Zionists' claim to Palestine

[VermilionUK]

Not sure whether this is in the relevant forum - I thought it belonged more in the right and wrong, than the Jewish forum, but anyway:

If we consider the Jew's claim to Palestine - is it a justifiable claim that "it was their biblical homeland" in order to take Palestine? Or is this a wrong/unjust thing to do?
The Arabs have been in Palestine longer than the Jews had, haven't they? So how can - what is effectively a takeover - of Palestine by the Jews be justified through going back in the historic books of religion?
Should we kick out the Americans and give it back to the natives? Or kick out the English? Or even kick out those in Romania and give the land to the Gypsies?

Question for discussion: How can the religious claim for Palestine from the Zionists be justified/a valid claim?

My personal opinion is that it's completely unjustifiable. We can't just go around saying: "This book says that we lived here hundreds of years ago, so now we are taking it back" - we must consider that the Arabs have been there for hundreds of years, its not as if it was a recent Arab invasion that forced out the Jews.
Surely we can't be using religion to take over countries in the 20th\21st Century, can we? - But anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your views...

[Jrosemary]

It's strange though, my lecturer was talking about the Six Day War (1967 was it?) and stuff, and how the Jews were the weak force - and all of my lecture group were like "Hang on? Weak? They had US weapons - the Arabs were completely unorganised and lacking any real military threat"

Oy, study your history! The Arabs were not the underdogs--not in 1948 and not in 1967. Or in 1973, for that matter. Don't insult the Arab nations by dismissing them. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq: these aren't weak countries and to call them "lacking in any real military threat" shows a profound disrespect to them and, in my opinion, an equally profound misunderstanding of the Middle East.

As for weapons--the matter gets even more complicated there. Israel was scrambling for any weapons in 1948--the U.S. was not supplying them at the time, although I think Israel eventually made some kind of deals. The Soviet Union got involved, ultimately, in selling weapons to both sides at different times (I don't know if they ever sold to both sides at the same time or not.) By 1967, Israel was receiving considerably more U.S. aid--but that doesn't mean the Arab nations weren't well-armed and much larger. At any event, the weapon supply issue in all three wars is worth a class in itself. (Probably several.)

Meanwhile, I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist. Jews have been in Jerusalem consistently since Biblical times, they've been emigrating to Palestine since the 12th century, and they've been legally buying the land throughout. To make part of Palestine a Jewish homeland was an avowed goal of the Leage of Nations after the first world war and, in fact, the whole purpose of the British Mandate in Palestine.

This is important: there was to be a Jewish state in Palestine before WWII. The Shoah (the Holocaust, that is) helped spark it into life--but the League of Nations set up the British Mandate specifically to make a Jewish Homeland in Palestine long before WWII.

Here is the wording of the mandate:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Again, the League of Nations agreed that there should be a Jewish state in Palestine long before WWII.

Now, as a Zionist, I believe utterly in Israel's right to exist. That doesn't stop me from wanting a workable two-state system. Again, the Jewish community agreed to one in 1947; the Arab League denied it.

There's a simple truth in life: we can't get everything we want. I think Israel understands this as the majority of Israelis want a two state system. (Not every Israeli prime minister understands this, but even Sharon came around and Netanyahu has on paper, at least.) I don't think the PLO or Hamas understand this, however, as their avowed purpose is to wipe Israel off the map.

[VermilionUK]

Oy, study your history! The Arabs were not the underdogs--not in 1948 and not in 1967. Or in 1973, for that matter. Don't insult the Arab nations by dismissing them. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq: these aren't weak countries and to call them "lacking in any real military threat" shows a profound disrespect to them and, in my opinion, an equally profound misunderstanding of the Middle East.

Hahahehe - well, I did actually say that I was/still am studying it - as always, I don't claim to know that much and I'm more than certain that you're more educated on the matter.

But I was addressing/leading to the point that Israel's air-strikes on Arab bases effectively ended the war of 1967 - which is largely why it only lasted 6 days. I recently watched a documentary where one of Nasser's advisors explained why he resigned; the other military leaders/advisors had misguided Nasser about the stregnth of his forces - leading him to believe that Egypt and the Arabs had the ability to destroy Israel. As history shows, he was wrong.

Meanwhile, I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist. Jews have been in Jerusalem consistently since Biblical times, they've been emigrating to Palestine since the 12th century, and they've been legally buying the land throughout. To make part of Palestine a Jewish homeland was an avowed goal of the Leage of Nations after the first world war and, in fact, the whole purpose of the British Mandate in Palestine.

This is important: there was to be a Jewish state in Palestine before WWII. The Shoah (the Holocaust, that is) helped spark it into life--but the League of Nations set up the British Mandate specifically to make a Jewish Homeland in Palestine long before WWII.

Does that not show you how wrong the whole thing is? What right does the LoN and Britian have to give land away that doesn't belong to them? I'm baffled!

Now, as a Zionist, I believe utterly in Israel's right to exist. That doesn't stop me from wanting a workable two-state system. Again, the Jewish community agreed to one in 1947; the Arab League denied it.

Can you blame them? It's their land - of course they don't want a bi-national state.

There's a simple truth in life: we can't get everything we want. I think Israel understands this as the majority of Israelis want a two state system.

Well, unless you have the backing of the US that is

I'm sure that if, say, Iran was proved to have nuclear weapons - then Israel would suddenly gain a lot more land and the West would not debate it.
Hell, Israel could march in and take the whole middle-east and I bet the West wouldn't do anything!

[Jrosemary]

Does that not show you how wrong the whole thing is? What right does the LoN and Britian have to give land away that doesn't belong to them? I'm baffled!

The Brits captured and conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Turks in WWI. (Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire from about 1516.) It's worth noting that there was, at that time, no Palestinian people. There were Arabs who recognized themselves as pan-Arabs or as various nationalities. Some of them wanted a pan-Arab state independent of the Ottoman Empire that would run from part of Syria to part of Yemen. (This is the famous Arab Revolt.)

The descendents of the Arabs living in that area eventually came to recognize themselves as a Palestinian nation under Arafat, much later--as opposed to being one with the Jordanians, Syrians, or what have you.

At any event, prior to WWI the land was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. England conquered and took control, and since there were Arabs of various nationalities there, native Jews and more Jews emigrating, they took the matter to the League of Nations (more-or-less), which decided that there should be a Jewish state in part of Palestine. It didn't happen then, and the English remained in power--but with a mandate to create said Jewish state.

By just after WWII, there was still no Jewish state. That's when we come to the UN plan to make two states--one Jewish, one Arab--out of Palestine with Jerusalem as an international city. (The best current two state plan, in my opinion, has Jerusalem as a shared capital.)

At any event, there was no independent Palestine prior to WWI (or afterwards yet, for that matter.) It was ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516 or so and then by the British (who conquered during WWI)--then the British left, there was a civil war, Israel's War for Indpendence and so on.

To get the whole picture, you have to put yourself into the post-colonial world of WWI, when there was a need for new states all over the globe. (And you should keep in mind that there was never an indendent Palestine to go back to.) The League of Nations and later the United Nations were the means for figuring out where to put tons of persecuted, displaced peoples. They saw both Arabs and Jews living in Palestine--and realized that the land can be shared by two states.

[VermilionUK]

They saw both Arabs and Jews living in Palestine--and realized that the land can be shared by two states.

But at the time the Jews were a minority compared to the Arabs living there. Using that theory, couldn't they of just claimed NewYork?
There were/are a lot of Jews there...

[VermilionUK]

Just wanted to raise a point:

I think in many respects that Israel is seen as the small power in the middle-east and that it is persecuted by the Palestinians. Many do not know, but Israel actually recieves more aid from the US than Africa! Yeah, work that one out
(I'll try and find the exact figures and post them when I can)

However this opinion is clearly not the case.
Israel has violated many, many, many international laws in its fight against palestine and I'll provide some examples.

- Israel used phophorus on a Palestinian school in january 2009 - Which violates international law
- The UN provided GPS coordinates (co-ordinates) of the schools to Israel prior to the attack - which of course shows its illegality/wrongness
-Israel denied Palestinian refugees access to their homes after they had been removed, and in some isolated cases - killed civilians. - which violates international law (law of occupation also)

And the list goes on and on.
Israel even forces Palestinians to go through checkpoints on the roads, which often takes hours, and many babies have died due to the delays.

So I reject the thought that "Israel fights for its life" - because its simply untrue.

If we look at the media: "Israel responded to a Hamas attack" or "Hamas murdered Israeli soldiers"
and then we hear "Palestinians were killed during the conflicts" What? Not "murdered"??? A tad biased in my opinion.

And here is where we really see the fairness of Israel's actions:
Israel has stopped red cross aid ambulances from helping Palestinians in some cases:

The unusually strong condemnation coincided with a UN announcement that it was suspending its operations in the territory in response to what it said were Israeli attacks.

The International Committee of the Red Cross accused Israel of "unacceptable" delays in letting rescue workers reach three homes in Gaza City that had been hit by shelling.

So I think we should hesitate in our view of Israel and open our eyes to what is going on.

However, despite what this post indicates - I am not "pro-arab/palestinian" in any way and think that both sides are responsible for civilian murder and such crimes - however I am a fan of justice and fairness and would even go as far as to have a 1 on 1 debate with Jrosemary on the fairness of Israel's actions of recent times - although I think this forum topic is sufficient.

[McCulloch]

I admit that I am a naïve Canuck, but I don't quite understand why the peoples of two different cultures, occupying the same territory need to have two separate states.

[VermilionUK]

I admit that I am a naïve Canuck, but I don't quite understand why the peoples of two different cultures, occupying the same territory need to have two separate states.

Thats part of my thinking also. However we must realise that at the time - before israel existed - jews only accounted for around 10% of the population of the area.

This in many ways, explains why Palestinians so violently oppose Israel - jews had no right to simply swan in and take land. To put it in simple terms, consider this:

- You come back home from work - to find that a man has taken residence in your house.
- You go to the police and request for him to be removed
- The police return and say that he'll settle for just the downstairs and the bathroom.
- You think to yourself "Why should he have any of my house at all!"
- The police do nothing but offer diplomats
- You get angry over the issue
- You're relatively poor, and so throw a stone at him to get him to leave
- He, who has more money, responds by throwing a grenade at you
- You try to go to the bathroom - but he owns the hallway, and makes you wait while he checks your documents.
- You try and take a drink - but he's restricted your water supply
- You buy a grenade and throw one at his half of the house
- You're accused of terrorism and the rest of the street think the man has more right to live there than you do.

As you can see, it's a perfectly fair situation right?
RIGHT?

[Jrosemary]

I admit that I am a naïve Canuck, but I don't quite understand why the peoples of two different cultures, occupying the same territory need to have two separate states.

Many Europeans agree, from what I can see from European newspapers and magazines. Even The Econimst spoke recently as if a one-state solution were a given. Yup, just have one state--and let anyone who calls himself a Palestinian refugee pour back in, no matter how remote his connection.

That will be the end of Israel--the utter destruction of the Jewish state.

I shouldn't be shocked, should I? Europe spent 2,000 years murdering and persecuting Jews . . . and now some European magazines calmly talk of obliterating Israel.

Ok, I'll calm down and breathe and admit that my reaction was extreme. Besides, it's some European papers and magazines, not all. And The Economist itself has been inconsistent on this point. And no, I don't believe that anyone who criticizes Israel does so out of antisemitism. Far from it, since the most vocal critics I know are Jews. But there's a vast difference between criticizing a nation and longing for its destruction. And I do sometimes wonder if the calls for a one-state obliteration of Israel are due, some of the time (certainly not all of the time or even most of the time--I'll admit that), to reflexive antisemitism.

We need a two state solution in order to be fair to both sides. Palestinians will be able to let anyone they choose back into their state--and where that's not possible, reparations should be on the table as a potential UN policy. Meanwhile, Israel will continue its own immigration policies.

I see every reason for a Jewish state. No one in the world wanted Jews in the aftermath of WWII--and Jews have an historic presence in Palestine that doesn't rely on any biblical claims. They've been steadily emigrating since the 12th century. They worked hard to purchase tons of land in Palestine. A Jewish state in Palestine made perfect sense. Hence they've been guaranteed a homeland in Palestine by first the League of Nations and now the United Nations.

Israel is a recognized country by the United Nations--the only UN-recognized country in the world, as far as I know, that the western world denigrates as undeserving of existence. Nations were drawn and re-drawn all over the map in the aftermath of WWI and WWII . . . arguably none of them satisfactorily. Yet it's Israel--always Israel, this tiny nation--that draws the western world's ire.

Not the entire western world, thankfully. The U.S. papers and magazines tend to take Israel's right to exist as a given. Most U.S. papers and magazines seem to view a two-state solution as a necessary (and obtainable) goal--and I heartily agree. Only a fringe minority in the U.S. want to see the Jewish state obliterated; and only a fringe minority want Israel to keep the disputed territories.

I will never understand the hatred of Israel. I have an idea of Israel's faults--and I know that whenever I want a full understanding of them, all I have to do is look through Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post. (Both of which are available on-line in English, by the way.) These Israeli papers make no bones about reporting Israel's problems and any alleged misbehavior, believe me. Haaretz, especially, takes Israel and Israel's government to task over any and all fairness and moral issues.

I can see Israel's faults--and the faults of her Arab neighbors, which many anti-Israel folks seem to ignore. I'm not sure why--but someone once told me it was a left-handed compliment to Israel and a grave insult to the Arab nations. "Everyone expects Israel to be perfect," he explained. "No one expects anything from the Arabs."

I often wonder if it's the same with people who see Israel as unthreatened. Do these people think so lowly of the Arab nations (or other Muslim nations like Iran) that they don't perceive them as capable of offering any threat? Do they have that much contempt for the Arab world? I can only assume the answer is 'Yes.'

I just have to shake my head at it. All Israel has is a piece of land smaller than New Jersey, without any oil. A piece of land the Israeli people have lovingly restored; they have done as they promised and have been steadily making a garden out of a desert. A country whose forests were all but destroyed during the centuries of Ottoman rule now has forests flourishing again.

Israel is a tiny state now--it will be considerably smaller after a two-state deal. Poll after poll shows the Israelis are willing to give up the land for a mere promise of peace. Unfortunately, there's no one on the other side willing to make that promise.

I will not look for any one-state solution. I will continue to pray for a two-state solution and, as a U.S. citizen, I hope to see the U.S. putting more pressure on both sides to make that happen.

[VermilionUK]

Many Europeans agree, from what I can see from European newspapers and magazines. Even The Econimst spoke recently as if a one-state solution were a given. Yup, just have one state--and let anyone who calls himself a Palestinian refugee pour back in, no matter how remote his connection.

Hehe, you talk about Palestinians having a "remote connection" - I think the phrase "Oy, study your history!" comes into effect here.

That will be the end of Israel--the utter destruction of the Jewish state.

But I'm afraid that is what happens when people take land which is not theirs to begin with - and persecute those who already live there.

I shouldn't be shocked, should I? Europe spent 2,000 years murdering and persecuting Jews . . . and now some European magazines calmly talk of obliterating Israel.

Oh the irony! Look into recent events and you'll see its the state of Israel who has taken to persecution.

We need a two state solution in order to be fair to both sides. Palestinians will be able to let anyone they choose back into their state--and where that's not possible, reparations should be on the table as a potential UN policy. Meanwhile, Israel will continue its own immigration policies.

I must disagree - we need to sit Israel down and explain to them that they can't get away with what they are doing. Yes, the arab nations have done the same - but they are often the subject to debate in the international theatre - whereas Israel is routinely given handouts - in spite of its clear disregard to UN policies and international law.

I see every reason for a Jewish state. No one in the world wanted Jews in the aftermath of WWII--and Jews have an historic presence in Palestine that doesn't rely on any biblical claims. They've been steadily emigrating since the 12th century. They worked hard to purchase tons of land in Palestine. A Jewish state in Palestine made perfect sense. Hence they've been guaranteed a homeland in Palestine by first the League of Nations and now the United Nations.

Yup, its funny though - how Palestinians were also promised a homeland - what happened to that thought? Most likely thrown away. Although I still say that when the steps began to establish the homeland for the Jews - they only accounted for 10% of the population. Using that logic - then those of Arab origins have a perfectly sound claim to have Britain as their homeland!

Israel is a recognized country by the United Nations

And from my posts, you can safely assume I don't think it should be.

Not the entire western world, thankfully. The U.S. papers and magazines tend to take Israel's right to exist as a given. Most U.S. papers and magazines seem to view a two-state solution as a necessary (and obtainable) goal--and I heartily agree. Only a fringe minority in the U.S. want to see the Jewish state obliterated; and only a fringe minority want Israel to keep the disputed territories.

I wonder why? The Jewish lobby has held an influence over America for almost 80 years.

I will never understand the hatred of Israel.

Then you have clearly not watched the news - or are somewhat "ignorant" - so to speak - of the fact that Israel routinely persecutes Palestinians and has shown a constant disregard to UN rules. Thats plenty reason for hatred in my view. No, I don't want Israel "wiped from the map" - but I want a UN ackowledgement that Israel was founded wrongly and that it's actions require UN sanctions and restrictions on weapons from the US.

I will not look for any one-state solution. I will continue to pray for a two-state solution and, as a U.S. citizen, I hope to see the U.S. putting more pressure on both sides to make that happen.

I would think it would be a better solution to have is set as UN land - ie: neutral - not belonging to either, and governed by the UN. Of course, in that case - I'm sure the US would squeaze the issue and get Israel all of Palestine.

One further point - what is your response/view to my previous post about the actions of Israel?

[Jrosemary]

Hehe, you talk about Palestinians having a "remote connection" - I think the phrase "Oy, study your history!" comes into effect here.

You might consider reading my entire post--I addressed the issue of how anyone remote can be allowed to emigrate in the next paragraph by pointing out that a two-state system will allow the Palestinians to take in whatever immagrants they wish. I also mentioned potential reparations where that is not possible.

I answered your last question in my post--I certainly won't bother to answer it again. I even managed to stay off the issue of anti-Israel bias in papers like the Guardian. There's no need, since the best and most scathing reporting on Israel's problems is done by Israeli papers anyway.

Yup, its funny though - how Palestinians were also promised a homeland - what happened to that thought?

As has been mentioned in several posts, the Arab League rejected the UN plan of two states and five Arab countries promptly attacked young Israel. Israel survived, and Arab countries attacked again in 1967--during which war they lost what are now the disputed territories such as the West Bank and Gaza.

The closest we've gotten to two states since was under Clinton, when he pressured Israel to put a two-state solution on the table that even opened the possiblity of sharing Jerusalem. No one knows how that would have played out . . . because Arafat walked away from the negotiations, without even making a counter-proposal.

Nonetheless, a two-state system--even a shared Jerusalem--is still possible. But Israel needs to be negotiating with someone willing to recognize her and willing to offer peace for the land.

I'm bowing out of this conversation. This seems to be all a game to you--from what I gather, you've never been to Israel and you don't have any stake in the Middle East. It seems to me that this is just a class you're taking--and the implications of plugging Israel's demise have no meaning to you. You can point your finger and sit in judgment over Israel's right to exist without troubling over the consequences.

One thing I do know: the lack of compromise that your posts embody, should it become the norm world-wide, spells disaster for both Israelis and Palestinians.