Ah. Looking at the map, I realize the problem. The Brits were raised on Caesar’s Punic Wars. Whenever they created a nation they had to divide it into three parts.
I would like to repeat, what the hell kind of thought was that?
So, after looking at that map, who here thinks there’s any chance of returning to those borders? I keep hearing people say they should do it…
Well, I think most of the people want Israel to return to the borders as of the 1949 armistice agreement, which you can see here:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/map4.html
The dotted line on that map is the so called “Green line”, which marks Israel’s 1949 borders. That state still has its problems (it’s narrow…only 13 miles wide at its narrowest point, but at least its a contingent state. Unfortunately, the 1949 war left the Palestinians without a state, as the Arab parts of the partition were annexed by Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
Just for fun, you might want to check these maps, which include some alternate proposed partitions (including one set which makes Tel-Aviv Arab!).
Don’t try to dissemble, it’s all your fault. What are you saving Greenland for? Couldn’t you offer it to long suffering people in search of home, at least on a lucrative lease basis? To shame!
On a serious note, nobody wanted Jews anywhere near, before WWII or after, all the nice words notwithstanding. So far there was little comment about Zionist movement buying land in Palestine and organizing migration of Jewish people there since late XIX century. Was not that an act of desperation? While Arab landowners were happy to get a good price on worthless plot of land, local Arabs gradually began to worry. After some time they started ambushing and killing new-coming Jews. Jews responded with - guess what? - setting up bombs in public places. Alessan gives the rest of the story.
Also, don’t overlook the role of USSR in the establishment of Israel. There was practically a race between US and USSR who was going to recognize Israel first. Stalin was seriously planning for Jewish Communist forepost in the Middle East and encouraging some trusted Soviet Jewish communists to go there to take control over things.
An excellent book to read about the creation of Israel is Non-Jewish Zionism , by Regina Sharif. It’s short and well-detailed. Although biased, it’s still well worth reading. It explores how influential the West, particularly Britain, was in Israel’s success at nationhood.
I wonder if you added up how much money and blood has been spent to defend Israel over the past 56 years, what the total would be. It has to have been the most costly piece of real estate in the world. I once read that a Zionist state had once been planned for Rhodisia…perhaps it would have been better to have taken that route.
It’s too late now, of course, but I had one history professor who said that in 1947 the Zioists would have settled for the equivalent area anywhere, in part of newly liberated Turkey, in the Sudan, in Utah, to be like an Indian reservation or enclave state. No idea if he was blowing smoke or if Truman and Stalin were floating those sorts of balloons.
Turkey & to a lesser extent Egypt. While one can question the status of these as ‘democracies,’ the same question can validly be raised with regard to Israel also.
Turkey is almost entirely in the Middle East/Asia Minor, with a sliver across the Bosphoros river in Europe.
Democracy since c.1921 per Ataturk. Maybe later but certainly well before the modern state of Israel.
And Iran is a democracy or so they say, an Islamic one at that. And of course East Germany and Soviet were shining examples of democracies, or so they said. Most other people were of a somewhat different opinion. And you did specifically say ”active democracies before Israel”, and while I have little problem with democracy and Turkey today, in 1948 I don’t think so. However, does Turkey even count as a middle eastern country? As for Egypt: 1948 nope. 2004 Nope.
I think you should have stuck to the Greek city-states of the Levant. Like for instance Miletus wherefrom Thales, the father of philosophy came. The Greeks when they wanted to poke a little fun at the Miletusians would say this of them: ”They once were brave” hmmm… reminds me of Spain (now where’s the stone I should crawl back under…).
As per previous post: Yes Turkey does count as a middle eastern country. What else could it be? I half suspect there is a mindset at work viz “It’s modern and democratic: how could it be Middle Eastern?” That’s hardly fair now is it?
On checking, Rune is correct, Democracy arrived formally in Turkey in 1950. That said, Ataturk began the process of modernisation and movement towards democracy c.1920
As to use of the plural, well, I overlooked that the question was addressed to the past. Others have mentioned early Levantine democracies.
The main point: Israel the only ME democracy? No way.
On further checking Turkey first held elections in 1923. Arguably qualifying as a democracy at that point. And, need I say, bearing out my earlier claim of democracy prior to the state of Israel.
The Graduation to Parliamentary Democracy occurred in 1950.
No, no it can’t.
Turkey is clearly a democracy, albeit one with some problems. Egypt is no more a democracy than the former Soviet Union, and in no way comparable to Israel.
One can quibble about the “regional definition” of Turkey, as to whether it is more European than Middle Eastern (for example, Turkey wishes to be part of the EU). One cannot quibble - legitimately - as to whether Israel is or is not a democracy.
Assuming that Turkey is considered middle eastern, there is two democracies in the region - Turkey, and Israel. From what I understand, Turkey became a real democracy in 1950. Israel, in 1948.
No, there’s no quibbling about the regional definition of Turkey. Geography is hard and fast.
My now complete researches reveal Turkey became a democracy in 1923. 1950 was the first occasion an opposing party won power. There is no suggestion previous elections were illegitimate. The best current comparison is South Africa, where one party maintains popularity over a lengthy period after the transition to democracy.
Secondly, on the contrary one can quibble as to whether Israel is a democracy, quite legitimately. There is a popular comparison with pre-democratic South Africa, amongst other reservations.
However I’m glad to see we can rest on the death of the “Only Democracy…” canard.
As someone noted above, the “Middle East” is a region, not a geographic entity as in “Australia”. The exact dimensions of this region are indeed open for debate. Thus, for example, many people would say that Egypt is in the ME although it is also in Africa … but Morocco is not in the ME, although it, like Egypt, is in north Africa and is a Muslim country. Similarly, Iran is in the ME, but Pakistan is questionable, and India is definitely not (remembering that “Pakistan” and “India” were originally carved out of British possessions, and that “British India” was not considered ME).
The ME is a matter of definition, and Turkey is a questionable case. It is most certainly arguable that Turkey is a european nation, and not part of the ME - an argument that will be strengthened when Turkey joins the EU.
I would be curious as to why you think there is a legitimate argument that Israel is “not democratic”. I confess the notion is strange and, I think, somewhat absurd.
So I am afraid that the “canard” is alive and well, all depending on how one defines the nature of the region - which is not, as you state, a geographic entity in the sense of having fixed, definite borders cast in stone, but is an entirely man-made concept.
Middle East:…
“…Thus defined it includes the Asian parts of Turkey…”
Colombia Encyclopedia
I’ve never come across a definition that doesn’t include Asian Turkey, by far the majority of the country.
Nor have I heard it argued that the ME isn’t geographically defined. Nor have I heard the argument that there is any ambiguity either of these. If you have an alternative authority please share it.
Israel arguments:
nb, I don’t intend to comment on the merit of these arguments, merely to note that these are fact based arguments, which may legitimately reflect on the quality of Israel’s democracy.
I note your quote begins with the words “…thus defined”. Doesn’t that sort of, you know, prove my point rather than yours? 
Your argument seems to be that Turkey, being mostly in this geographic category we have called the “Middle East”, is thereby a “middle eastern country”. Fair enough; many people believe so.
My argument is that this region we call the “ME” is an amalgam of historical definitions, which make no inherent sense whatsoever, and are based partly on geography, partly on ethnicity, partly on religion - none of which are by themselves satisfactory.
Clearly, there is absolutely nothing “inevitable” about the lines of this area. Turkey - partly in Europe and partly in Asia - can in effect choose which cultural, ethnic, political and geographic entity it wishes to be associated with, as extracts from this article suggests, it would rather be associated with Europe:
"Europe’s path for Turkey
Javier Solana IHT Saturday, December 7, 2002
Via Cyprus
BRUSSELS Turkey is a subject of intense discussion in Europe today. The reasons are obvious - the change in the political landscape in Ankara and the expectations this has generated; the historic opportunity for a solution to the Cyprus issue offered by Kofi Annan; and the decisions to be made this month by the European Council at Copenhagen on the next steps in the EU enlargement process.
… snip …
Turkey has already booked its place in Europe. In December 1999 the European Council recognized Turkey’s full candidate status. This was unanimously agreed upon by the 15 EU heads of state and government.
.
No one challenged that decision. No one can challenge it today on the grounds of geography. To do so would endanger the enlargement process and the principle of inclusiveness which has sustained it.
.
What is at stake here is the very principle which lies at the origin of the European Union, a conviction close to the heart of Europeans, including those about to join the EU. It must continue to determine our future.
.
If Turkey wishes to assume its place in Europe, then, like all other candidate countries before it, Turkey itself must chart the course that gets it there. Only Turkey can answer two crucial questions: Can it take the road to Europe? And does it wish to do so?
… snip …".
As for the arguments that Israel is not a democracy, they are it seems unworthy of debate. Whether or not Israel asserts sovereign control over conquored territories does not impact the issue of democracy at all in any meaningful way; and whether or not Israel discriminates against certain citizens has no bearing, either (the US “was a democracy” prior to the demise of Jim Crow laws!). They do not rise to the definition of reasonable - unlike the definition of whether Turkey is part of the ME or not, which I think reasonable people can disagree over.
In brief; Malthus you cannot produce a definition of the ME which does not include Asian Turkey.
If you wish to argue that Turkey may be culturally shifted from that location, it’s as plausible to argue that Israel was never a part. It’s always unwise to stray into the territory of meaningless definitions.
Further, you err in arguing that disenfranchisement or discriminatory treatment of persons within it’s sovereignty does not militate against the claim of Israel to be a democracy.
I warn you I may be forced to resort to definitions again.
I know I am a bit late, but this comment is annoying me.
It is true that in the very beginnings of the political Zionist movement several areas were discussed: including, Argentina, Uganda, the Sinai, among others. However, the 1st Zionist Conference in 1897 expressly declared their intention of a Jewish nation in Palestine. (Herzl, one of the founding fathers of the Zionist movement, was against this proposition, however, once Palestine had been agreed upon he put all his support behind it.) In 1947 the Zionists had no intention of creating a Jewish homeland anywhere other than where they were at that point - Palestine.
Clearly, you disagree. But to disagree is not, I am afraid, an argument.
I have demonstrated the error of your previous definition and offered one of my own - although it is admittedly not mine, but that of the writer of the article on Turkey and the EU that I quoted: Turkey seeks to be part of the teritorial, legal and economic unit known as “europe”, which is not strictly bounded by geography (but is not entirely free of geographical constraints either).
I am sorry if you are uncomfortable with the fact that not everything in this world is bounded by black and white, hard and fast definitions. As much as you would like things to be simple. I’m afraid I can’t simply agree to your simplistic POV where it is contradicted by the somewhat more difficult and ambiguous reality of the matter at hand.
Last I checked, everyone within the country of Israel had a meaningful vote - including its Arab inhabitants (unlike the inhabitants of any predominantly Arab country, I may add).
Naturally, the people living in the former territories of Egypt and Jordan taken in war do not. Those territories are not Israel, and the inhabitants of those territories have no wish to be Israelis - they, as all agree, are to be citizens of a different country, and when that happens, they may vote as they please (assuming Palistine will be a democracy).
If I “err in arguing that disenfranchisement or discriminatory treatment of persons within it’s sovereignty does not militate against the claim of Israel to be a democracy”, then perhaps you are labouring under the belief that the US is “not a democracy”?
Last I checked, the people of Iraq had no vote in US elections. Like the Palistinians, they have been conqoured by the soldiers of a democracy; like them, they have not been offered citizenship, and may not vote in US elections. As everyone knows, the US had no UN authority to take that territory.
So, if I may pose a direct question, is the US “claim to be a democracy” a valid one - in your opinion? 