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

Great Debates
101

Adimbert said:

Kurt Vonnegut wrote of a concept called the “granfalloon.”
He defined it (loosely) as “an artificial bond between people.” Giving as examples such statements as “Oh, YOU’RE from Iowa? I’M from Iowa, too! Let’s be friends!” It also refers to such groups as fraternities/sororities, nationalism/patriots and sports fans.

While I agree that humanity needs the sense of community to stay sane (and we’ve by and large lost that sense, which is probably one reason for the entire world losing its collective mind), to be bound to others for the sole reason of geographic proximity is kind of silly. Even when the proximity is not that apparent. My best friend lives thousands of miles away, but in the same country. Our bond is not defined by the borders within which we live, but rather by a likeness of spirit.

Which is precisely the type of bond that truly matters. Patriotism is bunk.

I will freely admit, however, that when supporting Israel, my beliefs belie my previous statement. I do think that everybody belongs somewhere, and every granfalloon that chooses to identify themselves with one another has the right to a homeland.

Now, before there are any nasty responses like “Well, what about the Palestinians? Don’t they need a homeland, you fargin’ hypocrite?” let me remind you that Palestine before the 1948 borders was comprised of what is now Israel (approx. 20%) and what is now Jordan (approx. 80%). When in the mid '80s King Hussein of Jordan told the Palestinians in essence that his country was not theirs, it was a brilliantly calculated political maneuver designed to encourage world sympathy for the poor homeless Palestinians. NOT a denial of their right to be there. Well, maybe it was the latter as a tool to achieve the former.

Sorry, didn’t mean to get off on such a tangent.

Damn stream-of-consciousness thinking.

My point (finally!) is that when you get down to it, your primary loyalties should be to yourself and those you love. Not to the lump of dirt you live on, IF THAT’S NOT what you love. If you love your country, go ahead–be a foaming-at-the-mouth patriot if that’s what gets you off. Just don’t ask others to join you on your crusade.

102

I hate it when my posts finds its home at the bottom of a page… people never go back and read it. blessedwolf, did you read it, because your comments make me think you didn’t.

You chose to define “patriotism” in very specific terms. The word means “love of one’s country;” the motivation for that love is a different issue.

I never said or implied that one should feel love for a place simply because it is the “lump of dirt you live on.” That is not patriotic, it’s idiotic.

What I did say is that a person’s patriotism should stem from a sense of appreciation - people live together in society because it makes more sense than going it alone. If the society you chose to live in provides things for you, it is your duty to return the favor.

One who claims (as the poster I originally replied to does) no loyalty to the society which protects him desrves no better than Coventry.

103

I think one of the problems, sdimbert, stems from the fact that so many people do equate “patriotism” with “love of this piece of dirt” or “love of these arbitrary national borders.”

While Rusalka might well believe in something larger than himself (or might not), he clearly embraces the idea that “country”, when discussing patriotism, means a geopolitical entity.

And to be honest, that’s the way the term is usually used. And sadly, far too many people think “patriotism” means “jingoism.”

104

Well, of COURSE I defined patriotism in specific terms. Once you define a word with generalities, the meaning is lost.

you said:

Appreciation for what a government has done for you does not necessarily imply an obligation to be patriotic. To oversimplify, if someone lets you crash at their place when you’re too drunk to drive home, are you then obligated to put your life at risk for them?

Yes, when my family moved here to escape persecution around the beginning of WWI, they were taken in through Ellis Island and given plenty of opportunities. Granted, they faced crime, anti-Semitism and so on (Uncle Sam didn’t mind that much). How does the fact that they were allowed here mean that I should be willing to overlook the many inequties and hypocritical attitudes of the country (as a country, not just the individuals–I’m as hypocritical as the next person when it suits me to be), and therefore love this land?

Yes, it’s better than the German and Polish towns my Grandparents came from, but until it’s perfect, I’m not going to love it. As I said before, my loyalties are to myself and those I love. HaKarat HaTov does not have the same meaning or feel that patriotism does.

105

Coming in a little late but…

One thing I think the “anti-Israel” side seems to forget is the universality and ubiquitousness of anti-semitism. I mean, you can purchase the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in Japan fer crying out loud. Throughout history the Jews have fled from one land to another in search of home. I think that it is understandable that now that they have their own land, that they are self-ruled, that they will want to keep this land no matter what.

Let’s face it. Wherever Jews have lived, they existed on the sufferance of others. It was a common practice for Kings to grow rich thanks to Jewish ministers, and then to kick jews out of the kingdom.

Also, lets not forget that anti-semitism was a force from below as much as from above. The pogroms were often carried out by peasants, with little encouragement from the state or church. In fact it is to several Popes credit that they tried to protect jews from anti-semetic mobs.

As far as America goes, sure its great and Jewish-Americans should be proud and relaxed. But who knows what the future brings? Look at 19th century Germany, the most enlightened pro-Jewish state in Europe.

Look at it like this. Suppose you are leading a tribe through a vast and desolate wasteland, where every nations hand is turned against you. Suppose, by hook and crook, you manage to regain control of your ancestral lands, even at the expense of the people who now live there. Aren’t you going to hold on to those lands no matter what? Aren’t you going to put survival ahead of morality? And aren’t you going to feel a bit miffed when the descendents of the people who raped your women, slaughtered your men, and forcibly converted your children start lecturing you on ethics and morality, from their safe position of power across the sea on lands they stole from Indians and Mexicans and worked with black slaves? When they ask you to justify your existence. You may be so miffed you might lose your temper and call them “Gentile Bastards”

106

CKDextHavn wrote:

I am always very amused when I see a fellow American make an argument based on this kind of principle regarding some dispute in the Old World. Does the logic of this sort of argument apply only east of the Prime Meridian?

107

Dinsdale, for a country to become great, there needs to be people who say “My Country, right or wrong”. And with your country in imminent danger, you wouldn’t “go down with the ship”? Would you lift a finger to help? In respect of loyalty, gratitude to your country and the virtue of patriotism, the Isrealis have it way over you. Hell, the most of the Americans Jews are expressing more loyalty to Isreal than you show to the US.

Larry Borgia, you are correct that the Isrealis could point back at 19th century Western and especially US colonial practices as a justification for their deeds. But analogies separated by such a long period of time can get stale. Why don’t they use a more recent analogy and say they need Lebensraum?

108

Is there a real argument here? Do you really view the struggle of the Jews for their own country to be analogous to the Nazi’s plans for european domination? Exactly what in my post are you reffering to? I never said that Zionists modeled their claims to Israel on 19th century European practices. The closest I came to this was saying that it is presumptous for Americans to lecture Israeli’s about ethics and moratlity.

Do you have an argument or are you just taking cheap shots?

BTW, just so people know where I’m coming from, I’m half Jewish, not Jewish at all by Judaic law. (My mother is Norwegian and German.) My Dad and his parents are asimilationists, which makes me the only Zionist in the family.

109

Well Andros, pallie o’ mine, sorry to tick you off, but Blessedwolf just pushed my button on a certain issue that I have been sore about for the past couple days. The one thing that gets a rise out of me when talking about this issue is factual innaccuracy and/or vagueness. While you may lay more stake on emotional issues, personal opinions, etc. I think that it’s impossible to disconnect those things from factual accuracy. Facts are used to back up opinions and shore up emotions.

Some of the time it is by accident (which is, I believe, to be the case with Blessedwolf) and other times it is on purpose. It is extremely difficult to discern between the two especially in a message board format.

I have seen a few cases of this on this thread and some related threads. When I grumbled about it, the poster didn’t say, “Well I stand by my refutation and here is why.”

They simply admitted to omitting certain extremely pertinent facts and justified this by claiming that space and time was an issue (which is bunk because I used two or three sentences to toss the facts in). To me this paltry explanation reeked of willful ignorance. Blessedwolf sort of got caught in the undertow if you will.

All I am saying is that it would be nice if people could elaborate on what they state. For my sanity at least :slight_smile:

110

You’re absolutely right, Grendel. I was just a bit concerned by your tone. It sounded as though you were chastising him for jumping into a discussion that for some reason he had no right to be in. I misread your frustration as condescension, and should not have–please accept my apologies.

AFAICT, blessedwolf’s opinion and first-hand viewpoint were the point of his posts, not the dissemination of historical fact. As you see, he didn’t “omit certain extremely pertinent facts,” he was simply misremembering.

No harm, no foul.

111

My dear mipsman, if you are going to take issue with my comments, please quote me accurately and in context.

I did not say that “with [my] country in imminent danger, * wouldn’t `go down with the ship’.”

What I said was “If my country were in imminent danger of being taken over, I cannot say with certainty that I would necessarily go down with the ship.”

Sorry I do not have the certainty as to how I would respond to future events other posters here seem to have. I guess if you choose to categorize things into black vs. white, good or bad, yer either with me or agin’ me, it makes such predictions easier. And if I perceive all opposing views as threats, makes it easier to identify and categorize those as well. Must be comforting to be certain of your rectitude.

As soon as I typed that line about invasion, I felt it was lacking something. And I thank Rusalka for fleshing it out in his/her subsequent post. I am not my country. I certainly acknowledge that I am who I am in large part because of where I was born and have lived. But I possess free will. Should I decide I do not like the path my government has taken, I can elect whether I wish to do nothing, try to change the status quo, or move my ass somewhere I think I’ll like better. Should my country be invaded and likely to be taken over, my options inculde fighting to the death, staying as a resident of the new state (whatever my status might be), or trying to escape. My options might be influenced by what occurred to bring about the threat to my nation. (I freely acknowledge that as an American these are necessarily imaginary exercises.) Maybe I’m overconfident in believing Dinsdale would continue to be Dinsdale if he were living in France, Japan, or (gasp) Israel. Or does the need to identify oneself to a spot of dirt, no matter how many years, miles, or generations separate me from that dirt, suggest insecurity or something else not entirely desirable?

You also say, mipsman, that “for a country to become great, there needs to be people who say`My Country, right or wrong.’” That is your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it. How about, however, for a country to become great, there need to be people who will do whatever it takes to displace, exterminate, or subordinate the indigenous people and oppose, violently if necessary, any competing claims to the territory. Then it takes people who will do what it takes to maximize that country’s position economically and militarily. Nifty side effect is that increasing your country’s market share decreases competitors’ shares. Also, ain’t it fortuitous that those altruistic patriots seem to come out alright personally, in terms of personal power and wealth. Then once we have gotten ourselves in position, we will have created the opportunity for leisure time, so folk can dedicate themselves to the arts (let’s at least nod towards that aspect of greatness.)

My country right or wrong speaks to me of fanaticism. While such an attitude may lead to strength by some measure, I suggest that dissension and variety is necessary for “greatness.”

112

**

Yes, Alessan, we all want you dead. We’re building a Rube Goldberg device that will drop a piano on your head, and * it’s almost finished…*

**

And I say faith and customs don’t have a lot to do with Israel. According to Israel, you’re a Jew if your mother is Jewish, or if you converted to orthodox Judaism. People are putting up money to fly young Jews to Israel even if they aren’t religious and know less about their customs than I do. By the “unique customs” standard, I’m a lot more Jewish than many of the Jews I’ve known. I’ve studied Jewish religion more, I’ve studied Jewish literature more, and I’ve eaten more matzoh ball soup than they have. So where’s my free plane ticket? In my small way, I’m ensuring the future of Jewishness when Jewish kids aren’t.

It’s funny- people say I’m being harsh when I call Alessan a bigot, but let’s turn this around. What if I said:

“If there were an earthquake, I’d save my family first- and I consider white people to be my extended family.”

“I’m tired of being cheated by you Jew bastards- no more Mr. Nice Gentile.”

I think I’d be immediately and forevermore branded as a racist bigot. Would anyone insist that the heat of the moment be taken into account?

**

Would you care to explain that comment?

**

So you love all Jews more than you love any Gentile?

If you had to save people from an earthquake, would you save the Jews first?

-Ben

113

I’ve got about three-fourths of a clear and valuable idea here in my head and I’m going to take a crack at letting it out where you can get a look at it. Here goes…

The OP asked what right Israel has to exist. The responses posted have swirled around that question in a mess of hurt feelings, righteous indignation and rational exasperation. To return to the point, consider this:

[list=1]
[li]Jewish people believe things that other people don’t.[/li][li]That, right there, is the point of contention.[/li][li]A Jew believes that God Almighty, Creator and Ruler of the Universe, King of All There Is, gave the land of Israel to the Jewish People as an Inheritance.[/li][li]Others disagree.[/li][/list=1]

Now, if you are one of the “Others,” you may call the Jews “fanatics” or “fundamentalists” or “zealots” or “crazy.” But, the fact of the matter is that none of that name-calling will change the Jews’ core belief that they have ultimate claim to the land granted to them by the King of the Universe.

At this point in history, Jews inhabit and rule the land of Israel. They don’t do so particularly well and they may make more than their share of mistakes when it comes to dealing with the challenges of governing.

But, they live there and are not going to leave without a fight. A big, ugly fight that they are confident they would win.

So, returning to the point, Israel’s right to that “piece of dirt” is the only sort of right that matters: squatter’s. International geopolitics are nothing more than a giant game of Quake Domination played with real guns and no frag limit.

Now, in a Jew’s mind, his claim to the land is absolute, just, reasonable and defensible. Others disagree. That is why people fight: because they can not come to agreement.

Comments?

114

Damn! I’ve got about 7/8ths of an impression that that’s a pretty sensible assessment, sl. Huzzah!
Meanwhile, work beckons …

115

Thankee, thankee. I also do parties!
:smiley:

116

good argument sdimbert. But, it does raise other questions. Should the “others” accept that belief by the Israeli’s or try to change it. Somewhat tying in to the argument on Kuwaiti women. Should, people go “well, they got it”. Or should they work towards changing the situation.

117

I wholeheartedly agree with you there. One of the largest problems in justifying Israel’s existence is that it began as a religious claim in a (politically) secular world. That is not to say it is a secular region, indeed, quite the opposite.
Your “squatter’s rights” statement is right on. I spent the last evening trying to think of a country that doesn’t claim the squatter’s right, and was very hard pressed. Hell, even South Africa’s Apartheid gov’t had a hard time being dissolved for precisely that reason. Fortunately for all (except whitey), they were grossly outnumbered and had to give in.

One thing I think we should examine is how countries get formed in the first place: People come in and either buy up land or take it, then declare their independence. If their new neighbours don’t like it, they’re free to complain. But when you get right down to it, it’s a giant game of “King of the hill,” where whoever can hold on to their borders has (at least in their mind) a right to exist. And until the next group comes around and pushes them down the hill, nobody has any real right to say “you don’t belong there.”
Israel has every right to say “We belong here” because they fought for the land, time and time again.
All the while, they were bringing in agriculture. I lived for 4 1/2 months on a Kibbutz in the southern desert. While I was out in the fields, I had enough time during that period to see significant plant growth, and a few first animal sightings. We were told that we were “making the desert bloom.” How many of the other occupants in that area throughout history could say the same?

118

First off, I don’t have any problems with Israel, or the idea of a Palestinian state, or whatever - I’m neutral here. Do have a question, though.

While reading this I’ve noticed people referring, with various opinions, to the events immediately following the end of the 1948 war. As far as I can tell, Israel offered citizenship to 1) everyone on the conquered lands or 2) a select few. It also either 1) allowed irate we’re-not-staying-under-Jewish-rule Palestinians to leave or 2) forced them off the land via strange Jew-favoring land laws, i.e. ‘Empty Land’ or whatever.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as it tends to be, but I’m wondering where that line really is. I’ve read stuff that supports either view. The Israeli line tends to fall back on issues of security, i.e. ‘we HAD to occupy the land’. The Palestinian line has several variations, revolving around their lack of control over the decisions, UN resolutions, and their lack of places to go after getting kicked out.

Whatever the real deal is, it seems clear Israel won’t let bulk refugees in at all these days, and the Palestinians want their land and a non-Jewish government to boot.

The secular state vs. Jewish state is a pretty good debate. This area is one of the more interesting in the world for its unclear good guy - bad guy stances. Israel has the unclear religious/secular power plays going on internally and their, admittely forced by necessity, siege mentality - the Palestinians have an even larger religious problem and a mess of factions.

The right of Israel to exist is moot - it’s not going away. Even the PLO has conceded this.

Eventually, I think, Israel is going to have to get even more secular than it is already, if it’s going to embrace its neighbors. There’s a reason both sides of this disagreement let the U.S. moderate, despite the percieved Israeli bias - the States were founded on principles of religious freedom and church/state seperation, and tend to successfully practice them. Same reason the Pope has his fans in the Middle East - for all his religious power, he also represents a kind of weird secular neutrality.

Ok I’ve babbled enough.

119

IIRC, the Palestinian argument against the state of Israel is:

  1. The Palestinians are the real desendants of the ancient Jewish kingdom of Judea. Over time many converted to Islam and Christianity, with a small handful who remained Jewish. The diaspora after the failed revolt of 70 AD is grossly overstated. Many Jews had emigrated voluntarily to other parts of the Roman Empire but these people and their desendants should have no right to the land of Palestine.

2)As mentioned above, the Palestinians worked the land often without any title, that title being held, bought, and sold by foreign nobles, whether Roman, Byzantine, Egyptian, Crusader, Turk, or English. Jewish purchases of Palestinian land starting in the late 19th century are illegitimate and served to dispossess the people.

3)The legitimate wrongs and gross evils endured by Jews in Europe should be righted by Europeans and not by the Palestinians. The poverty and weakness of the Palestinian people made the state of Israel possible, and hence its creation is akin to the colonial state set up by the Crusaders.

4)Israel’s wars to establish itself as a separate apartheid state created the hatred and tensions that compelled Jews living in Arab countries to migrate to Israel. Although some discrimination against Jews did happen occasionally since the rise of Islam, it was never at the odious level in Europe and worsened only after 1948.

4)European and North American support established Israel and sustain it today. If that support were to end, the Israelies would be compelled to make concessions leading to a multicultural, diverse, democratic Palestine.

5)In the end, the Palestinian people will prevail. It may take decades or even centuries but in the end, the state of Israel will succumb to a diverse democratic Palestinian state. And the vast majority of diaspora Jews will voluntarily convert to Islam.

(My apologies in advance to any Palestinian who will correct my errors.)

With an attitude like this, it’s no surprise that Camp David - 2000 failed.

120

I’m just reading, minding my own business… hmm… Nixon says some interesting stuff. I disagree, but it’s interesting.

Then… BAM!

WTF?
:confused: