The debate "The existence of the nation of Israel is justified" was started by
June 21, 2016, 10:25 am.
113 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 36 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 40 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 3 arguments, sk25 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
RogueAmerican posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
SwaggerPoptart, citizenzero, Nm1995, Daffa8799, pfumelo09, NoeliaDelRio5, dasani72002, xaveragexjoesx, froyojones, Syahidahdmk, Dev, ad, TheC16, Yanksxx21, Potato, Threelip, babymarie, boispendaddy, thuy, TPSYT1, MrStealyogrill, sssk, trent, Deat, sk25, pankaj1407singh, romeroa251, GotWood, Light, Kiowa, Nemiroff, Allirix, mtbtheboss, Facundo4261Arg and 79 visitors agree.
TZW, usmanarshad, AzelG, JakobBoghora, ComradeStalin and 31 visitors disagree.
if there is a lesson to nationalists of any identity is that hate and fear will create your imagined conflict where there is none.
If you want to fight for your culture, fight with your culture, not with violence. show them how awesome Americanism, Judaism, or islamism is, or accept that another's way of life might be better. America is so much stronger for its influx of black and Latin musicians, painters, actors, musical genres, and cuisine. neither culture dominates, instead the best of each is added to the common culture which grows.
if you need to defend your culture with violence, you must feel you have a very weak culture. of course if violence is initiated against you we have a different story.
yes they continued to come. however they made no attempts to form the government based on majority. they tried to start talks with the Palestinians when the Jews were outnumbered 6:1. they formed their government after decades of local violence (to which they did not retaliate for an entire decade). if anything, this shows that the nationalist fear are creating a self fulfilling prophecy that will backfire and turn a population that wants to live with you into a population that will have to defend itself eventually.
the empire had it's own identity and rules, but Palestinians did not. I do not think they had much autonomy outside of their city laws.
but the migrants didnt collapse the old government, ww1 did. all of the events that lead to the current situation was caused by the xenophobia of the locals. rather then validating white nationalist fears, this is a cautionary tale of how xenophobia created easily avoidable conflict.
you seem to be trying to reduce this into an easy analogy just by looking at the first and last step (Jews came, Palestinians suffer) but without considering what happened between those 2 steps (about half a century btw), your analogy dumbs down reality to the point of uselessness.
Jews came for a better life, Palestinians attacked them relentlessly. had they not faced decades of consistent violence, the events that lead to the creation of Israel would not have happened as they did. had there not been violence, the situation would have played out completely different. like I said, the nationalist fear is a self fulfilling prophecy. it need not be that way.
So the Jews illegally migrated until they had enough support to form a government? The UN recognised their claim but the people who originally lived there did not? That sounds like what white nationalists fear.
And yeah the empire that governed Palestine collapsed because of WW1, but it still had its own identity before the UK invaded and annexed it. If the federal government government collapsed and Saudi Arabia annexed Florida it'd still be a bad thing.
That's why I said I believe it's worse than what the white nationalists fear. They fear a peaceful demographic change that loses their group democratic power. What happened in Israel the collapse of their unifying government + annexation + illegal demographic change + international recognition of changes
you are mistaken about a few key factors.
Palestine was not a nation, it was part of the ottoman empire which goes back about 500 years. I dont know about before that.
Britian wasn't siphoning Jews to it. at one point it even blocked any more migration... which didnt really work since Jews simply wanted to come, and immigrated illegally.
the UN plan divided the area between Palestine and Israel. Israel agreed to the division, the Palestinians did not. instead they counted on the promise of the surrounding Arab nations to defeat them, they lost. the land Israel "took" from that Palestinian state was land won in a war they did not start, but they did end it.
I dont support Israel's current actions, including the settlements, but that land was captured in a war where they were the ones attacked, and borders they now ignore, were borders Palestinians rejected in favor of violence.
Again, I don't know much about this topic but wasn't it originally a nation that was invaded and annexed by the UK? Then after WW2 they decided to syphon Jews into the country, completely changing the demographics. The UN then recognised a new Jewish state that the majority Jews ruled which took lands from Palestine. To me that's even worse than what white nationalists fear.
The original Palestinians became more and more marginalised. Israel is now completely ignoring the borders recognised by the UN and has built many settlements. There's probably details I'm missing here but none of this stops me believing the situations are analogous.
to begin with, I do not believe in majority rule as in a true democracy. I believe in constitutional democracies where the rights of minorities are protected and not subject to change at the majorities whim.
in a typical constitutional democracy, something like sharia law would not be accepted no matter who the majority is.
furthermore, they are not invading an existing nation and changing their laws, but forming a new nation, together with the local people, so the situation is not analogous. I do believe it is acceptable to move to an area peacefully. I do not believe it is acceptable to bully either the new or old residents. If there are established laws, they must be followed or changed within a framework that is a bit more complex then simply majority rule.
I honestly know little about this topic but it sounds similar to the white nationalist view on Muslims. Israel seems to be a great example of why you should filter out immigrants with different values. You don't want them becoming a majority or else you become politically marginalised and persecuted.
So is Jews becoming a democratic majority similar to the fear white nationalists have with Muslims? Muslims have a much higher fertility rate, white people have a negative fertility rate, so Muslim's will become the majority in the west one day. That's the fear I've heard from them. They believe once Muslims are a majority Sharia Law will be democratically introduced into law. I'm not sure what to think about this yet.
I am interested in what you think about this though because you believe it's right for the Jews to become a majority peacefully and change the laws through the democratic process. Do you still believe that if another demographic with opposing values to you became the majority and changed the laws? Would you fight against a democratically elected leader if they wanted to change your government from secular to theocracy?
and furthermore, even if you are of the opinion that they did not need to negotiate with the settlers, then they could have started solidifying their nation politically, and fighting against the actual colonizers (you know, the ones who actually came by force and disregard all locals).
there was no need to resort to violence, and especially the targeting of civilians who wouldnt even retaliate! is it your opinion that there should be no consequences for such despicable actions?
so you agree that rather then violence being their only choice, it was (in their opinion) the best choice because they thought they had the strength. there were always non violent options, they just chose to not use them.
exactly when did they have control of their borders? exactly when was the region "their land" beyond their estates and towns? if they do decide to make it a nation, how far back can they exclude people who already live there? if your going to make a nation, you include all the current inhabitants, and settle disputes in the negotiation table.
the difference is that colonizers discarded the local populations, and took control of them by force. that is vastly different then what happened in Israel. the Jews never told them that they can be part of Israel, leave, or die. they held negotiations with no military or population power behind them, and no preconditions. the current state of Israel was formed in response to the Palestinian violence. your assumption that this was the original intention of the founders is just that, an assumption that is not backed up by any actions or statements of the settlers.
the 1/3rd majority came over 2 decades after Jews offered to negotiate. at the point of talks it was more like 1/7th. the coming influx should have only added to the urgency of establish the nation and rules of migration while it was still vastly Muslim majority, not adding to the urgency of driving out the almost non existent minority.
and while I agree that ancestral homeland is not as strong a reason as current inhabitants, it is a valid reason (historically verified, not just biblical tall tale) to immigrate peacefully and live with the inhabitants. and those who already moved, should absolutely have a say in any government formed after their arrival. that is just common sense.
ok. but what if those citizens didn't have any right to be there? What if a million Chinese people moved into your home town/province/state and then they all declared that this was now part of the country of New China. They told you that you could either be a citizen of New China, leave or die. Would this country be justified? Would you just accept that this country has a right to exist because the majority of it's citizens (which have no right to be there) say that it does? Or would you call bullshit, those people have no right to the land they are now trying to call "new china"?
You can swap Chinese for any other ethnicity, the nationality/race of the people is not relevant.
I am for the motion. Every nation has its existence and it recognition are its citizens. Every nation's existence is justified. If somebody tells you that your motherland, your nation's existence isn't justified, how would you feel? It's an aggressive act provoking civil wars, world wars and revolts. The best way is to live peacefully and let others also live peacefully.
European Jews who move to Palestine against the wishes of the Palestinians are still European Jews. They are just European Jews who are living in someone else's country.
I don't see your underlying point as valid. They had no right to move to Palestine. The only group that approved it were the British, who similarly had no right to be in Palestine. And if they had no right to move there, then they have no right to a say in what kind of country should be formed in Palestine. They had no right to negotiate on what kind of country to form because they had no right to be there.
My population metric isn't wrong. The percentage of Jews, who identified as Jews, not Palestinians was increasing by a significant margin every year. The percentage of migrants in America who don't identify as America stays pretty low. There is no real chance that Hondurans will become a majority. From 1900 to 1948 the Jewish population went from almost nothing to 1/3rd of the total population. And even if Jews never became the majority, having 32% of your country (as it was in 1948) being made up of people that have no right to be there and you didn't give permission to come is still a significant problem for any nation.
You're right they thought they had a strength advantage. And they used that advantage to try to stop Europeans from meddling in their country. They wanted Europeans to stop moving into their lands without their permission.
If the British had stayed out of the middle east and allowed the region to form it's own nation, Jews would have made up less than 10% of the population. And even then, the large majority of those Jews had lived there for less than 40 years. A Muslim state would have formed and there wouldn't have needed to be decades of war, death and atrocities.
The Jews had no right to emigrate to Palestine. Other that few thousands that lived there when the ottomans fell, they had no right to negotiate about what kind of country Palestine should be. They were European occupiers and no better than imperialists.
and I explained how your population metric was wrong, how decades into the conflict Jews were still a minority, and would still be a minority if there was no conflict.
also how the migrations would drastically increase if welcomed. restating your original point is in no way a counterpoint. they may not be starting a new nation, but a substantial percentage increase or even a new majority will undoubtably change a nation. this was witnessed when a suprising portion of the democratic debate was in spanish.
the people who lived there werent allowed to have much say in their borders when they were ottoman either. at the formation of the nation, ALL of *the people who lived there* should be counted. majority rule is bad, but minority rule can be so much worse. its establishment is usually brutal itself. that was not the path pursued here. the minority must have a voice. talking is not wrong.
yeah, I expect many people wouldn't be open to sharing growing up at war. your forgetting alot of factors. we arent talking about now. we are talking about what caused now. it's not about doing nothing, it's about not even trying. they thought they had the strength advantage, and regardless of justification, they decided to flex it. they lost. Israel probably would not have existed as today if they didnt fight and lose. it could have been very different region.
If I never said European Jews should have a say, I said Palestinian Jews should have a say. if anyone is trying to enforce the views of European Jews on actual residents of Palestine, it would be you. the only people who should have a say in a nations future are the people living in the nation.
I understand they are recent residents, but they are still residents at the formation of the nation and there was no nation prior. they are grossly outnumbered and it would be wrong to enforce laws on them that they had no knowledge of or say in. especially nonsecular laws. your acting as if they were a colonial minority *enforcing* laws on the people when they are a minority seeming to negotiate on equal terms. and going as far as refusing to retaliate to persistent violence.
You say you support a people's right to live in a theocracy, but your argument says that you don't. Your argument says that the Palestinians did not have the right to decide what country they would live in even though they were the majority. You seem to think that European Jews should have a significant say in how Palestinians live and what kind of country they are allowed to make.
I already pretty much explained this. The reason that migrants into america and Jewish emigration to Israel is different because of numbers and intentions. I had detailed points about this. Hondurans aren't coming to america to make a Honduran homeland. They want to move to america and become american. Because it would take so long for them to become a majority, they wouldn't actually be a majority any more. they want to absorb and become american. After a generation or 2 in america then they wouldn't be Hondurans. They would just be Americans. So while some of the ethnic background of america would change, America would still be fundamentally the same. That is not the case for the Jews. They weren't going to Palestine to become Palestinian. They were going to Palestine to make Palestine into Israel. So other than surface level similarities, the 2 situations are vastly different.
I never said the British seized control from the Palestinians. But the British did seize control. And the Palestinians had no say in the matter. The only reason it wasn't against the law is because the British didn't allow the people who lived there to have a say in their laws. If the British weren't pushing Zionism, it would have been illegal.
What would be the point in negotiating with the people trying to take over their country? Do you think they could have convinced them to leave? To stop coming? The Palestinians could see than in a few decades they would be the minority in their own homeland. Even if the 1st wave of immigrants were totally reasonable people who wanted to get along, a decade or 2 later when the Jews were now the majority they could simply change the rules. Have a nice democratic vote and wouldn't you know it, the majority are now in favor of it being a Jewish state. Nothing the Palestinians negotiated for could ever be guaranteed to actually be enforced. The ratio of population was shifting every year. The British supporting creating a Jewish state. They had no power, they had no neutral arbiter. They had numbers and weapons.
And no, I don't know they thought they had other options, because I don't really see that they had any. Their options were sit back and let their homeland become a Jewish state or to fight for their right to control their own country. The Jews and the British didn't give them any other options.
why do you think the illegal migrants have a right to come here with permission. that is a crime. your saying we should deport them. within decades their populations will rival ours. (not just Honduras). it took decades until Jewish independence and they were still out numbered 2 to 1. situation sounds pretty similar. and if we let' the caravan in easy along with granting amnesty... you think the pace wont accelerate!
the British did not seize control from the Palestinians. Palestinians never had any say in their borders. it was against no law. they definitely should have a say, along with anyone else living there. and the sooner they do it, the less Jews would have a say. violence was clearly their only option! what the Jews want may not be what they get in a negotiation where they have no military and are outnumbered 6 to 1. what really happened is the Palestinians thought they (with pan Arab backing) would easily win a fight. not that fighting was their only option, that's nonsense and you know it. they thought it was their *best* option.
their goals are both very possible if they chose to live in a secular state with strong protections for both. I support a peoples choice of theocracy, dictatorship or whatever. I also support the fight for a better option.
Why should there have been negotiations? The Jews should not have been there. They weren't wanted by the locals. The only reason it wasn't strictly speaking illegal for the Jews to move there was because the British were controlling the laws. If someone comes and takes over your home and then says "let's negotiate, i'll only take the left half of your home" is that reasonable? Would you negotiate with the person taking your home over how much influence you got to keep in your own home? Or would you call the cops to try to get them out? The Palestinians tried to call the cops (the British) to keep control of their homes and the British sided with the Jews time after time.
The Palestinians wanted to live in an Arab, Muslim state. The Jews wanted a Jewish homeland. Their goals were never going to be compatible. Every attempt by the Palestinians to protect their homeland, to remain in the kind of country they wanted was blocked by the British. What options other than violence were left to them to keep the country they wanted? The moment Jews decided to move to Palestine to live in a Jewish homeland, they became part of the problem. They made violence inevitable.
You're wrong, moving to a nation without permission is a crime. Virtually every country in the world will arrest and deport people for that. So saying they just wanted to move there and work with the locals, even if that were true, still wouldn't justify them being there. Why do you think they had a right to move to Palestine against the wishes of the Palestinians?
The differences between a caravan of refugees into america and the Jewish emigration to Palestine are.
1) intent - The refugees want to come to america to make a better life for themselves from within the american system. They aren't coming here to make a Colombian homeland. They come here with the intention to live within the american system, eventually becoming Americans. The Jews went to Palestine because they wanted a homeland for their people. They wanted a Jewish state and many of them felt entitled to it as it was their "ancestral home" thousands of years ago. They went there intending to make their culture, at a minimum, an important culture to the nation that would be there, and more likely in my opinion, the dominant culture of Palestine regardless of what the Palestinians wanted.
2) numbers - With a population of over 300 million people, it will take decades, if not centuries, for Latin american migrants to become the majority. in that time most of the migrants' children, grand children etc will absorb into the american culture and they wont be a migrant from Honduras, they will be american. But if they were arriving at a rate of 25 million a year, then yeah. There would be a pretty good chance that they could become the majority and take over. And if that started to happen Americans would be right to be concerned about that kind of immigration. Even more so if they had no way of controlling their own immigration system because a foreign imperial power was controlling their government.
For those reasons, the 2 situations are vastly different.
I'm not missing your argument, I simply think it's wrong. also I stated my intent to focus on the "leaders of europe" so my answers were not focusing in on your point yet. before judging guilt, I believed we should first agree what/who we are judging. and at no point was violence inevitable.
leaders do not simply call to action, they guide that action. those people are closer to theorizers like Marx who did not lead any communist nation despite inspiring and promoting all of them. the settlements did have leaders. them and the people they led are the people I am talking about. moving to a nation and working with it's people is not a crime. there is no indication of what the early settlers wanted because the Palestinians chose to not speak to them, they chose to only deal with the British (always a wise move). what we do know is that the Palestinians wanted a nation where noone but them decides anything. a rule of the majority. because they refuse to speak to the "other". at the time of first negotiations they had the majority 6:1
back to my analogy, the migrant caravan certainly doesn't have the numbers to overtake us, but it was not the only one just this year, and if we welcome it, all the poor of Mexico, central, and even south America will swarm our nation and our culture... or so the xenophobic rhetoric goes. and you cant say that wont happen as it, to some extent, definitely will. I just don't think it's a bad thing if executed properly.
at what point will this years caravan transform from innocent refugees to the spearhead of an invading hoard?
Those negotiations could have been the start of the formation of their country, the majority of which they maintained for decades to come despite them turning it into a warzone. considering the modern Israeli fear that Palestinians will overtake the Jews population wise, and the fact that not being oppressed wouldnt hinder population growth, that's a fake news fear. if there is a wave coming, setting the rules now seems better then later. 6:1 is a great majorjty!
why do you think the settlers didnt want to live in peace. obviously not every single one, that's unreasonable. but why not the vast majority?
You seem to be missing my argument entirely. The actions of the settlers once they arrived are largely irrelevant. What they said, what they did, what they wanted, it doesn't matter. That isn't the problem. The thing they did that made violence inevitable was the moment they decided to move to Palestine against the wishes of the people who lived there so they could have a Jewish state.
The Jewish leaders called for people to move to Palestine to create a Jewish state. They raised money and lobbied the British government to make this happen. Jewish people moved there to turn other people's homes into a country for their people. That was the grounds for war. Even if every single settler that moved there intended to live peacefully with their neighbors (which i don't think is reasonable to believe) the fact that they were there to create a country with someone else's homeland was going to lead to war. It took a long time for that war to build up and break out, but the moment the Zionist movement got rolling it was inevitable. The Palestinians then had the choice of accepting being the minority in a Jewish state or trying to preserve their right to form their own country.
An underlying truth of Zionism is that it was always going to displace the Palestinians or absorb them into a Jewish state. They chose to fight to prevent that and committed atrocities while doing it. But the hands of the Jews are not clean. The moment they decided they were going to take over other people's home's for their new state, they made war inevitable.
I am not blinded by rose colored glasses based on the Jewish plight, I am simply judging their actions as exemplary compared to most any other group of humans on this entire planet and history. it seems to me that you and many on the left wished for the Jews to put up with their violence just like the right wishes for central Americans to rot in their countries where they are under constant threat. peaceful migrants are innocent.
like many people throughout history, they needed to move for their own security, unlike any people from history, they did it in the most humane and exemplary way possible. I cannot believe some still say it wasnt good enough. certainly after the formation of Israel they should have let those who fled the conflict return home with full rights, that was Israel's first and greatest sin imo, but before that, I see no wrongdoing.
there certainly is a difference, the people who lived there for centuries were not being threatened with loss of home, life, or culture. and were going to have more say in their homeland then they ever had before under the ottomans.
however, the Jews had a legitamete reason beyond nationalism, in fact their desire to go to Israel predates any European nationalism movement. they were seeking to live in their ancestral holyland, after being under threat in every part of the world. they had much more then just nationalism pushing them forward.
and I have not once used their holy land, or their threats elsewhere as a justification for taking the homes of others, because that is NOT a valid justification, however people do not need a justification to peacefully move to new lands and work together with the current inhabitants without displacing them or their lifestyles. the number of people making that choice is irrelevant.
but those "leaders" had no power or influence over the actions of the settlers. your acting as if the settlers and their decisions have no bearing on their own judgements. that's ridiculous! I completely disagree. what bearing did those "leaders" have on any of the decisions or actions of the people involved?
I'm not claiming that any of this is simple or clear cut. As far as I am aware the Jewish settlers were not intending violence. Many of them honestly just wanted a better life for their families. The Palestinians tried to force them out with violence. There is absolutely an argument that it was the Palestinians that were the aggressors (i know since i made that argument last time). But there is definitely blame to be had on both sides.
The reason i don't comment on what small communities of Jewish settlers wanted is because their opinions are irrelevant. When decisions get made, it is by people with power and influence, not individual communities. If a Jewish state was going to be created, it was because the British government and people like those European Jews you are dismissing agree on it. What some random Jewish guy in a village in Palestine wants wouldn't factor into the decision at all. Why do you think their opinion is important?
What are you talking about? They were leaders i cited were the most prominent leaders of the Zionist movement. We are talking about the creation of Israel, AKA Zionism. If the leaders if the Zionist movement don't count as leaders of Zionism, who does count? What other leaders are there? And if you are going to say leaders of small communities in Palestine, i will reiterate, their opinions are irrelevant.
Agreed. Both sides were definitely stubborn and nationalistic. The difference is that one of those groups had lived there for centuries, the other was moving into the area with the intention of turning into a homeland for their people when they had no real right to.
we can agree that both sides are being stubborn due to strong new feelings of nationalism?
is it not possible, with the power of hindsight, to wield both perspectives at the same time?
the British prevention of the Arab nation was much greater then Israel, and had the Jews not been in the picture, Britian would have still drawn those arbitrary lines. I dont think Palestine dictated the borders of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. divide and conquer was a British staple. The Jews were looking to work with the local residents by a accounts, and despite the obvious wave coming *soon*, they werent here yet and the Palestinians held the numbers in the initial law writing.
I replied to your 3 leaders, 2 of them being European intellectuals who contributed nothing to the decisions of the settlers. weissman was the only one of merit. and yes he seemed like quite the hawk from the beginning. yet why do you refuse to look at actions of small settlements who had no global voice?
and the reason I asked for these citations is because you claimed there were countless sources of religious leaders supporting a state in Palestine. I know that cannot be true for reasons stated, thus I questioned that claim. none of the 3 were religious leaders, they do not qualify.
I used to be quite pro-Israel. That lead me to only look at the creation of Israel from the Israeli perspective. And if you exclusively look at it form their side then they look totally innocent. But as I continued to see how truly terrible Israel is these days, I stopped sympathizing with Israel and look at the situation from the Palestinian point of view. And I can definitely see why they reacted the way they did. That is how what Israel does today caused me to change my views on what they did 100 years ago.
And no, their actions now are not causing bias against Israel. It simply allowed me to look past my pro-Israel bias I had before.
I'm not arguing that the Ottoman Empire was an arab state, it was not. I'm also not arguing that there should have been "Palestinian" state after the ottoman empire's fall as there was no such thing as a Palestinian yet. I mostly use the term in this debate to refer to the people who lived in Palestine, not to indicate they were a distinct people. But if the British hadn't interfered there would likely have been a larger Arab state that included Palestine. The only reason there is a bunch of Arab states today is because the British drew arbitrary lines on a map to separate them so they could continue to dominate these smaller squabbling states and control their oil.
I have already provided 3 prominent leaders of the Zionist movement who explicitly said they wanted a Jewish state. In my research for that I found many others who didn't seem to explicitly say one way or the other if they wanted it to be a Jewish state. Most wanted a homeland for the jews, but it was a bit ambiguous what they meant. I only recall coming across one who had explicitly said he intended for jewish settlers to cooperate and get along with the arabs in the area.
I can certainly understand evolving beliefs, however I do not understand changing your opinion on the actions of people 100 years ago based on the actions of their descendants. that is impossible. there is no need for rose colored glasses, nor simplified narratives. I completely disagree with Netanyahu's administration, and it isnt just him, Israel has been gradually growing increasingly aggressive as the conflict goes on. but if you trace an increasing pattern in reverse, it shows that Israel was very different at the start.
if I'm understanding this correctly, your views against Israel's modern actions, which I probably agree with most-all of them, are *biasing* your views on the pre Israel situation a century prior. beyond your old opinion, I think that the reasons you gave for that opinion are direct answers to many of your complaints today. actually a bit more extreme then me.
Palestine had no state before England, they were part of the ottoman empire. no different then a colony. if the British take over America will it be ok cause they are also christian? no the Jews were not hoping to live under Arab law. but even then they were still living in the land of Israel and that can make a difference to some.
I would like to see some of those religious leader sources as most religious Jews were against Zionism since the messiah had not yet come. by all accounts settler Zionism was a secular, left wing, pseudo socialist movement. by theory and action they were planning on making a nation that was not under Arab law, but allowed all people to worship without fear. Even if we dont find records of their statements, with history we can judge their actions, which is what I am suggesting.
yes, my views of Israel have evolved over the years. After seeing them steal more and more land from the Palestinians and attack more and more civilians I've lost some of the rose colored glasses that used to lead me to defend Israel.
I accept they wanted the land. I acknowledge that the Palestinians had no state of their own. But again, the reason there was no nation was because the allies destroyed the nation that owned it, then occupied it preventing any nation from forming. If the British hadn't occupied the area, there undoubtedly would have been a nation there. And is it any better than carving land out of an existing nation? To me it seems like It is exactly the same thing. The only reason it is different in any way is because a European imperial power was suppressing the formation of a nation. That doesn't mean it is open to colonizing by some other Europeans who want it too. The jew had no more right to it than the British did.
You are making big assumptions on their motives with little to no evidence. There are countless sources of religious leaders calling for a Jewish state in Palestine. I can't really find any sources saying people were moving there with the expectation that they would be living in a Muslim, Arab state. Because if that was what they thought would happen, they would be no better off in Palestine than they were wherever they came from. It doesn't make sense to move en mass from one area dominated by others to another area dominated by others. It makes much more sense that they were looking for a home in a Jewish state. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I couldn't find any sources that said that they had any intentions other than the stated goals of Zionism.And even if they intended to live at peace with the people they intended to incorporate into their new state, they were still essentially forcing people into a jewish state against their will. And that is really, really wrong.
I agree that the jews have been persecuted in many other countries. But that does not give them the right to carve out a new country against the wishes of the people who live there.
the quoted line came from the replied to statement of this post.
what other options were there exactly? as you posted on this thread years ago, "noone is going to volunteer to give up any land worth having for them. anyone they took land from was going to cry foul. the bottom line was they needed a state and it may as well be their ancestral homeland as anywhere else."
you yourself laid out a lack of reasonable options, and a lack of need to convince them to come to this land as they had always wanted this land, individually, for millenia. the fact that this land had no existing nation, and they were more then willing to work with the indigenous people who vastly outnumbered them, is much better then "carving land out" from an existing nation. there was no need for violence if xenophobia hadn't taken over.
there certainly weren't any big global policy declarations from these small time Jewish settler villages, because they were small time villages. that doesnt mean wealthy unelected privileged people get to speak for them. I would say the actions of the Jewish settlers speak for them, and besides the crime of too many people making an individual migration decisions, I see no fault with their actions. while the European Zionists proclaimed this land must be Jewish, the settlers worked extra hard to live in peace with their Arab neighbors. there was clearly a difference in vision on how to work towards the dreamed of nation.
I haven't really been able to find alot of sources for what the majority of the settlers believed at all. So it is impossible for me to say. Maybe every single settler adamantly believed that they needed a Jewish state. maybe none of them did. i can't really tell. What i can tell is that the "leaders" of the movement did want a jewish state. And that is certainly what the Palestinians would have been hearing. That would certainly justify their fears.
There have been lots of proposed sites for a jewish state. I came across info about other sites considered by the World Zionist Organization during previous research that I'm having trouble finding now. So while palestine is definitely a site that would appeal to Jews, saying they didn't choose the site is incorrect. They could have chosen another site that was less likely to end in bloodshed.
And saying "no other option is necessary" is incredibly short sighted. If i drop something into a blender that is turned on, shoving my hand into while it is going is certainly an option. But probably a dangerous one. Just because you have a faster option, doesn't mean it is a good one.
Yes, Palestine was an option. It was an option that was almost guaranteed to end in violence, death and turmoil. It was therefore a bad option. They did have other options but they chose not to pursue them. They are therefore at least partially responsible for the deaths this choice caused.
"they are relevant to how it got started and the how it was *percieved*"
I agree. their money certainly helped facilitate the process, and their narratives have completely eclipsed the narrative of the actual settlers.
however, how relevant were they to any plans, intentions, and decisions of the settlers?
and how exactly did they "choose" the site, as opposed to it being chosen by millenia old legend and desire? if that area is an option, no other option is necessary. this claim is ludicrous.
The European Zionists are relevant because they were the ones the pushed for Zionism. They are the ones who raised the funds to buy land there. They are the ones who chose Palestine instead of other sites. They are highly relevant to how the process got started and how Zionism would be perceived by everyone.
Those stats are exactly why violence was inevitable. They went from 6:1 to 2:1 in about 25 years. At that pace Jews would be the majority in Palestine very soon. If you didn't want a state for the Jews made with your home in it, that would be a horrifying statistic.
Saying they moved into empty land isn't exactly accurate. The specific land they built their houses on was empty is true enough. The region they wanted to turn into a Jewish state was very much occupied however. And if you happened to live in that region you would have a lot of reasons to be concerned as the Jewish population got closer and closer to being the majority.
I'm honestly not sure what you are event saying in your 3rd paragraph. They were taking over something, Palestine. Palestine wasn't empty. How could they have a nation when the British were occupying their land? After the Ottoman empire collapsed the British took over the whole area, so establishing a state of their own was impossible. The Jews moved into an area where they weren't wanted. They wanted to take over the area and absorb the locals into their new Jewish state. The specific way they went about it is certainly unusual. But the only reason it worked it because the British were occupying the area and the locals couldn't do anything to prevent the Jewish immigration.
What other response was even possible? The locals didn't want to be in a Jewish state. The Jews wanted to turn the whole area into a Jewish state. The locals had no way to prevent more Jews coming. They had no way to prevent Jews from establishing a Jewish state if they became the majority, or if the British decided there were enough of them to just go ahead with it. The only options they had was to submit to living in a Jewish state, abandon their homes and become refugees themselves, or fight. They resorted to violence because the British and the Jews left them little choice.
the alternative is to leave a minority population with no say over laws that were not in existence when they moved there.
according to the wiki article titled: demographic history of Palestine in 1922 arabs still outnumbered Jews 6:1. even in 1947 around the time of independence, arabs outnumbered Jews 2:1
they clearly had a vast majority when talks were first proposed. was their hope to give the local Jews absolutely no say in their home? and with an incoming wave, the sooner they talk, the more power and influence they will have in the newly created nation. which leads me to my next issue.
the other point I feel has been ignored was the fact that Jews werent taking over anything. there was no nation. they moved to empty land and unlike any other peoples in history (not just European colonizers, but Chinese, Mongolian, Mayan, every human civilization) they tried to include the local people who had no large scale government, in the new government. a local people who still outnumbered them.... isnt that historically inconceivable?
and I can understand anger and eventual resort to violence... but for that to be the first and only response in any nonviolent situation... how can that be agreeable?
btw, I didnt say anything about individual motivations just now. I really want to put these irrelevant European intellectuals behind us before we move forward, or please explain their relevancy if you believe in it.
because the wealthy European Zionists are completely irrelevant and have far too outsized a role in history books
I will certainly get to that. I just want us to stop going back to the words of unelected wealthy Zionists on a different continent. i would love to focus on the settlers and their actions.
You keep going back to the individual motivations of individual settlers. That isn't my point. I don't really care what random individuals who moved there were trying to accomplish. I'm sure most of them had good intentions. But as the adage says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The presence of so many people who had no reason to be there in such a small area was going to start a war. Even if they were naive enough to believe it would be fine, that doesn't absolve them of some responsibility for creating conditions where violence was inevitable.
a few well meaning Jewish people moving to Palestine would not have been an issue. A few thousand wouldn't have been an issue. But hundreds of thousands of people moving there definitely was. There was a reason they all chose Palestine to go to. They wanted a state of their own. The people organizing the movement. The people fund raising for it. They wanted a Jewish state. Whether individual people there wanted that is irrelevant.
The Arabs who were living in Palestine saw a huge wave of people coming. They heard Jewish leaders (or bare minimum people they saw as Jewish leaders) saying they wanted an independent Jewish state which would include their homes. They could see the census data showing the population trends. They knew that in a matter of years they would become the minority in their own land. Given those realities, violence was unavoidable.
I believe the settlers had good intentions. I believe they didn't want violence. But they created a scenario where violence was going to happen. They didn't cast the 1st stone, but they created the conditions that made it necessary. It's a bit like poking someone with a stick over and over and over. When they finally snap and attack you, you kill them. Now it's self defense and your reaction is totally justified, right?
I hope we can agree that random, unelected, wealthy men of privilege dont always represent the people the claim to represent.
can you point to any on the ground leaders of the prewar Jewish settlers who echoes the ideas or followed the suggestions of any of these "leaders" from another continent?
chain weissman was a relevant leader, although he seems to be more of a late game leader well after war broke out and not during the decades of Jewish attempts at a peaceful resolution. I don't think we str quite up to that as we are still discussing the initial migrations.
as for the other 2 "leaders" you named (Herzl and Nordau), those are exactly the irrelevant European intellectuals ive been talking about. what relevance, if any, did they have on actions and policies of the early Jewish settlers? (the answer is 0).
can you explain how the European Zionists dictated the actions of the settler Zionists? if not I would ask that we stop referring to them as relevant. they are leaders of *political* Zionism (from your quotes), not of people. that would be like saying Marx was the leader of Soviet union. senseless right?
If the people migrating had wanted to assimilate into the lands they were moving to then no, numbers wouldn't be particularly important. But that was not the case. They were very clear, a homeland for the Jews was the point. In which case numbers are extremely important. The founders of modern Zionism were very clear that the point was to create a homeland for the jews / a jewish state. What exactly they meant by that did vary from person to person. But moving enough people into a region to become the majority with the stated goal of turning that region into a separate state that will be a homeland for this new group that just moved there is aggressive. It completely ignores what the people who have lived there, potentially for hundreds or thousands of years, actually want.
And again, trying to turn someone else's homeland into an independent country as a homeland for your people is an aggressive act. They may not have planned to use violence, but it was their plan to take over the region. There are alot of ways to do shitty things without violence.
As an example. I'm Canadian, so the population of my country is about 37 million people. If the Marathi (yes I chose an ethnic group with a large population at random) decided that they felt persecuted in India and wanted a new homeland and it was going to be Canada, then 10's of millions of them started moving to Canada without the permission of the Canadians. I would certainly have a problem with that. They just decide they want their own country in a place they have no real right to. Then move in enough people over the course of a short time frame in order to become the majority. That would definitely, 100% lead to violence.
The jewish plan is no different. They planned to move large numbers of people into a region without the permission of the people who lived there. They then wanted to carve out a country for themselves to be a jewish homeland. That was going to cause violence. A peaceful process was never going to happen. Maybe they were painfully naive and thought they could do this peacefully, but that doesn't absolve them. They caused the conditions to trigger violence, even if they didn't cast the 1st stone.
some examples of leaders who were very vocal about the creation of a jewish state. This was largely copied and pasted from other sources because I didn't see the need to rewrite it.
Theodor Herzl, was an Austro-Hungarian journalist who was the father of modern political Zionism. He formed the Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state. He is known as the father of the State of Israel.
Chaim Weizmann was president of the World Zionist Organization, and first president of the State of Israel. He played a leading role in the diplomatic initiatives that culminated in the Balfour Declaration. He headed the Zionist Commission that went to Palestine to prepare conditions for the development of a Jewish National Home.Weizmann managed to nullify the terms of the British White Paper of October 1930, under which Jewish development in Palestine was to be curtailed.
Max Nordau was a Zionist leader. He was central to the Zionist Congresses which played such a vital part in shaping what Zionism would become. After the Dreyfus trial of 1894 was convinced that the creation of a Jewish State was the only solution. As Herzl’s right-hand man, Nordau became one of the most important leaders of Jewish nationalism at the time. At the first Zionist Congress in 1897 he drafted the Basle Program, which declared the aim of Zionism to be the creation of a Jewish state that was secured by international law.
just to clarify, random, unelected, wealthy intellectuals, on a different continent, are not leaders.
who are these leaders? who elected them? did anyone in the region ever voice support for their more aggressive statements? Jews, like other peoples, dont function with a hive mind. and what do you mean that Jews needed convincing to move to Israel? some individuals maybe, but dont you think many have dreamed of it, independently, for generations?
yes the numbers were large, but if they are all individual choices, they should be free to move. I don't think factors such as how many people were there to begin with should matter to their right to emigrate. as to America, there are already millions of illegal and many millions of legal south and central Americans here already. white people are losing their majority status and hispanics/other Americans are quickly growing. the analogy remains valid, although obviously not exact. the people are fleeing persecution and migrating to find a better life and live in peace. they showed no signs of starting any violence ever.
I don't think I'm confusing those things at all. lots of Jewish leaders explicitly said that was their intent. They then raised money to buy land to further that end. They then convinced people to move onto that land to further that end. I don't have evidence one way or the other whether it was the explicit intent of ever single settler, but it doesn't really sound like you do either. So if the information i have access to says the goal of Zionism was to create a state for the Jews. why would I take it at face value your assertion that they desired that, but didn't intend to carry through on that desire?
Which desires have I attributed to them that weren't true? They wanted a state for the Jews. The reason they wanted that state was because they weren't safe in the lands they came from. In order to ensure their safety, the Jews would need to have a significant amount of power in this new state for the Jews, otherwise it isn't really any different than the lands they just came from.
The "invasion" of south american people pushed by the right is nonsense because it is literally impossible. There are 327 million people living in the US. It is not possible for enough people to move to the US to outnumber the Americans that live there now. It was very much possible for the Jewish immigrants to outnumber the Arabs, because that is what was happening. You are comparing a scenario that is impossible with one that isn't just possible, it was actually happening.
In 1879 Jews made up about 5% of the population. In 1922 they made up 11% of the population. In 1947 they were about 32% of the population. (i did find some small variations in the numbers so there is a margin of error) With that kind of trend they were going to become the majority. And as stated, they had the goal of creating a state for the Jews which was supported by the British who controlled the region. We can debate whether they had the intention to do so or not forever. But the Palestinians had every reason to think that they did. They didn't want that to happen. They had no legal means to prevent it. The Jewish emigration with the goal of creating a state in a region that belonged to Muslims had no possible outcome other than violence. At absolute best, they naively caused decades of war and death. At worst the Jewish leaders knew that moving there would be met with hostility and did it anyway.
I believe you are confusing a desire to establish a state, with the intent to establish a state. the Jewish settlers lived in peace and followed all local rules. although it is hard to live within the rules of the nation when there isnt, and never was a nation there. the region was always ruled by another for at least 500 years. and if there is a new nation being formed, I don't see why all the residents wouldnt have a say in it.
you are attributing many desires that were never stated by the settlers, and were never backed up by any action on their part. what you are essentially pushing is the invasion of south Americans narrative of the right. yes those people will eventually want to become citizens, vote, and the fear of the right is they will become a majority and take over their nation... and they are coming in huge caravans of thousands of people at a time, and are threatening to speed up making white people a minority. (or at least that's how the narrative goes)
To be clear, if they had been moving in to the area with the intention of living in and abiding by the rules of the local populace then I would be 100% on the side of the jews. But that was not what they were doing. They wanted to carve out a country where they would have, at a minimum, a significant amount of power. They wanted to colonize and change the area to be more to their liking and the fact that the locals didn't want that didn't stop them. That is in and of itself nefarious.
In this statement I meant more of in the region. Since the British were occupying the area, they weren't able to establish or join a country of their free will. If the British hadn't insisted on controlling the area instead of actually allowing the area to form or join a country on their own, maybe the region wouldn't be in this mess.
The nefarious thing was the massive influx of one particular group of people who had the express goal of carving out a country for themselves regardless of what the locals thought or wanted. If the Zionist movement had been about establishing a country in an area where they were wanted, or where they had permission to do so from people who lived there then it would be fine. But they didn't. They wanted to establish a country in a region they had no reasonable claim to despite the fact that the locals didn't want that to happen. That is nefarious.
Talking to what end? What could they possibly have accomplished? The jews wanted to create a new country where, at a minimum, they would have a significant amount of power. The Palestinians didn't want that to happen. Were they going to talk the jews into leaving? Were they going to talk them into accepting that the local culture and religion (Arab and Muslim) are the dominant culture and faith in the region? I don't see those things as even remotely possible. If they wanted to live in a Muslim country, they had no choice but to stop Jewish immigration into the region. They had no way of doing that without violence.
I'm not trying to point blame at any one individual who migrated to Israel. I'm sure some of them did things that were wrong, they were human. But as far as I know the violence and escalation of tensions was primarily caused by the Palestinians and the Jews responded in order to defend themselves.
But again, this was a self fulfilling prophecy. They moved to that area to do something that was against the wishes of the people who lived there. The reaction of the locals appears to have been correlated to the number of Jews who moved there as this was putting them closer and closer to becoming the majority, at which point they would be able to say with at least some legitimacy that they should be able to form their own country. The Zionist movement, as planned and executed, was always going to cause violence. I don't see any other way this could have reasonably ended. They may not have intended the violence, but their actions led to the violence.
what do you mean "in their own country"? what country are you referring to?
the people who moved to isreal made no speeches of taking the land, and the funding was mostly for housing and travel costs. can you explain to me what nefarious things the money was being spent on?
one recourse the Palestinians had was to at least try talking once before resorting to violence and not to assume the agenda of peaceful neighbors due to the bombastic speeches of people on another continent.
I don't agree with 4 as the migration didnt really stop when the British tried to stop it and there was no local government to enforce any local laws. I agree with the rest.
there arevways of enshrining irreversible, or difficult to reverse, rights into a constitution to protect a minority. I believe that a dual guarantee of rights and home for both people in a single state is the only viable solution, but that's a different subject.
can we agree that the migrants did nothing wrong individually? so at what quantity do innocent migrants become aggressive invaders? are they guilty because they were late? and do the innocent early arrivals suddenly become guilty after a critical mass?
I'm not sure your 1st point really makes sense. If you moved in next to someone with the explicit goal of taking your neighbor's car, then gave speeches about how you were going to take it, then millionaires invested lots of money to further the goal of you taking it, then your neighbor would have very good reason to believe you are going to take it. And while murder obviously wouldn't be the answer, paranoia and fear would be a totally reasonable response.
Just because they didn't explicitly try to seize power isn't really the point. They kept saying they wanted their own country, and they wanted it to include the land the Palestinians lived on. The Palestinians had good reasons to think they would try to seize power, because lots of Jews kept saying that's what they were there for.
I am going to lay out some points to see if we can lay out some base facts we can agree on. Let me know which of these, if any, you disagree with.
1) the Jews wanted to create a state that would be a home for the Jewish people
2) they started moving to Palestine to further the goal of creating such a state
3) the local Palestinians did not want to be in this state.
4) the reason moving there was legal was because the British, as a colonial power, approved it, not because anyone who lived there did.
5) The British supported the creation of a state for the Jews and therefore were not willing to prevent large scale immigration into Palestine.
Ultimately, whether they wanted to create a state that would be welcoming to the Jews, or wanted to create a Jewish state isn't particularly relevant in my opinion. They moved to an area where they weren't wanted with the explicit goal of creating a new country. The people who already lived there didn't want to leave and didn't want to be in that country.
I agree that murder isn't the answer to problems and I do not condone their actions, but what recourse did the Palestinians have exactly? The influx of Jewish people was rapidly causing them to be outnumbered in their own country. Even if they had been willing to share their land with the Jews, once the Jews outnumbered them and created this new state then they clearly wouldn't have had much of a voice in this new country. With the British occupying their land and "administering" it they had no legal recourse to stem the influx of people that they didn't want to be there.
and I'm not referencing the current generation when I say not to feel bad about them. I emphasize far more with them. however they have made many of their own mistakes as well.
I just want to clarify that the European Zionists said alot of racist things, and made very bold claims
while the settler Zionists tried to get along and live in peace with the locals as much as the locals allowed. made no power grabs until well after violence began. they knew this wasnt their land, that's why they tried to not respond to their violence, and didnt for a whole *Decade*. that's exemplary self control.
it's hard to feel bad for the losers who started the war, at best prematurely. however not letting families who fled or were displaced by the war back was Israel's first grave mistake. but one must understand the resentment and fear at that point. it was not the one sided situation it is today. still, their biggest mistake til this day.
I never said they didn't want to create a state, I said they did no action to seize power. Much like I may want my neighbors car doesnt mean im going to go take it. they did no wrong action. what I can reference, if you like, is that it was a mostly secular movement that had no intention of enforcing any religious law or any desire to displace anyone. They wanted a state that would welcome Jews, not one that would enforce their ideas.
that quote about the JNF looks like a wiki quote (with the citation style). at least the wiki mentions no political ambition about creating any state. I'm not sure where that claim came from. let me clarify, they Jews did want to create a state that would be a home for jews. but there is no evidence of a desire to create a "Jewish State" that is run by, and prefers, Jews. A home.
And this desire for a home is both far older then any form of colonialism, and requires no prompting. it does require funding, which many wealthy Jews felt was a mission to help, as it was a millenia old dream of the people. it could be seen as the greatest of deeds for people with far too much money. Atheism removing the need for waiting, and increasing violence, well before Hitler even factored in... this isnt some political rhetoric or seeking of resources... it's a shity spot for resources. this was individual desires matching up en mass. thus, unless you can deny the individuals right to move to an empty plot with fair purchase and good intentions, I see no wrong actions.
no political take over. no military take over. this is less European colonialism and more refugee caravans
Could you provide a reference for your statement that the majority of Jews moving to Palestine weren't looking to create a Jewish state? The info I find just references that they were part of the Zionist movement and the Zionist movement was about creating a Jewish state.
By Zionists i mean Jewish people who moved to an area their people hadn't lived in for almost 2,000 years. They had less claim to it than the french do. At least the french controlled it in the 11th century.
We are talking about large scale emigration into an area being arranged by people who wanted a Jewish state. even if the individuals moving there weren't explicitly looking to set up a Jewish state (which I can't find evidence for), the people arranging for them to move there definitely did.
"By 1948, the JNF owned 54% of the land held by Jews in the region, or a bit less than 4% of the land in what was then known as the British Mandate of Palestine." by 1948, more than half of the land owned by Jews in Palestine was actually owned the Jewish National Fund, a Zionist organization that did want to create a Jewish state.
The Jews moving to Palestine is basically just colonialism. they moved into an area where they weren't wanted without the permission of the people who lived there. When the people who lived there tried to stop them (I acknowledge the ways they tried to stop them were atrocious) they responded with violence and eventually pushed the people who actually had lived there out. And now Palestinians basically live on the middle eastern version of a native reserve.
What gave the European Jews the right to move there against the will of the people who lived there? Why did they think they had a right to carve a state out of lands they hadn't owned in millennia?
by Zionists, are you speaking of the upperclass Jews of Europe who made alot of speeches but didnt actually speak for anyone on who moved to the area?
The Jews never made any plays at power grabs, lived in friendly relations with non hostile Palestinian villages. their demands, if any, were never heard as Palestinians refused to come to any talks.
they certainly had rights over the land they own, and the towns they govern, but they never governed any nation. the Jews simply migrated peacefully, and I dont think they should have had zero say in a new government of the land.
the Palestinian side sounds like textbook xenophobia akin to Trump's Right. based on convenient, irrelevant rhetoric, mass judgement, and refusal to acknowledge the "them" at all.
That kind of depends on your opinion of what is right and wrong. They moved into a country that already had inhabitants. Their rapid immigration into the region without being wanted there by the local populace was always going to cause tensions. As the jewish population started to outnumber the locals there was almost certainly going to be violence.
So while agree, the arabs struck 1st in their attempts to drive out the jews. But the jews shouldn't have been there. They moved into and started taking over an area that wasn't theirs. Or at the very least hadn't been theirs for about 2,000 years. The arabs had ruled Palestine for about 1,500 years by that point (with some crusades in there as well). The jews who moved to palestine were Zionists. Zionism called for the creation of a jewish homeland. They didn't go there thinking they were going to live under the rule of muslims.
The Jews didn't start the violence. Perhaps the jews didn't want the violence. But their actions in pushing for a jewish homeland in an area that was already populated had no possible outcome other than either expelling the local populace or violence. They might not have wanted things to go badly, but their actions virtually guaranteed that they would. So I do not agree that they did nothing wrong.
and I can also defend the actions of post independence Israel. I do not support all of them, but considering it's been living in a technical warzone going on 100 years, you can understand how opinions become more aggressive. not so much nowadays, but during the era of market and bus suicide bombings, I would grow more hawkish as well.
likewise I understand the increasing hawkishness of the Palestinians, but their actions are hurting themselves far more then Israel is hurting itself. empathy is not agreement, although i understand their choices, I think those choices were beyond stupid.
I will repeat this one point.
The Jews in Palestine did absolutely nothing wrong up to and including the establishment of Israel.
we have previously agreed that the UN is weak and incapable of enforcing anything, the league of nations was even weaker. they did make the proclamation, but how much of an impact did it actually have on Jewish migration?
although you are right about European actions in general, I dont think it had much effect on this situation. Jews would have demanded Israel as a homeland, and it was becoming increasingly apparent that the homeland was needed now. in addition, the rise of atheism negated the orthodox requirement to wait for a messiah. it was a perfect storm. the only thing that may have been different without the British is that without their contradictory promises, Israel could have been established much more peacefully.
the vast majority of Jews who migrated to Israel wanted a Jewish home (in Israel), not a Jewish state, and were always willing to live with the local Palestinians. it was not a handing over of the Palestinian lands, it was just new neighbors in a mostly empty land. (it is still mostly empty desert). up to the establishment of Israel I put all of the blame on England and Palestinians. I dont think the Jews did anything wrong. (with the exception of the small breakaway faction of pre isreal defense force that decided to emulate the Palestinian attacks on civilians, and were promptly condemned by all other local Jews)
Agreed. They were definitely in a very difficult position and as far as i know, behaved much better than their arab counterparts. My position on Israel, much like Israel itself, is complicated.
They clearly needed to do something. The local arabs, which we now call palestinians, were trying to at best force them out. At worst they were trying to wipe them out. The Jewish people then escalated attempts to protect themselves. Establishing your owns state to protect your people isn't unreasonable.
But why were the jewish people there in the 1st place? in 1922 the population of Palestine was 75% muslim and only 13% jewish. By 1946 the population was now 33% jewish. The jewish population of the region increased by over 7X in about 24 years.
The League of Nations decided that there should be a Jewish nation in palestine in 1922. They didn't really care what the people who actually lived there thought.
How would you feel if the UN announced that where you live was going to be handed over to some other religious group. Then large amounts of that religious group started showing up.
I think it is understandable that they would feel threatened by the influx of jewish people since the area was being administered by the british and the british had announced the Balfour Declaration where they said they support giving the region to the Jews as an independent state.
In my opinion Israel is another example of Europeans completely f**king up the middle east after the fall of the Ottoman empire. They only looked at basic level information to make their decisions without giving any thought to the deeper consequences. They just drew lines on a map to make borders without considering who lived there. In this case, they decided to solve one problem (what to do with the jews of Europe) by causing lots of other issues. if they really wanted to do right by the jews of Europe, they should have given them their own state in Europe. But it is alot easier to carve a state out of a defeated enemy than to give up your own land.
The british should have known that the arabs would never accept a large chunk of their land being given away without their consent. The British should never have signed the Balfour Declaration and Zionism should not have been pushed for by the League of Nations. It would have prevented decades of violence and war.
to restart the convo,
I see no wrong doing on the part of the Jews leading up to the formation of Israel. not only did they do no wrong, their actions were exemplary in comparisons to actions taken by other peoples in similar situations.
Soo i suppose so
Someone had to jump on the other side.
is that you conceding?
Palestinians did not even exist as a people before the 20th century. they were just Arabs living in Palestine. they were no different than any other Arabs until the 20th or maybe the 19th century. so saying the Palestinians controlled the area before that isn't exactly true, since they didn't exist.
the Palestinians systematically attacked the Jews in the Palestine in the first half of the 1900s. look at the Palestinian riots of 1928 the revolt of 1933 and the revolt of 1936-1939. Jews peacefully
emigrated to a British controlled area and the Palestinians responded by trying to massacre them. the jews responded by militarizing to defend themselves.
during the 1936 - 1939 revolt the British peel commission decided that there had to be an independent Jewish state because the Palestinians were not going to stop trying to massacre the Jews. the Palestinians responded by revolting further and committing more attacks on the Jews. the Palestinians leadership even joined the Nazis.
Israel wasn't created to steal land from the Palestinians. it was created because the Palestinians were incapable of living in peace with the Jews.
The Palestinians have been in control of the region in civilized times. In passing from the Ottomans to the British, they were to remain in power; however, terrorist actions and foreign support belittled the rule of the Muslim peoples and instituted Israel's rule.
once again, I understand you aren't arguing against me, but it doesn't we are arguing the same thing.
i am not debating if Israel would be an appropriate location, I'm hoping to debate whether the method and series of steps that led to the independence are defensible.
also, I'd love to hear from the rest of the disagree voters as well.
I suppose they could have carved a state out of someone else, but the same problem would exist. no one was going to volunteer to give up any land worth having for them. anyone they took the land from was going to cry foul. the bottom line was that they needed a state. it may as well be their ancestral homeland as anywhere else.
shucks buff. I was counting on you for pushback on this issue lol. the Israel Palestine conflict is one where I typically break with most left wingers. :p
you explained why they needed to push for "an" independent state, which is commonly accepted by most people on either side, but the push for "the" independent state of Israel is where the left often cries foul.
the rest of the world and history aside. I believe the events that lead to the creation of Israel were justified on the part of the Jewish settlers and even commendable at times.
I agree. Jewish independence came largely because the Palestinians (and of course everyone else) wouldn't stop trying to kill and discriminate against them. some even sided with the Nazis. they had no choice but to push for an independent state to protect themselves.
it is true if you look at the region at the beginning of the century, and skip ahead to 1950, it does look like something fishy happened.
however if one examines all the steps individually, the Jewish settlers in that region did nothing wrong and were in fact subject to xenophobic attacks against them without even retaliating for an entire decade.