Dunno. Maybe doing something along those lines would be worth doing. After all the other path leads to certain disaster.
A rough and ready analogy would be:
You have ancestors from Hawaii. For millenia, your entire culture has revolved around the importance of Hawaii to your people. Then you and other of your people buy land in Hawaii.
Suddenly, in a massive global war the likes of which we’ve never seen, the US falls as an entity, it no longer exists. Hawaii comes under the jurisdiction of Sweden, and Sweden later says your people can live there, decides that your people can’t actually immigrate there, decides that, after all, your people can claim sovereignty there… and then simply buggers off while you’ve accepted a partition plan that would see you living side by side with other Hawaiians.
Except that they declare a war of extermination and try to commit genocide. Then, years later when other Hawaiians try to exterminate you again, you happen to take a city that your people have venerated for millenia and whose use was denied to them by the power who controlled it before that war.
I pointed out one way in which Israel got arms. I’d still like for you to try to explain how it was “the international community” that negotiated with the mafia on the NY docks.
If you claim that the international community armed Israel, you’re going to have a real hard time coming up with any cites.
They already existed as a state at that point. That they were recognized does not change the fact that they already existed due to Israelis fighting against the Arab invasion and winning with no global support, at all.
No. It’s akin to saying that what did happen, did happen, and that your false-to-facts “common sense” coupled with a general ignorance of history getting in the way of an understanding of what happened.
Some of the aircraft were WWII vintage from Great Britain and Germany, nations not favorable to Israel or Jews. 
That many early Zionists were to varying degrees secular does not invalidate what I wrote. The roots of Zionism indisputably include religious traditions that link Jews to the area of (holy) land that was promised by God to the line of Abraham and Isaac. That is hardly secular, and it is just the starting point.
Of course, it is easy to weasel out of this point by citing the duality of the word Jew to refer as both an ethnic group and a religion, but the division you mention between the secular and religious political movements endures to this day. Clearly there are no easy answers.
As for the (original) point challenging the secularity of Israel, I note comments in a 2008 speech by then Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni
that touch on this issue (both today and historically):
A matter of religion **and **nationality. As I stated in my earlier post.
Not wrong. Whatever the explanation for it, you will note that this secular state of Israel has a number of features of a religious state. Some as a result of its founding and some as a result of the disproportionate influence of the orthodox community that you refer to, the result is a state that is in practice less secular than the poster I was responding to originally claimed.
That is nonsense and displays a lack of understanding or willful ignorance of diplomacy and its importance in securing international agreements, borders, assistance, etc. Israel, like it or not, was made possible first and foremost by all the paperwork and talk that you so blithely dismiss. That is not to say that other efforts did not come into play: obviously declaration of independence and war have reams to do with this, and I am not disputing their importance - merely providing a reminder to guys who like to talk tough that there is a lot more behind the existence of Israel than their glistening Zohan chests.
181 is directly and incontrovertibly mentioned right there in the declaration of Israeli independence representing reason, justification, and instance of international approval for the existence of Israel. Paper pushers and bureaucrats might be less glamorous than the myth of the warrior, but are still very important.
Do you believe that Israel, had Zionism and the Jewish problem not had the (net positive) support of the LoN and UN, would still have come into existence and been recognized as a sovereign state? If you do, you hold an absurd and revisionist view. If you do not, then you agree with the point I originally made.
Not at all. Without international support and sympathy, Zionists in the region would most likely have been crushed by the local Palestinian populations and the British long before they became a force to contend with. Even the mighty oak was once a small nut.
Next, we will learn that Jews who were founding their country single-handedly triumphed against the Axis in WWII. Your point of view goes out of its way to ignore work of people like the Australian statesman Dr. H V Evatt, whose efforts led to the UN decision to partition Palestine, which paved the way to the establishment of Israel half a year later.
Whether you personally recognize the importance of diplomacy and international recognition is irrelevant.
As an another example, in the nearly 30 years of British Mandate period the British position undeniably endorsed a Jewish national home in Palestine. Arabs perceived this as a policy of protection for the Suez Canal and the route to India; whether that is true or not, this was part of the groundwork for what would later become Israel.
Recognition is the first and most fundamental requirement for International legitimacy of a country, and Israel received crucial recognition early on, including from the US, which otherwise did not formally provide assistance until (I believe) after 1948 independence:
Once again, let us look to my previous example of Kosovo. By far their most pressing business has been international recognition of their sovereignty since declaring independence - something they have only partially accomplished.
“All” I have has already been provided and largely ignored or misinterpreted by you. If you are going to take the childish view that “pieces of paper” and international agreements do not matter, I certainly cannot help you with that. I will repeat however that Israel was created in and made possible by international law. Ably defended following that, to be sure, but nonetheless originating in international diplomacy and policy.
EDIT: in this post I seem to have confused responses from **FinnAgain **and **Malthus **that made very similar points (the text quoted is from Finn, but some of the responses are actually for Matlhus).
I forgot to bring up Aliyah in the part where I talked about religion and secularism. Aliyah is
I cite the above to highlight the duality of the Israeli state, something that is explicitly mentioned in the Livni speech I quoted. What we have here is a **purely **religious article and tradition adapted for use within the framework of a titularly secular state. It manages to be both secular and religious (though IMO skews more to the religious).
First off, no, the facts of the matter clearly show that Zionism in its inception was secular, in its practice it was largely secular, and in its goals it was secular. It was a nationalistic, not a religious movement.
And, of course, Livni is hardly the authority on the Essence of Israel, anyway. It’s a bit funny… it’s a bit like someone quoting Bush or Obama to ‘prove’ What America Really Is About.
Good job though with a wiki cite though. :rolleyes: Of course, the actual claim you cited, that making Aliyah is solely the “religious recognition of the holiness” of blah blah blah is, go figure, uncited. And then the schizoid, yahoo (emphasis on yahoo) created article goes on to say that, no, making Aliyah isn’t about religious recognition of anything, but “immigration for ideological, emotional, or practical reasons”. So some random yahoo put an uncited claim into a wiki page, that’s then disputed by the same article by another uncited claim, and you’re actually citing it? For serious?
Rather unsurprisingly, it’s used in a religious sense when people talk about going up to the bimah, and a largely secular sense when they’re talking about simply immigrating. A good clue for this should be that the early waves of secular Zionists are referred to as the first waves of Aliyah.
No, it can’t be “not wrong” and then “whatever the explanation”. The fact of the matter is that without the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox voting blocs, we simply would not see the same results. Thus, if that one variable is changed, we don’t get today’s current situation, which shows that Israel’s “religious character” does not, in fact, lead to those results.
You seem to do a lot flustered asserting and pretty much no ‘providing proof’.
So why don’t you at least attempt to show how whatever you claim Israel’s religious nature is would somehow translate into non-Orthodox voting in line with positions that only the Orthodox hold.
A simple thought experiment shows that your claims are full of shit. If the Orthodox disappeared tomorrow, a voting bloc wouldn’t suddenly rise up to replace them since “ZOMG! Israel is founded on religious principles!” This should show anybody interested in the facts that the religious laws in Israel are maintained due to the Orthodox voting bloc, and nothing else.
Lots of bluster, no substance. Added babbling about “lack of understanding” and “willful ignorance” rather than simply admitting you were wrong and backed yourself into a corner with a silly and ignorant bit of twaddle. Good job there.
Think about this rationally. Imagine that there were no meaningless statements that were never enforced. What would have been different in 1948? Would the Jews have left? No. Would the Jews have decided they no longer wanted self determination? No. Would the Arabs have let them have a state without a war? No.
In other words, nothing at all would have changed, because the meaningless gestures and unenforced UN blather did nothing.
Instead of repeating your false-to-facts assertion yet again, please show what any of the meaningless words and posturing actually did. Show how the Israelis were able to fight for their lives and their claims of self determination, even in a tiny part, due to the British. Or the UN. Or whatever. Show how a single Egyptian tank was stopped by the British government’s warm intentions.
Of course, you can’t.
You got me! I don’t know how I missed that the last time. If only I’d pointed out that it was fine rhetoric and all, but it no more meant that it did anything than the US Declaration of Independence meant that Nature’s God allowed the US to be created.
Oh wait, I did.
Yeah, they mentioned a contemporary resolution. Are you honestly suggesting that without it, they’d have just packed up shop and become Jordanians and Egyptians? And you still have not shown a single thing 181 did.
Is it really so hard? To even attempt to back up your own claim?
Come on, show what it did. Not what it said, not who referenced it to justify what they were already going to do. Show what it did if it’s your claim that it did anything.
First you shift the goalposts from the state of Israel being established (which did not require the UN to do jack, and which, in fact, the UN did jack to bring about) to international recognition of Israel. Then, of course, you attempt to poison the well by claiming that the rather obvious fact of the matter, namely that if enough nations were willing to vote for 181 they’d have recognized Israel anyway, shows that someone holds a “revisionist” view. You could at the very least use the word “revisionist” correctly, eh?
What are you going on about?
What “international support” was there that you’re claiming, exactly? Or was this the same phantom armaments that ben is talking about? How many “international supports”, exactly, joined the Haganah or other organizations which actually kept the Jews from being attacked as freely as some might have wanted? And speaking of revisionist history (and using the word correctly), what on Earth are you talking about with the British crushing the Jews? There never was any British drive to crush the Jews, let alone one that was tempered by international support. Further, Britain did maintain a racist policy limiting Jewish immigration for quite some time, and the “international support” for the Jews on that matter accomplished how much of a revision on that front, exactly? You are aware that even after WWII Jews were still being held in Displaced Persons camps and not being allowed into the Levant, right?
Bangup job that international support did there, right?
The actual facts are:
- the partition plan was rejected by the Arabs
- the partition plan did not form the basis of what Israel became, as its actual boundaries were formed 100% by combat and 0% by a partition plan that was ignored by every state that launched the war of extermination in 1948
- the Zionists would not have simply rolled over and became Egyptians and Jordanians if the partition plan had not been offered. This is proven by the fact that even though the partition never actually did anything and never went into effect, they still declared independence.
This isn’t exactly rocket science here.
You’ve made a claim, and you have yet to even attempt to support it.
I know it’s hard as the facts clearly refute what you’re selling, but come on, at least try.
So far your argument is functionally equivalent to saying “Sam and Martha can get married and have a long and successful marriage” and then when they actually fall in love and get married and do 100% of the work that’s required to make a marriage work, you step in and say “See? I did that! I said they could do that and then it happened. I laid the groundwork. It’s because of me. If you don’t understand that you’re willfully ignorant of how diplomacy works.”
It’s just freakin’ silly.
What do you even think you’re talking about?
During the Mandate there were riots against Jewish presence, the Arabs successfully lobbied the British to try to keep Jews out and one of the main leaders of Arab nationalism was a close ally of the Nazis. Many of the Arab states, in fact, celebrated the Nazis campaign and looked at it as a way to remove the British and French from the region.
Further, the actual groundwork for the state of Israel was forged by the Jews living there who created social services and the structures of government which would be needed by a sovereign state.
Whatever the heck you think that Arab “perceptions” of British motivations had to do with the groundwork for the state of Israel is evidently known only to you, as you didn’t even bother to explain this causal relationship you’re alleging. Come on, try to finally provide at least a tiny but of substantiation for your claims that the rhetoric did anything.
Enough silliness about “recognition”.
All that argument boils down to is that the Zionists still would have wanted self determination, still would have been attacked, still would have won and created Israel with 0 international help… but recognition would have been a separate issue. Of course, if you leave the goalposts right where they are, it’s clear that you’re dramatically wrong and Israel was created via military action and military action alone, all the warm wishes amounted to nothing at all once the tanks started to roll. If you shift the goalposts to “the international community wouldn’t have recognized Israel unless the international community recognized Israel” then no shit.
I see. It’s “childish” of me to expect you to even pretend to support your own position, but very adult of you to claim that pieces of paper which did absolutely nothing, at all, did a lot and that anybody who disagrees with you is a poopyhead.
Yet again, please at least try to show what any rhetoric/warm regards/toothless resolutions did. So far all you’ve got is that 181 allowed the Israelis to claim it as justification for what they were going to do anyway and what they did without 1 UN boot on the ground in any case.
At least try to support your position please.
Yes yes, you’re very good at repeating.
Yet again, show how many Syrian infantry were killed by international law, or how Israeli logistics were supported by International Good Will. Show how the Zionsts said they’d have given up if not for Balfour. Or the Mandate. Or 181. Show how a single word that anybody wrote, said, yelled or sent via smoke signal actually did anything.
You won’t, because you can’t.
I really don’t know why I even try to say anything in these threads. The likes of Finnagain and Alessan have the rhetoric and propagandised view of history down so well I can’t hope to foot it in a rational argument without spending my life researching the relevant history.
However I don’t need a degree in history to have common logic on my side. That a nation, oir any group of people can acquire weapons, training, communications and the like just all by themselves is totally off the wall. Ya, sure the mafia may well have helped to ship weapons, but where did they come from?
And then, to put it into a current analogy - suppose the UN got wind that North Korea is giving nuclear weapons to Timbuktoo they’re gonna just sit by and do nothing?
I would also be quite curious, following the establishment of Israel wasn’t there a massive influx of “jewish” immigration with the key determinant being that you needed to be able to show some jewish ancestry?
Hadn’t many of these people lived for many generations in “other” homelands? This being the case why are they still recognising Israel as a homeland if not for religious reasons? To say that much of the events were founded on “nationalism” a great many of the participants were 3rd 4th or 5th generations of another nation seems kinda disingenuous to me.
That’s not to say that your religious identity is not every bit as important to you, or equally as valid a reason to be driven to act, just that you shouldn’t be trying claim otherwise.
I would like to point out that **Alessan **appeared to be genuinely frustrated and addressed by quite a few posters at the same time, which I think led him to be overly defensive on the topic. It’s easy to lose one’s cool in these circumstances. Let’s remember there are no happy people in the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and tensions do run pretty high even in day to day conversation.
I know it’s like… so unfair! You have to know what you’re talking about and understand how history actually fit together in context or else those who do know that stuff will totally beat you down with facts. You know, the bad kind of facts, the ones you weren’t aware of: propaganda.
You claim that someone helped? Okay, find a cite. Go for it.
Because even a cursory knowledge of history would really help you out here. First, after WWII many nations were mothballing or simply selling off surplus arms. Second, they were selling off surplus manufacturing devices which could, themselves, be used to fabricate weaponry. Third, many Jews served in the war and/or in the Haganah. Etc, etc, etc. You might want to read The Pledge, it’s an excellent book.
You can make whatever claims you’d like, but until you have even a baseline knowledge of what actually went on, you’re just arguing from a position of ignorance. And you could actually apply some logic to your thought processes. If, in America they had to use the mafia to transport weaponry, then rather obviously they didn’t have official government support of any government, otherwise that government could have simply shipped the weapons itself.
Yet again, you’re making claims about something you’re ignorant of. Why don’t you tell us what you believe the UN did about the arms which were being shipped into Israel, and which nations were doing the arms trafficking.
- No, there was a massive influx because hundreds of thousands of Jews were driven out of their ancestral homes all over the Middle East and many settled in israel.
- The Law of Return has always required that someone be Jewish.
- Why you put the word Jewish in hard quotes, and in lower case, is beyond me.
Of course it does, you’re ignorant about what actually happened. Yes, Zionism was a nationalistic movement. Yes, when many Jews saw that they weren’t actually considered citizens of their homelands (Russia, Germany, etc…), they got the hell out. And yes, many Jews considered Israel to be their ancestral homeland because their ancestors lived there (go figure). So?
This is a total non sequitor.
To begin with, in order to invoke the Law of Return, one has to prove Jewish ancestry. Not religiously Jewish ancestry. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to address with that comment, as it seems divorced from anything else in this thread.
My grandfather, WWII military surplus, off the table, paid for in paper as metal scrap, paid for futher in gold, done during churchtime on sundays.
lowercase j - no specific intent other than poor timing on the shift key
So of course you’re going to provide me with a cite that places like Russia, Germany et al were revoking the citizenship of anyone that had Jewish ancestry right?
Yes, I am very sure that many people got rifles, maybe handgrenades and light weapons from war surplus and such like. But really - what about heavy weapons? Nations really didn’t care about some group militants (that’s what they were right? They weren’t “state sponsored” because by your own words there wasn’t a state to sponsor them) were amassing weapons and going to war?
And BTW - its not a matter of you arguing from a base of knowledge and facts being unfair. More power to you. Its more a matter that every fact in history has more than one motivation. Every action has more than one interpretation.
Speaking of my own country’s history. In the 1800s “the vote” was given to all landowners. This was considered (and caused great conflicts) to be disenfranchising the Maori. Why? At the time Maori collectively owned vast tracts of land. They were free to purchase land and were prosperous members of society. I will give you a clue - it was because Maori themselves vested all land ownership within the tribe, and did not recognise the concept of “personal” ownership. The policy, which on its face was fair (and considered by the British to be fair due to their own land ownership concept), caused lots of problems. It led to tribal lands being split up and sold.
The point I am trying to make? I am very sure your facts are correct. I am also very sure that there is more than one interpretation, motivating factor, consequent action and background to your fact. That is the nature of history. These are the things that I do not have the depth of knowledge to argue you on. I suspect also that good as your knowledge is, there is a great deal that you don’t know surrounding the events for which you are throwing indisputable facts at me.
It was certainly as you describe it a nationalistic movement, but it was hardly as secular in practice as you present it (not least because of its origins in religious principles). At least, the results of Zionism weren’t secular; I don’t doubt that a good deal of Zionists were indeed so.
I included that quote as an illustration of the issue provided by a top Israeli leader and representative issuing a (presumably) government approved message explaining some of the characteristics of Israel to an external audience. When Obama (forget Bush) speaks about America, he is putting out a carefully crafted message that originates from more than one person and probably more than one department. Same with Livni.
Lovely posturing, but I never cited the claim that “Aliyah is solely the “religious recognition of the holiness” of blah blah”. That is - like much of this discussion - entirely of your manufacture.
You are again wrong in your characterization (and demonization) of the article in question: it does not contradict itself by stating that aliyah “isn’t about religious recognition”. That is your own artifact.
The article simply notes that aliyah is a religious concept that was adopted in Zionism. In fact, the article goes on to explain the point I have been making:
Note that I am not denying either significance – you are. Slightly similar issues exist in other countries. For example, see the modern objections to religious holidays in the US. Is Christmas a religious holiday or a secular one? In spite of its religious origins, Christmas is certainly secular to atheists and non-observing Christians who celebrate it as a seasonal and commercial holiday. But at the same time it is a deeply religious occasion for practicing Christians.
Of course it can. Post after post, you are developing an alarming knack for misreading and misinterpreting anything in sight. Do you **want **a fight? Is this how you feel you can best contribute to Israel?
Whatever the reasons (notice the phrasing?) and particulars of its genesis, what we have under consideration is a titularly secular state with a number of features you would not normally expect in a secular state (like privileged status of Jews, Sabbath shut-downs, bans against some products, the Haredim influence you mention, etc.). That is not to say the situation is immutable, it is simply an observation.
I see no need to. I have already provided examples of non-secular characteristics of Israel, as well as discussed the secular origins of the nation. But fret not: Israel is hardly alone in struggling with its secular and religious duality. Turkey is a titularly secular country that in practice is increasingly dominated by Islamic ideology, in spite of formally recognizing or promoting no official religions. The founding articles of the Turkish republic include constitutionally non-alterable secularism and a direct rejection of religion from all affairs of state. There are few partial nods to the overwhelmingly dominant faith, chief of which was the creation of the position of Presidency of Religious affairs; this is somewhat similar to giving the Rabbinate in Israel jurisdiction over religious and marital and other affairs, except that the powers of the Presidency are less reaching. Israel and "the other democracy in the Middle East do share quite a few similarities.
Since inception, Jews and Judaism have enjoyed special privilege in Israel in spite of the secularism of the new nation and its equality and recognition of all peoples. This is addressed in an interesting 2005 piece for Harper’s magazine by the eloquent Bernard Avishai, in which he explains that one side of the problem is (oh, look) “the Zionist movement’s historic (and largely opportunistic) merging of rabbinic and state power”:
That essay eventually evolved into the book The Hebrew Republic, summarized thus:
You’re a regular tough guy. The point was simple and the substance is right there in the extract you quoted, but you were too busy projecting your heroic image to see it: diplomacy is of extreme “importance in securing international agreements, borders, assistance, etc.” That’s it. States do not survive without the aforementioned, no matter how many tough guys like you they may have.
Try provide a cite instead of using such revisionism and/or alternate history in lieu of real arguments. Even after 60 years, resolution 181 (and the larger efforts of the UN and LoN over decades) are regularly and universally cited as paving the way for the creation of the state of Israel. Pretty much everywhere, including the cites I have previously provided and the document that the Israeli state is founded on, already.
Fortunately for Israel, the founding fathers did not share such lack of long-term vision and were very much aware of the importance of international acceptance and support:
First, the two documents originate from entirely different historical and political eras under very different circumstances. It’s 1776 versus 1948; use of language and cultural expectations shift a fair bit over centuries. Whereas it was not only ordinary in 1776 but *expected *to mention God and make the necessary religious noises, it was a completely different story for Israel.
Zionism, was largely secular in the political sense, and was certainly the pinnacle of secularism compared to the orthodox factions. It still resulted in a declaration of independence that was carefully crafted to appease **both **secular and religious groups. This means that from the very inception of the Jewish state secularism was forced to contend with religious factions, a problem that has become institutional in Israeli politics. Israel is not quite as secular as you have maintained.
More correctly, you are unable or unwilling to perceive the arguments provided. What 181, the UN, the LoN, and all the hard work put in by thousands of people over several years **did **was to provide a legitimate basis, international framework, and launching pad for a Jewish state. You can go on and on about how the Zionists would have taken what they wanted in a manly fashion, but that would just be another excursion into alternate history.
I am skipping the childish rants of the next several blocks of text (including lovely examples of argument by misapplied analogy) to reach this:
The various developments that contributed to the right opportunity for Israel to exist, of course, and how differently they were perceived by the parties involved. Some Arabs at the time argued that the support for the Jewish homeland was nothing but a foreign plot to control the Suez Canal.
Ever since Balfour, the sources I have seen appear to agree that the British maintained a clear goal to see Palestine become the Jewish homeland. That there were considerable difficulties (not to mention the largest war in mankind’s history) in the way and that progress was frequently stalled is true, but it appears there is a very aggressive revisionism occurring in your argument, a political movement to extirpate any and all contributions to the establishment of Israel that do not qualify as Jewish in origin.
Here is Balfour hinting at some of the complexities of the case and showing just how little support and goodwill the Jews enjoyed from the superpowers:
So much for the dearth of support for Jews, the successful Arab lobbying, the Nazi influence, the oppression on all sides, etc. Of the peoples in Palestine, the Jews appear to have been the ones consistently favoured by the International powers. But you claim it was all zero help - material, logistical, moral, legal, or otherwise: the Jews did everything by themselves.
I am snipping most of this because you’ve convinced me. Colonialism is not the right word, and going to war to take Jerusalem for the UN would be a bad idea.
All this sounds more like damage control than deliberate UN action to me. Of course the UN is made up of many member states and within those member states are going to be sovereign actors who work under the aegis of the UN to further their own agenda. Coloring it as “UN Conspiracy” seems a little overwrought to me. I can understand that the UN has a history of bungling and that individuals within the organization have used UN resources to the detriment of Israel, but this whole, “The UN is anti-Israel meme.”, strikes me as hokey hyperbole. Hezbollah impersonated the UN, and that’s somehow the UN’s fault? Come on! If some dudes impersonated the NYPD and raped some girl from NYU, would that be the NYPDs fault?
It is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies can be true, but it’s still a conspiracy theory. (sorry it’s a pet peeve of mine to use conspiracy theory to mean only those theories which are factually inaccurate.) But based on your sites it sounds more to me like bureaucratic bungling in the face of people using the UN imprimatur to attack Israel, and not an example of the UN attacking Israel.
Uh. No.
My grandfather was a scrap metal dealer. You know back in the day there was a guy with a cart, and kids would find scrap metal and give it to him?
Right. So he brought it back to his boss. Sold it to him.
His boss sold it to his boss.
His boss sold it to my grandfather’s company. Controlled all the scrap metal up and down the eastern seaboard. As in, we scrapped most of the liberty ships, artillery pieces, jeeps, tanks, you name it.
My family has a long history of causing trouble. I’m damn proud of my grandfather for that one, though.
(Oh, and before you ask, no, he was Irish, not Jewish.)
The problem you have is that you are simply wrong on the historical facts. If you were correct, it would be a relativly simple matter to prove: you could point to sources indicating significant actual military support for the Israeli state by other nations in 1948.
As to “where did they get the training?”, that is actually a good question; the answer lies in the major war just passed - WW2. For example, Israeli general Moshe Dayan (you may have heard of him - he of the famous eyepatch) got his trademark injury fighting on behalf of the British against the Vichy in Syria in WW2. Many Israeli soldiers got professional training in this manner, as well as in the pre-existing “underground army” of the Haganah (the same Dayan was earlier arrested by the British, only to be released to fight on their side in WW2).
As for arms, the Israelis to a large extent made their own, or stole or bought them in what was described as a “massive covert arms operation”:
They also received help, not from the “international community”, but from oddball outsiders like Gordon Levett (the Israelis at first thought he was a British spy!) and from the soon-to-be-snuffed-out government of Czechoslovakia, from arms left surplus from WW2:
Far from helping the Israelis, the official “international community” such as the Brits were intent on dis-arming them.
As for ethnic identity, you are quite wrong on that point as well - witness the fact that many of those arguing against you are Jewish by ethnicity, but tend towards atheism. A person can very easily have loyalty or strong feelings of self-identification towards a group that is defined by its religion without actually being religious: Jews are a “people” and not merely a religion like say Anglicanism. If you do not understand this, you will never understand the situation in Israel.
It’s not exactly brilliant to deny something that takes me 3 seconds to show is a fabrication. Let’s go to the instant replay, shall we?
Notice, three things, and three things only.
- going up to the bimah
- the ancient pilgrimage to Jerusalem
- the solely religious significance to immigration to Israel.
Why you deny your own cite and pretend I’m making things up is beyond me, but it shows how you’re debating. You seem to like inventing claims that I’ve invented claims. It’s strange behavior, but I’ve seen it a lot in other folks, like people who fabricate details to claim that someone else has fabricated details. It’s an elaborate form of “I know you are but what am I?!?!”
And yes, as I already pointed out your uncited, mob-created, shizoid and self-contradictory wiki article goes on to later claim that making Aliyah really has secular and religious overtones, as opposed to the solely religious meaning that your own quotation from the wiki article claimed.
And again you not only debunk your own position, you deliberately distort your own cite (and you’ll probably complain later that my accurately discussing it is just unfair unfair unfair!!!) Your own cite says that, no, not anything intrinsic to the founding of the state of Israel but the fact that the Orthodox exerted pressure on the voting process by swinging their votes together. Which is exactly what I said. Which leaves you inventing other reasons out of whole cloth. And, much like your absurdist day-dream about how 181 did anything, you’re now simply imagining up something other than a voting bloc that did something.
And something tells me that you will never, ever, ever, attempt to prove either of those contentions. You’ll just post them again and again, in some twisted version of whack a mole.
Yep, more empty bluster.
Still not going to even attempt to show how 181 actually did anything, are you? All you’ve got is a resolution that was ignored by 100% of the people involved, that did not form the basis for the state of Israel, that does not form the basis for modern negotiations on the final status of Israel, but which was used as rhetoric in the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
And you still won’t even attempt to show what it did other than to voice bluster about how asking you to show what it did is “revisionist” history. For fuck’s sake, at least learn what the phrase "revisionist history " means.
Here’s a hint: it doesn’t mean “what happened”. The burden of proof is on you. You’re claiming it did something, but you won’t even attempt to show that. You won’t even attempt it. But you demand that I cite somethign to prove a negative and that actual history is “revisionist”.
Going to provide even the basic scrap of an argument to pretend that you’re trying to prove your claim that 181 did anything?
Didn’t think so.
Hard to avoid making stuff up in support of a position that cannot stand on the facts because it’s bullshit, isn’t it?
Notice we haven’t been talking about “long term” anything, but what allowed Israel to be created over a very short period circa 1948. Of course you’d like to shift the goalposts though, because your argument is looking increasingly silly as you refuse to even argue your own case other than to sling stupid little insults while you deliberately avoid even beginning to attempt to show what any of the rhetoric did
Yes, rather obviously (and what you’ve been told repeatedly) is that it is religious blocs in the Israeli legislature which have caused the situation we see today and have seen in the past. No shit. Thank you for debunking your own claims though.
Of course, then after debunking yourself you go on to claim that Israel is not a secular as I’ve claimed. Again, please try to be just a tiny bit rational about this. If Israel has religious institutions because it had to deal with a vocal religious minority, what would have happened if it had no such minority? Yep, that’s right, no such institutions. That means Israel is exactly as secular as I’ve maintained and that the reason it isn’t more secular is exactly what I said and you’ve now repeated, which is that there is an Orthodox voting bloc.
Maybe I’m giving you too much credit here.
Saying what something did means you have to show it doing something via a causal relationship.
Are you following along?
Good.
Now, each of your claims is dramatically false.
The “legitimate basis” set out in 181 was ignored by everybody actually involved and since Israel was actually created via war (ya know, what did something) the Partition wasn’t ever actually followed. So it “set up” absolutely nothing.
It also set up no “framework”, as the partition plan called for a specifically sized Israeli state which never happened sitting along side a Palestinian state that never happened and for both to be full members of the international community. When, in point of fact, Israel’s neighbors went on to try to commit genocide again instead of accepting it. In other words, it did nothing.
And, of course, as Zionism had been a strong movement for decades before 181 and you haven’t even attempted to show that Zionists would’ve all just gone home if they didn’t get it, your claim about it being a “launching pad” is full of shit, too. It did nothing.
I’ll also note that you’re doing your best to avoid the actual issue which is the creation of Israel. Of course, you’ve backed yourself into a corner. Everybody involved pointedly ignored 181 to the degree that they went to war instead. Even Israel became the territory it fought for rather than what 181 envisioned. So you’re left claiming that a resolution that never took effect and never did anything was magically doing stuff, and that anybody who disagrees must hate democracy, America, freedom, apple pie and their mother.
Here, let me help you because your argument is right now a bit like a lame horse that should be shot.
If you’re gong to keep up your game, show how
- the Zionists would not have wanted sovereignty if 181 didn’t occur
- the Zionists would have actually abandoned their plans if 181 didn’t occur
- the nations who voted for it and obviously supported an Israeli state would not have if a vote wasn’t called
- the actual creation of Israel, via war, was in any way, shape, or form effected by 181
It should be pretty easy to prove those things, assuming you’re not simply playing a rousing game of Let’s Pretend, since there should be a mountain of cites for the massive effect that 181 actually had.
Show your work.
You can get partial credit.
Mmmm hmmmm. Manly, revisionist history, blah blah blah.
Again, it should be pretty easy to prove that they wouldn’t have done what they were going to do without a resolution which did nothing. How about one cite, only one, supporting your position? How about one single, solitary cite where Zionist leadership at the time says “Well, we were going to throw in the towel, but now we have 181! Let’s go for it!”
Of course you won’t provide any such thing as you’re playing in fantasy land and 181 did nothing, but why don’t you at least pretend you came here for a debate and try to cite your claims that 181 did anything.
Here, use this.
Mole goes up, mole get whacked, mole goes down, another mole goes up…
Yet again, as you seem unable to grok this rather basic fact: you have not shown how anything that the British said actually did anything.
The British, in point of fact (that you are deliberately ignoring) did their best to frustrate Jewish immigration and Jews arming themselves. Nor have you shown how the Zionists would not have done exactly what they did had the British not voiced the rhetoric they voiced.
Show how anything the British did ended up causing Israel to have the ability to exist. Attempt to show even one single, solitary, lone cite as to why somethign the British did caused there to be an opportunity for Israel to exist that would not have happened, in any case, by Zionists simply staying there, declaring independence and fighting the war.
Ya know… what actually happened and what you’re desperately calling “revisionist history” because the facts pretty much eviscerate your bluster?
Come on, show how the rhetoric did anything. We already know that it did absolutely nothing as far as the Arabs were concerned, that Zionism predates it and when there was a lack of British support Zionism still flourished, and that the creation of Israel involved absolutely zero international support and was 100% based on the actual battles which took place.
So yeah, it’s an unenviable task. You’ve created a fiction and you have to duke it out with reality in order to support your fiction. But for fuck’s sake, at least try.
Here, if I was advancing an argument that was as pathetic as yours and which, like you, I knew couldn’t be supported on the facts, I’d at least try something like “Ah, but what 181 did was to give the Zionists hope. Before that, they were all going to quit, but 181 convinced them that they should fight for the land!”
Fuck, I don’t know. I’m used to knowing what I’m talking about and arguing based on what actually happened, but you get the idea. At least try to argue for why 181, etc… actually did anything.
But of course, as you’ve just argued that preventing Jewish immigration while allowing Arab immigration, disarming Jews while arming and training Arabs and keeping Jews in DP camps and prohibiting them from immigrating to the Levant all show how they were favored over the Arab powers. Something tells me that I’m not going to get even a halfhearted attempt out of you to show what 181 did.
Good bluster about “moral” though, that really does top off your game. Of course, the idea that 181 had a significant impart on morale is as funny as the rest of your silly claims.
“Moishe, we’ve declared independence.”
“Oh, that’s great Hershel, now what?”
“Well, the Arabs are coming to kill us all and push us into the sea.”
“That’s bad. Didn’t they see 181 though? I mean, it’s had a massive impact and it will do something, right?”
“What’re you, new here?”
“Well, okay, so surely the international community is going to do something. Those are a lot of tanks the Arabs have. Surely they international community will do something?”
“You are new here, aren’t you?”
“Okay, but we’ve gotten our social, judicial, educational, health services, etc… all set up on our own in order to produce a fully functioning state once we end this war. Surely 181 is to credit with that, it made all that possible?”
“You’ve been hit on the head?”
“Well, now I’m not sure if I want to fight for my life and my family’s life. Maybe we should just let ourselves be pushed into the sea?”
“Erm… what’s the number after 180?”
“Why, 181. Egads! My morale is lifted, now I can fight to save my life. Thank you UN, thank you!”
I love this quote, it’s funny cause it’s true. As an aside, my wife’s sister just married an Israeli and he’s got a lot of the macho bullshit going on. They came over one night and we played Apples to Apples(if you’re not familiar with it, it’s basically a word association game). It was his turn to judge and the adjective we were trying to get to him to associate our card with was “Trustworthy”. My wife played something like “The Supreme Court” and his wife played something like “Winston Churchill”. I tried to hide my smirk as I played “Machine Gun”.
I won that round.
Enjoy,
Steven
You know, so what if he did? God knows that when Israel throws a temper tantrum about Iran, they crawl to the United States and the United Nations. Why not fly the flags? It makes me sick how Israelis are protraying Obama like the anti-Christ. If those idiots don’t like the United States, then please cut off diplomatic relations with us; return our weapons and technology and refund every dollar back to the United States. We can use that money to build bridges, hospitals, and schools, right here in the United States. You can also quit buying our imports because god only knows you guys export nothing of value to the United States:
We don’t need your figs; we get ours from South America.
We don’t need your diamonds; we get ours from Europe.
We don’t need your coal; we have plenty here and when we run out, Canada will sell it to us cheaper.
We don’t need your oil, because you don’t sell any.
We don’t even need your science, because your country’s beacon of scholarship, Tel Aviv University, publishes in peer-reviewed journals less than some our worse four year Universities.
What ticks me off is that after all that the U.S gives Israel, they have theunmitigated gall to spy on us and depict our President as an Islamic terrorist because he called on Israel to put a stop to building settlements in the West Bank*. You guys are fucking nuts and am ineffably ashamed that my country supports you.
- Honesty
- By the way, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II also called for Israel to do the same damned thing.
Wait, when did Israel do that?