted that. Why does God alway pick morons to run his organizations here on earth?

[yondyr]

Like follows like.

[jesse]

What a coincidence–this was just posted today: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Both parties of the conflict have poisoned the well for so long that the conflict seems completely diluted in anything but the original problem: carving a home for jews they can call their own. Now both parties, at least to me as an outsider, seem to only find excuse upon excuse to cause a bit more mayhem and tighten the screws a bit more to create discomfort. As long as the palestinian "terrorists" as they are often called in mainstream western media are on the receiving end and it somehow benefits the state of israel.

Israel knows how to work the media in their favor and they do it time and time again. Just look at any media outlet and they invariably show Palestinians attacking. It's easy, roll in a tank, keep the camera ready but don't film before you fire a few mini-gun rounds and a few cannon shots to provoke a Palestinian response. The final touch is to write a headline saying "the Palestinian mob of savages attacked an israeli patrol" and now israel has a legitimate reason to bomb the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

Palestinians and the Arab world surrounding the stage of this conflict is obviously pissed because the grand patron of israel, the US, is completely behind the jewish state in its attitudes and actions, while claiming it is a neutral force in public. You cannot create any lasting solution when the tables are tilted and ultimately corrupted.

[Ool]

This whole idea of basing a state on a religion is so Dark Ages. It is understandable that right after World War II religions didn’t sound so bad, since the two murderously evil ideologies of the time were secular ones—Nazi and communism. Still, eventually even mythologically driven ideologies will show their true colors once you give them power. Today that is plainly obvious, since there are no other extremist movements left that are worth speaking of—at least for the moment…

No, the formation of Israel was a stupid idea, which is bound to blow up sooner or later. Even assuming it is very much later—say the state actually survives a few centuries—the end will be all the bloodier…

And once that happens the Rapture nutters in the West might actually do something stupid, like start a nuclear crusade or something…

[Octavianus Caesar]

And once that happens the Rapture nutters in the West might actually do something stupid, like start a nuclear crusade or something…

I would not go that far, but the point you take is well taken. They believe certain events have to happen before their "rapture"happens, and I think they will support people that they believe will bring that about, even if it unconsciencely done. Like many supporting GWB.

But it is not the same as the President of Iran, who believes by throwing a nuke at Israel the Madi will come. But most Christians have a concept in their mind of what must happen and they think if they can elect the "proper" leaders it will come about.

[dissident]

wow, you guys are pretty informed on this issue. Cheers!

I used to care about this one a lot back when I cared about trying to "change" the world.. Israel is mostly the cause of all our problems in the middle east.

In my opinion we should withdraw all our troops from over there and never bother them again. We should do as Thomas Jefferson suggested...

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

[Thucydides]

My vote:

"Yes, we need the oil; any state which could aid us in control of the region is to be welcomed."

[Antares]

wow, you guys are pretty informed on this issue. Cheers!

I used to care about this one a lot back when I cared about trying to "change" the world.. Israel is mostly the cause of all our problems in the middle east.

In my opinion we should withdraw all our troops from over there and never bother them again. We should do as Thomas Jefferson suggested...

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

I agree. They're causing a lot of unnecessary trouble. Golda Meir arrogantly stated that rightful Palestinians don't exist. Sometimes I wish they'd just withdraw and let them battle it out themselves. This ought to be interesting.

[jesse]

In my opinion we should withdraw all our troops from over there and never bother them again. We should do as Thomas Jefferson suggested...

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Unfortunately this simple philosophy toward foreign policy has fallen on deaf ears ages ago. There is no peace, friendships are strained because the leadership has no quarrel badgering their post WWII allies and turning a complicated conflict black and white. Commerce follows similar lines, especially if trade links to socialist countries are analyzed. China and Vietnam are perfectly acceptable trade partners yet Cuba is on the commerce shitlist. Make unreasonable demands on regime change on the small enemies yet China and Vietnam just maybe might get a seasonal slap on the wrist.

Here's a thought. Unload massive supplies of weapons and artillery to the Palestinians and withdraw the unflinching support of Israel. Let them duke it out, winner takes all.