How do you justify Germany's existence in the first place?

Great Debates
41

Tom: *It is also the point I think the OP is getting at: if you can question the right of Israel to exist, you canquestion the right of any state to exist. So why pick on Israel? *

CKDH: *No one is saying that there is somehow an immunity from asking the question. I am asking WHY IS THIS QUESTION ONLY ASKED OF ISRAEL? *

Because in the case of Israel, the existence of a major competing claim to the disputed territory, whose current national status was established only 52 years ago, is widely known and officially recognized as an international problem.

42

Ah, I’m relieved to discover the truth. Its Queen Vitoria’s fault for sending her meddling daughter into the fray. And here, I thought the Germans were responsible in waging those nasty World Wars.

43

Speaking as the Average American (variation 7,423,997) I think that there is a reason that Israel’s existence is questionable to some folks here. Our nations have a close relationship, and the current situation between Israel and Palestine keeps the whole thing constantly in the news. However, not many in the general public knows more than what they see on CNN or read in USAToday about the background of the problems faced.

The average American probably knows:

  1. Israelis and Palestinians haven’t gotten along at all well.
  2. They both want the same chunks of land, at least partly.
  3. Israel used to be Palestine, or part of it did, or part of it used to be Jordan. Anyway, Israel kind of took somebody’s stuff back in a war sometime or other and won’t give it back.
  4. Those damn Palestinians! Stupid fanatics. Bus bombs suck!
  5. Those poor Palestinians! They have to put up with so much injustice and prejudice!
  6. Didn’t we just decide to make Israel up after World War II? (I use ‘we’ because a lot of Americans think we are the UN, at least when the UN is doing what we want.) Didn’t we kick a bunch of people out of their homes and take their country?

There is plenty of anti-Arab sentiment to go along with anti-Israel sentiment in the US. (We have had some rather high-profile spats with some Arab states in the past.) However, while the Jews were once the downtrodden underdog right after WWII, now they kick ass and take names when messed with. Now, the Palestinians are the downtrodden underdog. And we Americans just love to back underdogs and right wrongs-- so long as it is politically expedient, serves our national interests, and the wrongs are somebody else’s. Hell, we’re big fans of the motes in our neighbors’ eyes!

But, there’s a thinly veiled idea floating around that in some way, the situation over there is partly our fault. Oh sure, not many people know the facts or the history. Not many will bother to find out either. But when the image of Palestinian-as-oppressed-underdog is combined with the intimation that Israel’s formation was akin to a crooked land-deal backed by force-- well, it has the effect of creating doubt in some folks. We know that our government has been in bed with some nasties before, and we know we’ve decided to throw our weight around on occasion, like how we got our country in fact!

On the other hand, there are some folks who have looked at the history and feel that Israel’s creation was immoral and unfair to the Palestinians. Just as there are those who find that it was a necessary and just action that redressed wrongs long overdue for correction. Either way, Israel is unique in that it was formed within living memory, our country had a hand in it, and it is a political mover and shaker in the region and the world. It is a country which has a common interest with many of our citizens because it is the Holy Land for Jews and Christians alike. Given that our nations’ fortunes are so entwined, how can Americans (the ones that are awake anyway) not be interested in such questions?

44

It is asked of Israel becasue the issue is constantly raised. It’s constantly at the forefront. Another exmple, that I think I might have mentioined, is Kuwait. During the Gulf War there was a lot of talk over Kuwait’s right to be independent. People stated that since it was created by the British, and there wasn’t any historical seperation, it sholdn’t be contested. This wasn’t due to any anti-Kuwaiti attitude.
The same is also done for Taiwan, people contest it’s right to be a seperate country. Not just China, but others as well.

45

In answer to the OP:

It is often forgotten that parts of Germany proper lost the right to be part of Germany after WWII (Silesia, East Prussia) and were torn off the country and given to Poland and the USSR. Most of these areas (with some exceptions) had been German for many centuries. (In addition to this, btw, parts of Poland were then severed from the Polish East and “given” to the USSR.) It might be correct to say that this was just punishment for the Nazis’ crimes, but indeed about a third of Germany did lose its right to be Germany. Interestingly enough, while some of the German refugees from these areas are still bitter about this, many, probably the majority, are not, and accept their fate as a part of the terrible history of the country.

I would recommend Guenther Grass’ books, particularly his Danzig Trilogy, to anyone interested in this era.

46

Aside from anti-Semitism, which is certainly a factor, the nature of Israel itself raises the question.
1)Israel is holy ground to three major religions, so the people who live there are viewed by the rest of the world as caretakers of holy sites who are held to a higher moral standard.
2)Before the 1967 war, Israel was viewed by Jews as a place to send money to support a Jewish homeland, a place to assuage assimilationist guilt by paying a nation to keep the Law and traditions going. Gentiles saw Israel as a sop to hand the survivors of the Holocaust as a guilt offering. Both groups expected Israel to exist as a schizophrenic nation of tanned young sabras making the Negev bloom and skinny yeshiva students atoning for the sins of the world.
The 1967 war showed that Israel was a modern nation able to kick the asses of three armies at once. It also incorporated into Israel large groups of sullen, resentful Arabs who loathed Israel and all it stood for. Israel, for its part, did not try to assimilate the Arabs into their society.
Israel has to deal with modern problems, when other nations expect it to be a musuem of holiness.

47

I deny the premise of this complaint. In the Sixties many Americans were questioning the right of South Vietnam to exist as a separate state. More recently, when we feared being tied down in a Balkan quagmire, some questioned the justification for Bosnia-Herzogovina’s existance. To mention the topic of the OP- I recall that around '89 people were wondering if German reunification was a good idea. Oldscratch has already pointed out the examples of Kuwait and Taiwan.

48

Kimstu: << CKDH: No one is saying that there is somehow an immunity from asking the question. I am asking WHY IS THIS QUESTION ONLY ASKED OF ISRAEL?

Because in the case of Israel, the existence of a major competing claim to the disputed territory, whose current national status was established only 52 years ago, is widely known and officially recognized as an international problem. >>

… and the reason that the question of justifying existence is not asked of ANY OTHER “disputed territory” with “a major competing claim” that is “widely known” is…?

You still ain’t getting it, Kimstu, but I will only pound my head on the wall so many times. There are LOTS of other disputed territories. Questions are asked all the time about “Whether the conquest of Tibet by China was legitimate” or “Whether Kuwait should have an independent government” or “Whether Chechnya should be independent” or “whether North Korea should be admitted to the United Nations” or “whether the U.S. should recognize the Castro regime in Cuba.”

NEVER is the word “EXISTENCE” used for those other border disputes. Never, in all the discussion about Castro recently, has anyone asked, “How does Cuba justify its existence?” Never has anyone asked, “How does China justify its existence?” Never has anyone asked whether Korea or Tibet should EXIST.

Those other disputed territories are are all about where the lines should be drawn and who should be in control.

The Question asked about Israel is about the core of existence, not where the borders should be or who should be in control, not whether the government is legitimate, not whether the electoral system is fair to minorities… but whether the people/nation should EXIST.

And I contend that, at bottom, to pose the question of EXISTENCE about Israel uniquely, is really asking the question of whether Jews should be allowed to live. It is racist and anti-semitic, when it is a standard that is applied to ONLY ONE COUNTRY.

OK? Got it?

If there were special tax breaks that were only applied to one company, wouldn’t you say that was unfair? If there is a harsher standard applied by police against only one racial group (blacks), don’t you think that is improper? If there are different financial criteria applied to only one racial group (blacks) buying property, wouldn’t you say that was racist?

And here is an ethics test of existence that is only applied to one country. But that’s OK?

There, I’ve said it three times, I refuse to say it any more.

49

I deny the premise of this complaint. In the Sixties many Americans were questioning the right of South Vietnam to exist as a separate state. More recently, when we feared being tied down in a Balkan quagmire, some questioned the justification for Bosnia-Herzogovina’s existance. To mention the topic of the OP- I recall that around '89 people were wondering if German reunification was a good idea. Oldscratch has already pointed out the examples of Kuwait and Taiwan.

50

Got it. Ok. The term existence is used because the existence of Israel is tied to the migrations of an alien people to an area of land. In all the other examples, you do not have people moving into an area from outside of it, and slowly spreading out their borders. If Americans moved into Cuba, set up a sovergn nation, and started displacing Cubans, then got recognized by the UN. A lot of people would question the right of that country to exist.

51

CKDH: *And I contend that, at bottom, to pose the question of EXISTENCE about Israel uniquely, is really asking the question of whether Jews should be allowed to live. It is racist and anti-semitic, when it is a standard that is applied to ONLY ONE COUNTRY. *

Nope. As I specifically said in an earlier post, in fact, nobody (that I know of among the Americans/Brits/Canadians you’re complaining about, at least) is “asking the question of whether Jews should be allowed to live.” No “final solution” under consideration here. They are only questioning the existence of the very recently established and hotly disputed political entity that is modern Israel. You have not established that “Israel” = “the Jews”; not to my satisfaction, at least.

Other recent posters have made good points about whether and in what way this questioning is actually “unique,” so I won’t go into that part of it again.

Sorry if you feel I’m not getting your point, but I also feel you’re not getting mine. On the contrary, you seem to me to be forcing a melodramatic interpretation upon the honest questioning of many people who are genuinely concerned about the ongoing strife and trauma in the Middle East, so that you can dismiss it as mere anti-Jewish prejudice.

I don’t deny that many people’s contempt and frustration about the whole situation (see the current “nuke Jerusalem” thread in the Pit for some strong responses of this type) has probably been influenced by Western “Orientalist” prejudices against Jews and Arabs both (n.b.: I’m not ascribing such motivations to the aforementioned Pit posters). But to dismiss all questions about the validity of Israel’s creation and continued existence as being solely motivated by bigotry seems to me far too simplistic.

52

oldscratch wrote:

You ought to spend some more time thinking about that analogy, especially the ‘alien people’ and ‘displacing’ parts.

Andrew Warinner

53

Oh, I don’t think that oldscratch was claiming that Jews are “alien” or latecomers to that region. But certainly, before the state of Israel was established, Jews had not been a politically autonomous nation in the Middle East, or had political control over a significant part of it, for many centuries. I defer to oldscratch’s correction of my interpretation of his meaning, though.

54

Kimstu wrote:

It’s absurd to entertain hypotheticals that argue for the dissolution of Israel. It is so far removed from reality that it leads one to wonder from what assumptions and motivations the proponent is arguing.

Don’t like Great Power gerrymandering? Propose the dissolution of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudia Arabia and see how far that discussion goes. Hell, all the states in the region owe their existence to it. All those states rest on more or less controversial foundations and required the slighting of one or more minorities.

Andrew Warinner

55

Thank you, warriner. That is what I have been trying to say all along, but at greater length and less eloquently.

And most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and much of Asia, and quite a lot of Eastern Europe …

56

oldscartch,

I think you have just outlined how much of the “New World” was created - “the migrations of an alien people to an area of land.” I’m sorry, I think you have completely mis-stated this comparison. The US, Canada, Mexico, South America, etc. - alien people moving to a new land and spreading, for better or worse.

adam yax,

I jumped a bit too soon, and did not recognize the relation of this thread to the one about Israel. I think it valid to ask questions, but if we start questioning the right to exist of any nation, we should start questioning all of them. Are we ready for this? That’s another debate. But I was partly right about the OP - although not intended as humor, it was to make a point about the premise of asking nations to justify their existance.

[philosophy alert]As a slight aside - are there any nations on earth that can justify their existance to the satisfaction of all other nations/peoples? My guess is no - everyone has someone griping about them, some more then others to be sure.[/philosophy alert]

57

warriner: *Don’t like Great Power gerrymandering? Propose the dissolution of […] Kuwait […] and see how far that discussion goes. *

And when Iraq put in a competing claim to Kuwait’s territory during the Gulf War, some people started to do just that. See oldscratch’s earlier remark:

58

First. What Kimstu said. yeah.
Second.

**

No, there is a difference. In these countries people deliberetly came in and slaughtered the inhabitents. They didn’t come into an already settled area and displace the people. If there weren’t any Palestinians left, people probably wouldn’t be complaining as much. Of course they would have something brand new to complain about. Also the people who moved in and displaced the palestinians are still around, as are the palestinians who were displaced. That makes it a current issue. I stand by my analogy of Cuba. Most Jews are alien. They were not born in the area. They haven’t had relatives who’ve lived there for hundreds or thousands of years.

Vatican city? Switzerland? England? Australia? Japan? Probably any island nation made up of 1 type of people, where the indigenous people make up the government. Just some thoughts.

59

oldscratch,

Oh. That’s different. Nevermind.

Again, I’m ashamed of my failure to see the difference. Of course, if you just kill off the rascals who may oppose you later, it makes it OK.(I know you don’t mean that, that’s just the way it came out.)

I think someone with some knowledge of this mentioned that most Iraeli Jews were born in Israel, and also that there has been a polulation of jews in Palestine for most of recrded history (I am remembering what I read, please excuse if slightly off).

Also, I do not see the real difference - I do understand you comment about the generations of people, both the diplacers and those being displaced, still being around and therefore very excited about the issue, but a Nation born out of conquest is no different, except of course the use of more force and brutality, and murder. So please explain how that is better then buying land, and expanding without killing all previous inhabitants.

60

Kimstu wrote:

Of course, Iraq didn’t exactly deliver a diplomatic note. Iraq invaded Kuwait. I hope you can see the moral distinction.

It’s also not true. Iraq offered two separate diplomatic justifications for its invasion. It originally claimed it invaded Kuwait in support of an internal rebellion against the Kuwaiti government. After the UN approved military action against it, Iraq then changed its diplomatic tune to ‘Kuwait is and was an integral part of Iraq and a artificial construct of British imperialism’.

Andrew Warinner