First of all, we need to make it clear what the circumstances of the war were. Israel was created through a UN decision that resulted in both an Arab and Israeli state. The land was partitioned. However, this was not enough for the Arabs, they, seemingly, wanted all of it. So, they began a war with Israel. They lost. However, Israel was at a disadvantage here. The Arabs had superior military equipment, for example. The comparison to native americans is absurd. If the native americans fought against the colonists while the colonists were willing to share the land with them, and while at the same time the native americans were superior in military equipment, and then lost, and so lost the land, then we would have a decent comparison. However, this is not the case, obviously.
Why wouldn’t they want all of the land? It was their homeland, after all.
Israel was created through a UN decision that resulted in both an Arab and Israeli state.
This is, to me, the core of the current war going on. Arguing about who had control of the land 100,500,1000,2000 years ago does nothing but obfuscate the problem. My questions would be:
Did the Israelites agree to/sign the dotted line on said partition?
Did the Palestinians agree to/sign the dotted line on said partition?
If both sides DID sign on the dotted line, one wonders why they are fighting.
If either side DIDN’T sign on the dotted line, then why did the UN think that there wasn’t going to be a war, and leave troops behind for, say, 1000 years?
With probably the noblest of intentions, and probably as a direct result of the coming to light of the Holocaust, the UN (with the backing of its members, notably Britain and the US) carved up a territory so as to give the Jewish people a homeland of their own.
And Chaos erupted…
You realize, of course, that compromise is sometimes a good thing? Also, it seems to me that the fact that the Dome of the Rock was built on top of the First and Second Temple sites indicates that the Jews have a halfway decent claim to it as a homeland. Why couldn’t the Arabs allow Jewish neighbors?
The OP is an interesting corelation, but it really is a weak one. That corelation leaves out the religous angle to Israel/Palestine situation, it neglects the role the Ottoman Empire played, and it neglects socio-religous influence. The comparison over simplifies both the AI and Palestinian situations.
Now, if you were to ask, can we learn anything from Euro/AI to apply to Israel/Palestine, that might have been a little stronger, but only a little. If you try to apply realistic, pactical lessons from AIs to Palestinians, I think you begin to see they are limited, which means the OP is kind of weak.
I have limited debate with the points you made. They just had historical tunnel vision.
A few things.
The OP is moot. Right now, in Israel and Palestine, are 5 million Jews and 5 or so million Palestinians. If you debate that one state has no right to exist, you have to provide an outlet for the 5 million people you are going to displace.
In 1948, the Israelis signed on the dotted line. The Arabs did not. This is a gross oversimplification of history and glosses over the facts, but it still is true. War followed, with Arabs the clear aggressor.
Anything before 1948 is moot. In 1948, the UN decided to partition the land. Since the UN is the only body representing a world opinion, that is all that mattered. The fact that Israel received international recognition after partition just makes the issue concrete.
In 1948, the Arab governments had a clear idea of where to displace the million Jews that were there at the time. They clearly advocated either a watery or a celestial dispatch, that is either push 'em into the sea or kill them. The Jews had a clear idea where the Palestinians would go – into their own homeland, delineated by a world governing authority.
The Arab citizens of Israel that didn’t move became part of Israeli society, citizens with full rights. The Jewish citizens of Arab countries were almost entirely exiled from their ancestral homes and forced to become refugees in Israel. And just to complicate matters, the putative Palestinian homeland was annexed by the Arab governments who were presumably fighting on her side.
Injustice has been committed by both sides, I agree. But it doesn’t change the facts of 1948. Just so that you wouldn’t think it is an isolated incident, it happened again in 1967, 1973, and to a certain extent everyday since 1948.
Nationhood is a complicated thing. It doesn’t stem only from historical precedence, and in fact historical precedence is usually a weak claim to nationhood. I ask the OP one question: if Israel has no right to exist, where would you put the 5 million Israelis? If the USA has no right to exist, where would you put the 260 million Americans?
I’ll try and address this bile point by point.
The Jews claim that Israel belongs to them not only because their ancestors have continually lived there for thousands of years but also because the UN and vast majority of the world consider Israel to be a sovereign nation.
It doesn’t draw on “religious mumbo jumbo”, but upon political declarations (by the UN, Britain, etc. etc.) and upon history itself. Since before 1000BCE thousands of ethnic Jews have continually inhabited that specific area. Jews were in Palestine for over a thousand years before the founding of Islam.
The average Texan isn’t “heavily armed”, nor, if that is supposed to be comical, is that relevant. Besides, Texas resistance would NOT be organized suicide bombings on Native American settlements.
When Israel and Palestine were created, Palestine almost immediately attacked Israel. Both were sovereign nations, but now only one is. Reap what you sow.