My "bullshit"comment was in answer to Unregistered Bull
With respect to your comment above, does that apply to aboriginal rights like in the US and Canada? I’ve already pointed out that Jews have lived perpetually in the disputed region for 3000 years at least.
I realize this is the third page of the thread and trying to steer this baby away from the iceberg now is likely futile, but I’ll try.
No sane human being gives a flying fuck who got to Israel first. No reasonable person gives a tin shit whether Group A has been there since 8000 BC (and as has been pointed out, there were no “Jews” in 8000 BC) and Group B got there in 700 AD. Nobody cares, nobody cares, nobody cares. At least not unless you’re a religious batshit nutbar. No Jew alive today was around in 8000 BC and so have no moral claim to the land based on who owned it then, unless you’re also prepared to rearrange the entire globe to account for who was where in 8000 BC. I’m not prepared to kick all the English out of England and give it back to the fucking Saxons.
What matters, simply put; is this:
Israel is a country now. It doesn’t matter if it’s been there since 1948, 1948 BC, or since dinosaurs ruled the earth. It’s a country, more or less a free one, and its people deserve peace and security and to not have their neighbours try to kill them all the time.
The Palestinians, whether or not they voted for Hamas, are human beings too, and their current situation is not reasonable to ask humans to live in.
Really, the problem here cannot be solved by Israel OR Palestine. There is nothing Israel can do that will satisfy the Jew-haters. If they pull out of Lebanon, Hezbollah will keep attacking. If they pull out of the West Bank, Hamas et al. will keep attacking. No withdrawal has ever worked before or will work now.
Similarly, no military response is going to work either, at least in the long run, because the world’s full of Jew-haters and they can’t kill them all. The Israelis can blow Lebanon straight to hell and it won’t make a lick of difference.
Really, Sam Stone has basically nailed the crux of the problem; the problem is that other sovereign states, Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and whatnot, funnel money into terrorist groups and teach their children that Jews drink the blood of Arab children*. This really, in a grand sense, is not the Palestinian’s fault; they’re just the helpless pawns of Syria, Iran et al. And as to that, the ultimate fault is the world’s because for some reason the world community let them get away with it and does nothing about it.
Until that problem is solved, everything Israel does is useless; the problem will never go away. And nobody will do anything about the problem because they’re Jews, and a lot of people still hate them. And since the other Arab states don’t really give a shit about the Palestinians, they’re equally screwed.
And there it is.
It’s not an either/or thing. If an Indian nation has been living in the same place continuously since time out of mind and is still living there now, it has a good claim based on possession. But if the Sioux can somehow prove the territory the Creek have been living on used to be Sioux land centuries ago, that would be irrelevant and nonjusticiable, even if a few Sioux clans or families have been holding out among the Creek for all that time.
Consider, also, the common-low doctrine of adverse possession: If I live on your land long enough and you don’t evict me, it becomes my land legally.
That’s one in nine, not that it makes a hell of a lot of difference. They were a not particularly large minority in a Muslim-dominated region, constituting a smaller fraction of the population of Palestine than either blacks or Hispanics do in America.
They were there, alright, but those numbers don’t exactly justify a Jewish nation in Palestine.
But in unimpressive numbers for well over a millenium.
I would not for a second argue against the right of Jews to live in Israel; it’s just that a justification based on their ongoing presence in pre-1947 Palestine is piss-poor, unless one gives controlling weight to the Hebrew scriptures.
But Israel’s been a state for nearly sixty years now, which is a lot longer than quite a few nations on my world atlas have been in existence. It’s well past time for both the Arab states and Arab non-state organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah to accept that Israel is a fact of life.
And think of how long it took us to disempower the KKK, here in a civilized nation that had established (at great expense in blood and treasure) a monopoly on force, where the majority of the population held the KKK in low regard.
That doesn’t remotely justify Arab hatred of Israel and Jews, but it should keep us from feeling quite so superior as we critique the situation.
They emigrated to and populated the Western Hemisphere, experienced internal divisions, and after a climactic battle in what is now upstate New York in the early fifth century C.E., they gradually lost their recollection of their long and illustrious history.
Such is the danger of relying on Scriptures to adjudicate issues such as this.
Prevailing theory is they were moved to what is now northwestern Iran. Where their descendants today would look at you real funny (if you’re lucky) if you called them Jews.
You wouldn’t want to try negotiating with the Assyrians, especially if they’d just conquered you; they had ways of settling arguments.
I’m seriously suggesting exactly what I type, which isn’t even remotely similar to your restatements.
Who cares? That wasn’t my point. My only point was in response to David Simmons, who still thinks Jews were plunked down in the middle of “Palestine” by the International community and forcibly removed the only rightful natives, the “Palestinians.” My point was to prove to him that we didn’t just pick a random place, drive out the natives and declare ourselves their overlords.
Jews and their ancestors have lived in that region for millennia. They even have a history of actually ruling in that territory. They were living there, largely in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, at the time of Israel’s inception as a State. It was those neighborhoods/cities/communities that were to be Israeli governed, and the predominantly Arab communities that were to be goverened by the Palestinians. Therefore, Mr. Simmons’s allegations and analogies are factually incorrect.
Of course it matters. It matters because people like David Simmons would have everyone believe that Jews have no history in the region, had no right to a sovereign state just because their neighbors hated them, and forcibly removed the rightful natives. Of course it’s important to correct that misinformation.
Being educated and truthful would be a start. Not misrepresenting what’s been pointed out to you would be an even bigger accomplishment. Sadly, I now know to expect neither from you.
Tell that to David Simmons, who seems to give more than a tin of shit. He thinks we just “shoehorned” our way into someone else’s territory. I merely point out that that’s factually incorrect. The rest of your post I agree with completely.
Also an incorrect analogy, as it assumes that Jews completely abandoned the region, only to return later with an outdated claim. First of all, Jews have lived there continuously, but more importantly, the size of their numbers in the region is a direct result of their ongoing persecution by various ruling parties who, as Israel’s neighbors are still trying to do to this day, continuously tried to drive them out, forbid them entry and forbid them practicing their own religion in their own homes on their own land. There’s a reason Jews ended up with the smaller numbers they did in that region – it’s the same reason they have considerably smaller numbers througout Europe than they otherwise would have; their governors and neighbors want(ed) them dead.
How about you try this instead:
The Sioux nation has been living in the same place continuously since time out of mind and is still living there now. In the meantime, the Navaho, Choctaw, Flathead, and Iroquois have alternately governed the Sioux land, persecuting them, forbidding them to practice their native tribal rituals, driving them out and refusing them re-entry for centuries. Then the Creek start moving in, and now it’s their turn to drive the native Sioux into the sea, but the then rightful “owners” of the land, the Cheyenne, decided to split it up equitably between the Sioux and the Creek, where each was to have self-governance and there would be open borders and the hope of peace between long-standing neighbors.
That’d be more representative of reality.
The only dispute I would have with your OP is the title. You point out that the establishment of Israel might just possibly have been a mistake and that the Arabs have been intransigent. You then went on to cheerlead for an Israel victory. Nothing at wrong there-except I don’t think it’s necessarily the correct way to think about the situation. That implies that all ways of thinking about it other than “kick ass Israel” are wrong.
In spite of all the verbiage here about the justification for the establishment of Israel, at the time the Arab population was adamantly opposed and said, at the time, that they would never accept it. Yet the UN went right ahead and did it. There is no solution short of the disappearance of Israel which is highly unlikely and not desirable. So settle down for a continued long haul of unrest and possible open warfare and the need to continue indefinitely support of Israel.
One of our stated goals is to bring democracy to the Mideast. That means that ultimately the people rule, right? Well, this morning’s Los Angeles Times carries a story about a split in the Arab community. Its political leaders, in response to goading, give a lukewarm thumbs down to Hezbolla while the people are all for it even posting laudatory slogans and pictures of its leaders in Egypt.
Go ahead and cheerlead if it makes you feel good, but that’s not a solution and I don’t think it is the only correct way to think about the situation.
Guys, I don’t know all the ins and outs of this conflict; I just live in the Middle East.
I just wish the revisionist “they left of their own accord” bullshit would stop. Yozef Weitz’s and Samuel Katz’s version of the Palestinian exodus has been widely discredited in recent times (cite) although you wouldn’t know it from the crap I’ve read in here! :smack:
And just in case you want to call me out for publishing a “biased” link, the website is for the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.
I don’t think DS’s point is that there were no Jews there. Of course Jews were there. But that doesn’t mean that there has always been an officially recognized Jewish state with thousands of people and settlements and policies that affect the non-Jews who have also lived there for a long time.
I want to agree with your point of view, Shayna, because I respect you as a poster. But if you replaced “Jew” with any other group and based your case on something like “Whites were there first!” or “Blacks have a history of ruling in that area!” wouldn’t you expect people to say it doesn’t matter? Jews are not the only people who have a history in that area, but even if they did, that really doesn’t justify whatever goes on in the present.
Jewish people have been living in the region for a long time, but its wrong to treat that as evidence that the region belongs to all Jews, which is what it seems like you are saying. Black people have been living in South Africa forever, too. That doesn’t mean black people the world over can claim that as “their” country and take up residence there, to hell with all the non-blacks. If this isn’t what you are saying, please clarify.
Um, have you actually read the account in that link? :smack:
The authours basically say “they mostly left of their own accord” is the most resonable explaination:
What the authors contest is that the were ordered to leave, citing no existence of contemprary Arab “orders” to that effect. They also dismiss the notion that there was an organized attempt by Israelis to push 'em out.
In short, war happened, and the Palistinians - perhaps fueled by legitimate fears - left.
Though why it should matter now I don’t know. You don’t see any fuss raised about the expulsion of the Shephardim from Arab countries, and that was more recent.
To my mind, it doesn’t matter a wink whether the Israelis have a “right” to live there or not, or whether it was “legitimate” for them to want to live there or not. I live in Canada, and I feel I have every right to live here in spite of the fact that it was inhabited of old by ‘another people’.
It is a foolish issue. They are there now, many if not most were born there, and they are not leaving.
The Palistinians have gotten the short end of the stick, no doubt of that. And precious little in the way of help from their Arab “brothers”. As I see it, they have two choices:
Continue to fight Israel, in the hope of eventual victory and getting ansestral lands back- against an enemy well organized, well armed, rich, and just as numerous; or
Forget victory, and build a nation of their own.
The second choice seems more reasonable to me. Heck, by the same measure of time, my family’s “ancestral lands” are in Romania - I don’t want 'em back, thank you. 
I couldn’t care less what he thinks.
However, this “we Jews have been there since time immemorial” is a position every bit as dangerous to the cause of peace because Jewish religious zealots use their particular fairy tales to justify kicking the Arabs out of the West Bank and Gaza, too, and who knows what else. (For that matter, some fundamentalist Christians are fans of this viewpoint as well.)
And who’s “we” anyway? Your location is in California.
Screw it - let Israel annex every bit of territory they can get their mitzvahs on, and make high-school education mandatory for all women (let it remain voluntary for men) in the conquered lands. Establish some kind of citizenship test that all conquered persons can take after 20 years, requiring a demonstration of literacy and the ability to display critical thinking, at which point they can vote for representatives in the Knesset. Encourage economic opportunity for women through small-scale investment in agricultural collectives and whatnot, leading to more complex economic initiatives as the more talented and driven women rise to positions of wealth and power.
Basically, write off every Palestinian male, except those willing to make an effort to work for advancement, education and peaceful coexistence. If they choose instead to leave, let 'em. At the very least, educating and empowering women has the effect of reducing the birthrate, which if left unchecked promises to make all of this moot in the next 50 years.
Basically, I’m calling for the destruction of Arab machismo, which had a purpose once but is now way more destructive than beneficial.
Gasp. Choke. Sputter.
I’m mortally wounded.
My whole sense of self-worth is invested in gaining your approval. 
I tend to agree. The “we have been here since time immemorial” of the Israelis versus the “it was our ancestral lands” of the Palistinians should be discarded as arguments.
Of course, in an instance where the Palestinians can say, “it was our ancestral lands, and the ancestor in question is Granddaddy here who still remembers when he used to live in that house and plow that field,” that’s a mite different.
So you want to fill the Knesset with people who are pretty much * guaranteed* to hate Israel ? You don’t find many moderate, forgiving people among the conquered, especially the ones with dead friends and relatives - which will be most of them. Then there’s the continued brutality required to keep them conquered, which makes them hate the conquerers even more. This is true anywhere, much less the ME which isn’t big on forgiveness. There there is the fundamental evil of conquest.
Again, you are putting more enemies of Israel in positions of power within Israel.
Nor did I say or imply that anywhere, as that would be a ridiculous and factually incorrect claim.
No, that is emphatically not what I’m saying. I do not believe that Jews have an inherant “right” to form a country there just because they’ve lived there a long time. As you point out, that, as a singular reason by itself, would be wrong. They have a country there because the people who had control over divvying up the territory gave them one, while simultaneously offering one to the other locals in the region. And they were offered that autonomy, in part, because they have hisotric roots, including periods of self-rule, in that region. It makes perfect sense, whereas, had Britain just decided to turn it over to, say, the Chinese, it wouldn’t have, as the Chinese had no historical connection to, nor a current population in the region.
I am, again, only saying that the notion that they have no right to their own country there because they “shoehorned” themselves into someone else’s territory is wrong. They did nothing of the sort. They were not plunked down into someone else’s country. It’s been theirs as much as anyone else’s over the course of history. They are not interlopers and it is wrong to portray them as such. Is that more clear?
Actually, not so. They do cite the existence of documents stating exactly that. . . (emphasis mine)
But those are “dismissed” as “attributable to 1) Inter-Arab conflict on responsibility for the exodus; and 2) A concern on the part of some Palestinians to defend themselves against charges of weakness or cowardice.”
How quaint. Now we can just wave away actual written history and replace it with our own imagination? Oh goody! It’s gonna be fun to see what I can come up with now.
Not to mention, any source that claims that it’s an “official Israeli myth. . . that the Palestinians and Arab States were united in their desire to destroy Israel” should not be taken seriously when it comes to recounting factual history.
Not it’s not. It’s not a damn bit different, and had the Palestinians accepted the self-governance they were offered at the time, they’d still be able to say that. It’s not Israel’s fault that the Palestinians were stupid enough to turn the Brits down.
It may be different, but it is equally irrelevant.
My grand-daddy would remember plowing a field in Romania, were he still alive. So what if he got run out of Romania under threat of death? Should I have a claim to my “ancestral lands” - which I have never seen, and on which probably several generations of new owners are living?
The question would be laughable, if the situation for Palistinians were not tragic. Of course, ordinary people who have been victims of history move on if they survive - to do new things elsewhere, as have my family. The Palistinians have been prevented from doing that, in part by circumstance (living on lands subsequently over-run in war) and in part by their “brother Arabs”.
I remember when Canada (my country) made a proposal to start accepting Palistinian refugees as citizens - which was roundly protested by Palistinian groups, as an attack on their desire to “return”. This desire is in part to blame for holding them hopeless in dispair, in a sort of time-warp.