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 20th21st Century, can we? - But anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your views...

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

As far as I know, (and if I'm wrong, I'm sure cnorman will be along shortly to correct me ) the Israeli occupation (though this term is not entirely applicable now that the Palestinian Territories have a degree of autonomy) of the Palestinian Territories is not based upon some sort of Biblical manifest destiny. The Palestinian Territories were acquired by Israel when it was attacked by Palestine and it continues to exhibit a degree of control over the area because of the security risk it poses to Israel. I'm sure that some people is using the Old Testament as justification for controlling the Palestinian Territories, but this is not the reason that the Israeli government is there.

That being said, the say in which Israelis are settling in the Palestinian Territories cannot be justified and should be stopped if Israel ever wants to see peace.

[VermilionUK]

The Palestinian Territories were acquired by Israel when it was attacked by Palestine and it continues to exhibit a degree of control over the area because of the security risk it poses to Israel. I'm sure that some people is using the Old Testament as justification for controlling the Palestinian Territories, but this is not the reason that the Israeli government is there.

But surely the reason for the Jews to be occupying any territory - even their self-claimed home Israel - is completly injustifiable in the first place.
They shouldn't of been allowed to have Israel in the first place, should they?

Zionism:"A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to re-establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel"

But if we look at History, then it is not the Arab who forced out the Jews - but the Romans.

The Jews, under Roman occupation tried to rebel several times. The first major Jewish rebellion in 66-70AD, ended in massacre and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The second rebellion, in 132AD/135AD, effectively ended the Jewish residing in the area. After this, Roman authorities permanently exiled the Jews from the area. As such, they began to scatter across the globe.

But as far as the biblical claim is concerned, I'm not very well educated on such matters, but is it true that Abraham was not native to Israel, but lived in southern Mesopotamia, wich is many, many miles away from Israel? So does that not show that the claim that Zionists make is in part, unjustifiable?

Although, I would welcome someone with more knowledge on the Zionist claim to give me an overview, or perhaps correct me. Like I said, I don't know that much - hence creating the topic for discussion

Also, if we ignore the biblical claims - and just look more into Israel, we can see that it had been controlled by many nations/groups since the Jews left.

Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Christians, the Ottoman Turks, and the British.

So can the Jews possibly have a claim to Palestine that is greater than, say, Roman claim? Or Arab, or British claim?

That being said, the say in which Israelis are settling in the Palestinian Territories cannot be justified and should be stopped if Israel ever wants to see peace.

Totally agree

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

But surely the reason for the Jews to be occupying any territory - even their self-claimed home Israel - is completly injustifiable in the first place.
They shouldn't of been allowed to have Israel in the first place, should they?

Yes they should have. I don't know what kind of backwards country or region would ever create an immigration policy that makes it illegal for a certain group to enter the area. Whether or not Israel should have become a Jewish state is another issue, but there is no reason why Jews should not be allowed to immigrate to the region.

I can agree that Israel should be a secular state and that The Law of Return and other examples of obvious favoritism should be done away with, but a Jew that immigrates to Israel has as much right to be there as anyone else.

But if we look at History, then it is not the Arab who forced out the Jews - but the Romans.

So Jews should only be allowed to immigrate to Rome, because you can't move to another country unless you have some historical grievance against them right?

But as far as the biblical claim is concerned, I'm not very well educated on such matters, but is it true that Abraham was not native to Israel, but lived in southern Mesopotamia, wich is many, many miles away from Israel? So does that not show that the claim that Zionists make is in part, unjustifiable?

According to Wikipedia (the Bible isn't my forte either), Abraham was born in Mesopotamia, but he made a Covenant with God that promised Palestine to him and his people. Where Abraham was born is not relevant to the Biblical claims that the Jews have to Palestine (though these claims are pretty worthless in first place, as you said earlier. It's a book. It shouldn't entitle an ethnic group to an entire region).

So can the Jews possibly have a claim to Palestine that is greater than, say, Roman claim? Or Arab, or British claim?

I don't understand how any one ethnic group has claim over an entire region. Ethnicity should be entirely irrelevant when it comes to who should be allowed to settle in Israel. As long as they buy the land, nationality or ethnicity has no bearing.

[VermilionUK]

But surely the reason for the Jews to be occupying any territory - even their self-claimed home Israel - is completly injustifiable in the first place.
They shouldn't of been allowed to have Israel in the first place, should they?

Yes they should have. I don't know what kind of backwards country or region would ever create an immigration policy that makes it illegal for a certain group to enter the area. Whether or not Israel should have become a Jewish state is another issue, but there is no reason why Jews should not be allowed to immigrate to the region.


I can agree that Israel should be a secular state and that The Law of Return and other examples of obvious favoritism should be done away with, but a Jew that immigrates to Israel has as much right to be there as anyone else.

I wasn't meaning that the Jews shouldn't live there - I was saying they had no right to take it all for themselves in the first place

So Jews should only be allowed to immigrate to Rome, because you can't move to another country unless you have some historical grievance against them right?

No, that isn't what I said. I was indicating that why should the Arabs have to move out? They didn't kick out the Jews, the Romans did.
Which again links to my comment that if we use their (the Jews) logic; surely we should evict the Americans and give it back to the natives, or kick out the English even?
They can't cling to something so far back in history, and evict people who had no action in the dispersing of the Jews initially.

I don't understand how any one ethnic group has claim over an entire region. Ethnicity should be entirely irrelevant when it comes to who should be allowed to settle in Israel. As long as they buy the land, nationality or ethnicity has no bearing.

Very true - but it IS what the Jews did. They bought up land and evicted the people residing there, and actually took MORE land than the UN initially allowed, and built towns there - effectively in order to prevent them having to move out.
And in the process, they managed to not only evict the Arabs, but get their own nation, from what is in many ways not even their land!

But with the backing of America, I think Israel is most likely the most untouchable state in the Middle-East.

People are questioning the legality of the War in Iraq - but aswell, they should question the justification for the setting up of the state of Israel.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I wasn't meaning that the Jews shouldn't live there - I was saying they had no right to take it all for themselves in the first place

No one has a right to simply take land. Much of the land that does make up Israel was, in fact, bought by Jewish citizens, the JNF, or the Israeli government (once it was in place of course). I'm sure there were some cases in which land was wrongfully seized, but what can honestly be done about this now, more than fifty years after the fact? How are we to determine which lands were wrongfully taken? What if someone unknowingly bought the land from whoever seized it? Should they be evicted through no fault of their own in the same way that the Palestinians who originally occupied the land were?

No, that isn't what I said. I was indicating that why should the Arabs have to move out? They didn't kick out the Jews, the Romans did.
Which again links to my comment that if we use their (the Jews) logic; surely we should evict the Americans and give it back to the natives, or kick out the English even?
They can't cling to something so far back in history, and evict people who had no action in the dispersing of the Jews initially.

The area that was given to Israel after partition actually had a Jewish majority. They had bought land and settled there before the partition. There was no mass eviction of Palestinians. At most, there was a great deal of Arab immigration to Palestine. Any forced eviction that may have happened was wrong, but how much actually happened?

Very true - but it IS what the Jews did. They bought up land and evicted the people residing there, and actually took MORE land than the UN initially allowed, and built towns there - effectively in order to prevent them having to move out.
And in the process, they managed to not only evict the Arabs, but get their own nation, from what is in many ways not even their land!

If they bought the land from the people residing there, then these people could not have been evicted. Whatever land was sold to Jews was likely sold willingly.

Any additional land was taken through wars, wars that Israel did not start. Again, however, I agree that they should not be settling lands that they captured from a foreign country.

[VermilionUK]

Should they be evicted through no fault of their own in the same way that the Palestinians who originally occupied the land were?

I think they should. The Jews did it to the Arabs didn't they?

If they bought the land from the people residing there, then these people could not have been evicted. Whatever land was sold to Jews was likely sold willingly.

The land was bought from absent landlords and international businessmen who only wanted profit. The people residing there had no idea what was happening, or why they were being evicted.

The UN had told the Jews how much it could have, but instead it took more, and settled its people on this land, so as to prevent them being moved.

But like I said - who's going to argue with a country with the backing of America behind it?

Its just so damn wrong - and we turn a blind eye to it.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Should they be evicted through no fault of their own in the same way that the Palestinians who originally occupied the land were?

I think they should. The Jews did it to the Arabs didn't they?

These Jews did? In the example I provided, they didn't. They unknowingly bought the land. Why should their race be grounds for eviction?

Also, do you have any actual examples of Jews simply taking Palestinian lands? I can admit that it probably did happen, but you have not established that it was all that widespread rather than just a few isolated cases.

The land was bought from absent landlords and international businessmen who only wanted profit. The people residing there had no idea what was happening, or why they were being evicted.

Again, can you cite examples of this happening? It stands to reason that when you sell your land, you know you are selling it. Can you provide examples in which Palestinians unknowingly sold their land and were then forced off of it?

The UN had told the Jews how much it could have, but instead it took more, and settled its people on this land, so as to prevent them being moved.

Actually, the UN told the Jews how much they could have, then the Palestinians and several other Arab countries attacked Israel and Israel ended up taking extra land as a buffer zone. This cycle was repeated several more times, Israel being the aggressor none of those times, until Israel finally controlled all of Palestine. Again, I agree that Israel should not be settling in the lands they gained, but Israel is a very small country who has been surrounded by enemies for 50 years. It is understandable that they would keep some of the lands they won in wars against these enemies if only to make themselves less vulnerable.

[Jrosemary]

Much of the land that does make up Israel was, in fact, bought by Jewish citizens, the JNF, or the Israeli government (once it was in place of course). I'm sure there were some cases in which land was wrongfully seized, but what can honestly be done about this now, more than fifty years after the fact? How are we to determine which lands were wrongfully taken? What if someone unknowingly bought the land from whoever seized it? Should they be evicted through no fault of their own in the same way that the Palestinians who originally occupied the land were? . . .

Actually, the UN told the Jews how much they could have, then the Palestinians and several other Arab countries attacked Israel and Israel ended up taking extra land as a buffer zone. This cycle was repeated several more times, Israel being the aggressor none of those times, until Israel finally controlled all of Palestine. Again, I agree that Israel should not be settling in the lands they gained, but Israel is a very small country who has been surrounded by enemies for 50 years. It is understandable that they would keep some of the lands they won in wars against these enemies if only to make themselves less vulnerable.

Excellent job, HC.

Israel's right to exist has nothing to do with any Biblical claims. In 1947, when the British mandate ended, the UN came up with a partition plan that made two states: one Jewish, one Arab. The Jewish community accepted the plan--but the Arab League rejected it. Civil war broke out, with the Jews coming out on top, able to declare an independent state in 1948.

As soon as Israel declared its independence five--yes five--Arab nations attacked. Israel fought for its life and triumphed; moreover, the U.N. recognzied Israel. In 1967 there was another unprovoked attack by Arab nations--that's when Israel gained what are now the disputed territories (such as the West Bank and Gaza.)

Arab nations attacked again in the Yom Kippur War of 1973--actually, that was a brilliant surprise attack on Egypt's part. Egypt snatched back Sinai, which they had lost in the '67, but after the dust settled they ended up recognizing Israel at the Camp David accords. So with due respect to all the people who gave their lives in that war, it actually worked out pretty well for both Egypt and Israel.

(Sadly, Anwar Sadat--the brilliant Egyptian president who presided over the surprise attack and formally recognized Israel--was later assassinated by a more radical Arab group.)

Re the disputed settlements: I'm for freezing them, but I don't know what good it will do if the PLO and Hamas keep refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. It's impossible for Israel to negotiate a two-state system while the these Palestinian organizations continue to hold the goal of Israel's destruction.

Nonetheless, I'd freeze the settlements and see if it's possible to get real negotiations going. I hope to live to see a viable two-state system, ideally with Jerusalem as a shared capital.

Re the Law of Return: I'm all for this. Ireland has one too, and many other countries have something similiar.

All the Law of Return does is guarantee a Jew who is not practicing another religion the right to automatic citizenship in Israel, along with his or her spouse, children and grandchildren (regardless of whether they're Jews or not.) The Jew in question could have been born a Jew or converted to Judaism. And it doesn't matter what race they are--thousands of Ethopians have found refuge in Israel under the Law of Return.

People who are not covered by the Law of Return can still become Israeli citizens--it's just not automatic. They go through the naturalization process.

Anyway, if you want to complain about Israel's Law of Return, be sure to complain about Ireland's too--as well as India's, Russia's, Poland's, Romania's, Germany's, Finland's etc .

[VermilionUK]

Excellent job, HC.

Israel's right to exist has nothing to do with any Biblical claims. In 1947, when the British mandate ended, the UN came up with a partition plan that made two states: one Jewish, one Arab. The Jewish community accepted the plan--but the Arab League rejected it. Civil war broke out, with the Jews coming out on top, able to declare an independent state in 1948.

As soon as Israel declared its independence five--yes five--Arab nations attacked. Israel fought for its life and triumphed; moreover, the U.N. recognzied Israel. In 1967 there was another unprovoked attack by Arab nations--that's when Israel gained what are now the disputed territories (such as the West Bank and Gaza.)

I wasn't reffering to Israel's right to exist, I was reffering to the idea that the Jews should have taken any land at all. If there isn't any land for their homeland, they can't just take land that belongs to another country - but I see your point. However to say it (six day war) was an unprovoked attack is somewhat strange - the land doesn't/didn't belong to the Jews, it belonged to the Arabs, and they want it back. Thats the reason for their continued attacks.

Re the disputed settlements: I'm for freezing them, but I don't know what good it will do if the PLO and Hamas keep refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. It's impossible for Israel to negotiate a two-state system while the these Palestinian organizations continue to hold the goal of Israel's destruction.

Yup, totally agree, and I don't think it'll ever end because what it comes down to is that the Arabs feel that they have been invaded and had their land taken from them, and they want it back - which we have to admit they have a point in this case. You can't just swan in and take some land - even if you already had some of your own people living there.

So overall I agree with/understand your points on this issue, and I have to admit I'd be blind to it if it wasn't for the fact that I'm currently studying this conflict as part of my A-Levels (college).

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"

Like I said - I still hold the opinion that the Jews had no right to take the land (even with US and UN sanction) and they probably wouldn't of had Israel if it wasn't for the guilt caused by the horrors of the holocaust.

I think it's a tragedy that (some of) the Arab states and groups have turned to terrorism in their fight against Israel and it somewhat degrades what is essentially a very sound claim for the return of their land. I wouldn't be suprised if they were still fighting 100 years from now.