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

Great Debates
41

For all those who dispute Israel’s right to exist:

I recently had a long argument with malinformed Iraqis. They seemed to support the idea that all Israelis should “go back where they came from.” This is of course the ad absurdum end to the logic of those who dispute Israel’s right to exist. But indulging this opinion for a moment, where would the Israelis “go back to”? Where would their new home be? Eastern Europe, North Africa, Russia? Places where they would surely be given a great welcome and feel much at home in. And of course, the millions of nth-generation Israelis born in Israel would have to make that hard decision between Moldavia and Yemen (depending on their particular ancestry, one would suppose.)
And when the job’s finished, send all the Americans back where they came from!

42

One of my best friends is jewish, and she is disgusted and ashamed by some of the attitudes that she sees exhibited by some of the zionists she knows. She tells me that the whole issue is made worse by the fact that many religious israeli jews feel they are “the chosen people” and therefore can discriminate against anyone who isn’t jewish, including those who have lived in Israel for generations.

Frankly, I think much of the problem would be resolved if Israel would just turn into a secular state, and become a place of equality. Can anyone explain why this isn’t so? Why does a 1st generation settler from new jersey suddenly become more entitled to the land than a palestinian whose family has lived there forever? Does winning a war entitle you to mistreat and uproot anyone who isn’t of your religion or nationality? Can you explain why this is not hypocritical in light of the way jews have been treated in the past by others?

It’s stuff like this that makes me truly believe that no matter who you are, or what your history is, if one group of humans can oppress another, they will. It’s sad.

In light of all that’s happened, I couldn’t believe the following article when I first saw it. Comments please.

Ethnic Warfare
Biological Weapons Might Not Be Color Blind

Lying behind the nightmare fears of 21st-century germ warfare is the scarcely imaginable prospect of an “ethnic bullet” that could allow a racist aggressor nation to wipe out its ethnic enemy. Such fears underline Clinton’s own worries about constructing a defense against new genetic warfare.

Adding to press accounts of Israeli research into an ethnic bomb came a report, “Biotechnology, weapons and humanity,” last week from the esteemed British Medical Association, warning that “weapons could theoretically be developed which affect particular versions of genes clustered in specific ethnic or family groups.” It adds: “As genetic manipulation becomes a standard laboratory technique, there is a risk that this new information will also become widely available and procedures to monitor against the misuse of this new knowledge are urgently needed.”

Israeli scientists are trying to identify distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, with the hope of creating a genetically modified bacterium or virus, according to the London Sunday Times. “The intention is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside their host’s living cells,” the Times reported.

Based in a biological institute at Nes Tziyona, the main research center for Israel’s clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, the research is complicated by the fact that both Jews and Arabs are of Semitic origin. But a scientist at Nes Tzivona told the Times that researchers have succeeded in zeroing in on a particular characteristic of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people. Such a disease could be put in the water supply or sprayed in the air.

According to the usually reliable Foreign Report, a Jane’s publication which provides reports and analysis of international defense issues, Israeli scientists may have employed research conducted by South Africa during the apartheid era. During the 1980s, scientists from that nation were ordered to develop a weapon to target black people— based on pigmentation— that could be spread in beer, maize, or even by vaccination. But they were not successful. The Jane’s report on the ethno-bomb comes from South African sources who note that Israeli and South African scientists worked together during the apartheid period on nuclear and other research, and that at the end of apartheid, Israel reportedly took over and elaborated on the research.

In the U.S., Secretary of Defense William Cohen has warned that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce dangerous new weapons. In Britain, a spokesperson for Porton Down, the biological defense facility, said such weapons were theoretically possible, and that “we have reached a point now where there is an obvious need for an international convention to control biological weapons.”

above article found at:

http://www.villagevoice.com/columns/9904/ridgeway.shtml

43

Yes, Rusalka. And we also use the blood of Christian boys to make matzos on passover.

You want to know the justification for the existance of Israel, VarrlosZ? Do you want to know the real reason? Well, here it is: we want to assure the continued existance of the Jewish people. We’ve been around for 3000 years, and we want to stay around for another 3000. And why, pray tell, do we need our own country for that? Because we don’t trust you Gentile bastards. Everywhere we go, somebody tries to kill us, rape us, treat us like dirt. You think we’re going to let the Holocaust happen again? Like hell we are. You think we’re going to trust the U.S. to protect us? 50 years from now, America could be a fascist, anti-semitic state - you can say it won’t happen, but can you say it can’t happen? No, now we have our own government, our own police, our own army, our own nukes. You could try killing us, but for every one you take, we’ll take ten. Jew Season is over.

Israel is a Jewish state, the only Jewish state. We’re nice guys, so we’ll let you live here and even vote (oh, and Oldscratch - that article lost all credibility the moment the writer claimed he saw no problem with Palestinian Arabs fighting Palestinian Arabs on behalf of Israel. Right. Uh-huh). But we’re getting tired of being nice little Jews.

No, this is our country, our last, best hope for survival. You still don’t think we have a “right” to it? Tough shit.

44

A refreshing breath of honesty after a series of somewhat sacharine posts. The only objection I have is that I don’t think anybody ever thought you were “nice little Jews”.

45

Lesse. Israel is one of the most dangerous places to live if your a Jew. And yet you claim that this stolen land is your best hope for survival? Get real. That’s like saying that the safest place for protestants is Northern Ireland. You know what? The jews have had to put up with a lot of crap, I agree. So have a lot of other people. The Romany people have and are still considered undesirables. That doesn’t give them a right to set up a country on stolen land, to collaborate with represive regimes, to give support to death squads, to systamaticly oppress another people.
Zionism and Israel will not get rid of anti-semitism. The attitude that it has always existed and will always exist and that no one can be trusted is repugnant. It is not “your” last best hope for survival. It’s a dead end. When Israel is gone, I will be happy.

46

Wow. Thanks, man. Too bad Communism bit the big one.

Well, to use you charming little phrase, “lesse”:

The operative phrase is “for now”. Russia wasn’t that safe, and neither was Ethiopia; that’s why they all came here over the past few years. I think the world looks safe for Jews because all the Jews in unsafe places are dead. Besides, have you ever heard the cliche “It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees”? It’s a good cliche.
By the way, have you read the latest in murder rate in the U.S? Whew! Much higher than Israel, terrorist acts included. Now that’s dangerous!

May I remind you that in Israel, Jews are the majority? M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y. Hard to grasp, I know, but true.

Thanks. without you agreeing, things just wouldn’t be worth it.

What, for 2000 years? I want to meet these people!

I’d support a Gypsy state.

Interesting. To a Marxist like you, isn’t all property theft?
A lot of the land was bought legally, a lot was seized in a war we didn’t start. I could go on about English in America, Turks in Asia Minor, Saxons in Britain, but I won’t. Yes, the land was theirs. Before that, it was ours. Find me some Caananites, Hittites and Philestines and we’ll talk, but basically, all this history is crap. Most of us were born here; we have nowhere else to go, and no urge to go there.

Again, wow. You’ve just invalidated the existance of the U.S., U.K., France, and just about any nation that hasn’t been a repressive regime itself. Congadulations. I assume you’re a citizen of Micronesia.

It’s called “fighting the enemy on his own terms”. If they don’t want commando raids, they shouldn’t put bombs in shopping malls.

Conquering somebody isn’t fun, and there’s no nice way to do it; still, it’s sometimes necessary. The Palestinians were our enemies before we conquered them, and if they had won the war, they would have oppressed us (and worse than we did them!). Besides, as occupiers go, we’re better than most - brush up on your history.

We don’t want to get rid of anti-semitism. We want to shoot anti-semites. Is that so hard to understand?

Repugnant? Yes. Realistic? Hell yes.

Maybe. Nothing is certain, though one always hope that God is on one’s side.

It’s too bad it had to come to this, Scratch. You seem like a nice guy. I was starting to like you.

47

**
Did you know that Protestants are in the majority in Northern Ireland. M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y. Hard to grasp, I know, but true.

**

The important thing to remeber is that racial anti-semitism is a realtively new thing. That is the PROBLEM. I’m not belitlling religous intolerance, but everyone has faced that. The racial bit only arised in the 1850’s or so. As such, the perseution that Jews NOW face is relatively new.

**

So would I, just not at the expense of another persecuted minority.

**

No, you’re mixing me up with Proudhon, an anarchist. He was also a pretty bad anti-semite. One of the reasons that quote always makes me cringe when spouted by well meaning anarchists.

**

I have no desire to make you go anywhere else. I do think that you hav a right to the land. But, not at the expense of another people. I support the formation of a secular, non jewish state.

**

You don’t know me very well. I loate the American government. If I’ve invalidated the existence of America, kudos to me.

**

I’m not going to get into terroism on Israel soil, we can save that for later. Maybe tie it in to a general discussion on terrorism, (that way I cn bring Northern Ireland and the Basque region into it). What I was specificly refering to was the support of the Guatamalen government and their practive of genocide. That to me invalidates any arguments that Israel is a place for Jews to escape a future Holocaust. Israel is supporting genocide in other countries. I can also brin up South Africa.

**
Not really. On a gut level, I agree with you on this. I’ve frequently had the strong urge to do so. However, without going into to much here you are attacking the symptom and not the problem.

**

Don’t get me wrong. I underrstand ho you can see it as realistic. I’m glad you also the repugnance in it. It is wrong however. We can go more into that discussion later too.

Well thank you. I don’t want to become too wel liked around here though.
I’ve got a reputation to keep up.

48

This brings out an important point - this debate has been full of pros and cons about Israel with few of the cons (including the OP) specifying exactly what to replace it with.

I can understand oldscratch’s position. It’s not so well known, but once the Holy Land is redeemed from the evils of Zionism, all remaining obstacles to triumph of the proletariet will have been removed. True Communism will have been achieved, and the state will wither away…

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**

Well, a little simplistic Izzy, but thanks for trying. I suppose it’s the best I can expect from you. :wink:

50

I find it interesting that ISRAEL is obliged to justify its existence, while Jordan, Syria, Iran, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, the United States, and India (to name just a few) are not. Yet, look on a map of 2,000 years ago, and you will find none of those places… except Israel (OK, it was called Judea.) OK, the borders were a trifle different. But it was there, and under the control of Jews.

America wasn’t even on the maps. Germany and Italy were a group of disunited principalities from about 500 AD until the late 1800s. Jordan and Syria and India are artificial and recent constructs.

Now, the bottom line is: there is only one way that any nation has any “right” to exist, and that is by the agreement of other nations. Israel was recognized as an independent state by the United Nations in 1948. The U.S. was recognized as an independent nation by Great Britain after the Revolutionary War. Germany was recognized as a unified country by the rest of Europe in the 1800s. Nations are formed, split, unite, and overrun other nations. No nation is legitimized in its existence except by being recognized by other nations, and by being able to control/administer the area.

It’s not that might makes right, but it’s that there isn’t any world government or world police force or global legal system… and so practical politics tends to count for lots.

That having been said, I also must say I agree entirely with Alessan. The notion that the poor Palestinians are an suffering minority, and that all suffering minorities are “right” and all well-off majorities are “wrong”, I find laughable.

Most Palestinians are refugees because they sided with the Arab states in thinking they could drive the Jews into the sea. They lost. The Palestinians who stayed in their homes and became Israeli citizens have (by and large) prospered. Those who fled to Jordan in hopes of killing the Jews and getting all their wealth, are still in refugee camps.

Why all this talk about where the Jews should relocate? How about the Palestinians? They’re the refugees, after all, why not set them up in Jordan? In Khazakstan? In Australia?

SO, my solution: First, split Northern Ireland. Move all the Catholics to Ireland, move all the Protestants to the UK. The US will pay for this, of course. Now, Take you got an empty country and a nice place to put the Palestinians.

51

Sorry, oldscratch, not true.

Jews have always been an ethnic group as well as a religious one. And hatred and fear of Jews has been around a lot longer than 150 years.

If you prick us . . .

52

**

Ok. Let’s take Israel back to those recognized borders of 1948. That seems fair, after all the UN did recognize the borders as such then. And since you take the UN as the legitmising factor in Israel’s existence. How about this.

UN Resolution 465
1.Affirming once more that the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

2.Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure of status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of setting parts of its population and new Immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

3.Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

4.Calls upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the Occupied Territories.

On the subject of Palestinian refugees, and why they “left” I’ll post on that tomorrow, hopefully.

53

Oops. Simulpost.

I didn’t say it hadn’t. However, jews were not RACIALLY discriminated against until recently. Before that it was based on religion. Change your religion and you don’t get persecuted.

54

Oh, well in THAT case… :rolleyes:

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 15 hours, 38 minutes and 28 seconds.
4266 cigarettes not smoked, saving $533.26.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 19 hours, 30 minutes.

Visit The Fabulous Forums of Fathom

55

I’m not saying it was acceptable. i’m sayign that the types of discrimination that would prompt a Holocaust are relatively recent. The idea to extermine the whole damned lot of them is a recent phenomenon. The jews had been persecuted becasue of their particular lot in life, that of middleman, a lot they were forced into. Now, it doesn’t matter what a Jew is or what they think. They are simply a dirty jew by luck of blood. Only by understanding why and how of that change can it be fought.

56

I assume that’s sarcastic hyperbole. You don’t strike me as a hater.
FYI, Jews HAVE been persecuted on a racial basis since at least 135 CE, when Hadrian kicked the Jews out of Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt and renamed it Aelia Capitolina(it didn’t stick.
Even after conversion, Jews in medieval and early modern Europe were still subject to persecution, e.g., the persecution of the so-called Marranos by the Spanish Inquisition.

57

I believe oldscratch is correct in that the racial basis for anti-semitism is of relatively recent origin. (goboy, the Inquisition persecuted Marrannos because they were suspected of secretly practicing Judaism).

But I qould question the assertion that only ethnic hatred is of the type that would prompt a holocaust. The Crusaders sure did their best without it.

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by goboy *
**

Yes it was. I suppose I should have included a comment. but oh well, here it is now.

**

One of the problems of not posting from home. I do not have access to many of my reference books. I’ll get back to this one later. the internet isn’t bad, but it is missing a lot of information.

As for this I’m going to post a quote from another poster.

**

59

Of course, Queen Isabella demanding “convert or leave” of the Jews in the first place was perfectly acceptable; after all, as oldscratch had said before, if they didn’t like their lot in life, they could just convert.

(Sarcasm fully intended.)

60

oldscratch:

Gee, that would be nice…the no-risk war! The Arab states get to attack the UN-recognized State of Israel, because what the heck…if they lose, they can point to the resolution and get back everything they temporarily lost!

And let’s not forget that a substantial portion of the Palestinian Arab state outlines in the 1947 UN Partition plan was annexed by (Trans)Jordan immediately after the 1948 war, including East Jerusalem. Hmm, I don’t recall hearing much clamor from the world about that “illegitimate occupation of Palestinian Arab land.” The Palestinians themselves were pretty steamed about it, but after “Black September” 1970, decided that it would be a better idea to try and get the land they lost to Israel than to try and get back the land they lost to Jordan.

And for those of you who don’t know what “Black September” was (I have no doubt that many of you do know of it), it’s when Jordan’s “peace-loving King Hussein” (as he’d been described in the later years of his life) massacred supporters of the PLO and drove the organization out of Jordan. Made Israel’s conduct during the Intifada look like showering the Palestinians with affection by comparison.