The case for Israel

Great Debates
41

Yes, Might might make Right, but wouldn’t it be better if Might supports a well documented and factualized Right?

If you agree to this logic, then the situation is entirely different. You come into the house and say “It’s mine!”. “How so?”, you’re asked by the unlawful occupiers. “Because!”, and you produce some documents and facts and titles and receipts that support your claim.

Now, if the punk persists in his squatting, and tells you lies, looking in your eyes w/o blinking, then you exercise your Might.

I think that such a situation is far superior to sheer, naked violence.

Squatting - Per law, the squater can stay on the property if the owner didn’t object for a certain period of time, 3 yrs I think it is in US.
If the owner objects, or gives permission, then the squater has to leave at first notification and doesn’t retain any rights to his stay for the period.
In Israel’s case, all the vows and prayers and so on, serve as objections, by any standard, so the squatters have to leave, by right or by might.

42

The term Palestine comes form the Hebrew/Semitic root “p-l-sh”, meaning “(to) invade”.

This was the denomination given and mentioned in the Bible to the people who came to the shores of the Mediteranian nations from the sea, the Mediteranian basin.

Gaza is “Pleshet”, “The invaded”, b/c this is where the invaders came in this particular region. The people were “Plishtim” (‘invaders’ in the plural), whom Samson fought - this is how they were known to the locals, witness Samson’s last words: “Let my soul die with the ‘plishtim’!”.

The Palestine denomination was given to the land of Israel by the Romans.

The Brits gave this name to the land which they mandated after UN commissioned them for this task.

And so it is that the local Arabs are known as Palestinians.

Now, the Arabs are just that, Arabs, descendants of Ishma’el. Maybe they are Canaanites, maybe not, there’s not anything to support such a thesis.

The Jews, OTOH, can show some really hard titles and receipts.

43

is nothing else but just that, revisionist ideas and suppositions and assumptions, things that always call for gymnastics of the brain and distortions of the mind and reality that can hardly be justified, but in their own contorted logic, crowned with the author’s self-satisfaction while sticking his tongue to the mainstream and smiling broadly and foolishly at the amazed world.

44

citation - “The Zionism of the Bible is far anterior to the exile of Israel - even the first exile. It dates back to the prehistoric days of Israel in Egypt; and Moses was the first Zionist” 1).

  1. “Zionism”, in the series of “Handbooks prepared under the direction of the Historical Section of the Foreign Office [of Britain - danbar]”-No… 162 (H.M. Stationery office), 1920, p. 2.

Cut a long story short, in this ch. one can see that place names mentioned in the Bible are derived from the actions of the israelites, such as digging wells, planting orchards and vineyards, etc.

THE RETURN FROM BABYLON AFTER THE FIRST EXILE
…It was these visions of a divinely assured return to Zion which kept alive the sense of national cohesion among the Jewish exiles in Babylon. Unlike other nations conquered by the Chaldeans and transplanted to new surroundings, they refused to become rooted in the land of their captivity. “If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy “ (Psalm CXXXVII, , 6). Their loyalty was rewarded when, after his conquest of Babylon, Cyrus, King of Persia, allowed the Jewish exiles to return to Palestine and reconstruct the Temple in Jerusalem.

My note - This loyalty and utter commitment to their land, is still in existence and it is what kept the nationalist fire kindled.

DanBar

45

A few, not most. Even most Mizrahi Jews came from outside the region - as late as 1900 Palestinian Jews amounted to ~ .06% of the total Jewish world population.

But the vast, vast majority had NOT been there for 3,000 years ;). Saying their distant ancestors had, is, as I said, a pretty piss-poor argument in my book. Besides modern genetic studies appear to have confirmed that modern Palestinian populations likely share some of those same ancient Israelite ancestors, making them just as indigenous if you want to make that ancient ancestors argument. Which answers Ralph’s question - modern DNA testing has resolved some genetic relationships between modern Palestinian Arabs and modern Israelis Jews. Which only makes sense - most “Arab” populations outside of Arabia consist primarily of locals that adopted Arabic at some point. Immigration out of Arabia was a factor, but a lesser one. That some modern Palestinian Arabs are descended in some part from Jews that converted to Christianity or Islam ( or even Greco-Roman paganism ) is a near certainty.

To answer your first question last, I believe minority populations, however defined, should have access to the same rights as enjoyed by the majority. Further if a minority group is subject to clear disadvantage based on biases stemming from their minority status, they may deserve temporary “special rights” in some form, designed to redress their ills.

But I do not, as a rule, embrace the philosophical concept of the ethnic nation-state. I do not, for example, think the Slovenes or the Bashkirs or the Kashubian Wends or the Kurds or the Nagas or whoever deserve their own country just based on their distinct ethnicity, however defined. But I’m also not dogmatic about it given human nature and its tendency to by segregate by group/tribe/pack. So I recognize that in the face of severe repression, partition and independant nation status may be necessary. However I will continue to consider it a lesser of two evils choice.

46

If world history is a busy highway, the Jews have been traveling on it by bicycle for the past 2000 years or so. It was only until the formation of modern Israel that they got themselves a car. A very fast, well-armored car.

47

So can I/we expect a sister thread insisting that the United States returns the Black Hills to its rightful owners?

CMC +fnord!
Oh, and the Sioux have a hard title and receipt, it’s called the Treaty of Fort Laramie.

48

Pfft. The Lakota were latecomer invaders who drove out the earlier inhabitants - this after themselves being driven from their “rightful lands” further east by the Chippewa :p.

49

And in theory we could give Texas back to Mexico, but I think we’ll keep it.

50

That’s still a word that can be defined however it suits the political purposes of the speaker.

Saying that Jews are “indigenous” to Israel but Palestinians are not is simply insane, based on no conceivably rational examination of history, and I think that’s what the OP is trying to claim.

Well, see, this is what’s wrong with such “Declarations” of group “rights.” Which Canadians are immigrants, and which are not? I’ll grant that someone who was actually not born in Canada is definitely an immigrant, but why should the UN declare one ethnic group, made up of people born in Canada, to have rights than another ethnic group, also made up of people born in Canada, do not? I understand what the UN was trying to accomplish - they just didn’t want certain groups to get getting screwed over - but the vague weasel vocabulary of the declaration succeeds mostly in proving why ethnic-based politics is a game everyone loses the moment it begins.

Homo sapiens isn’t indigenous to North America at all, if you want to really interpret the word strictly; humans, AFAIK, are indigenous to southeastern Africa. At what time point does indigenousness begin, if not there? I’m at least an eighth-generation Canadian; am I indigenous? What conceivably meaningful distinction could be drawn between someone whose ancestors go back 200 years here, or 2000?

The assignment of sovereignty based on alleged historical “indigenous” status just doesn’t, and never will, work. You can’t possibly draw any set of borders that will work. It’s a recipe for ethnic rivalry, hatred, war and cyclical violence. What constitutes “historical presence” and, if I may be frank, why should I give a flying fuck where someone’s great-great-great-great-great-grandfather lived?

51

This reminds me of a joke:

The Israeli Ambassador is sitting down with Yassir Arafat to try to work out a peace agreement. The Ambassador asks if he might first tell a story. Arafat tells him to go ahead. The Ambassador begins.

"When Moses was in the desert for 40 years, the Jews got very thirsty and Moses asked God for water and there appeared a beautiful lake. The Jews first drank and then bathed themselves. Moses did the same when it was his turn, but when he came out of the water, all his clothes were gone.

"Moses shouted, Where are my clothes? Who took them?"

"The Jews answered, The Palestinians took them."

Arafat quickly objected by saying that there were no Palestinians at that time.
The Ambassador looks at Arafat and says, “RIGHT!!! NOW we can begin to negotiate.”

52

Must we? :frowning:

53

You would have to show first that there was actually an Ishmael. But even assuming there has been one… Are you believing that “Arabs”, as we commonly use the word when refering to Palestinians, are actually descended from “Arabs” in a stricter sense, that is, the people who lived in the Arabic peninsula and originally spoke Arabic?

They of course aren’t. They are the descendant of Turks and Romans, of Phoenicians and Franks, of Egyptians and Philistins, of Greeks and Persians, and so on… and of course of people who lived there long before there was any concept of “Hebrew”. And of course also of Hebrews. And they even have some Arab ancestors.

54

Too bad that these authors are so misguided, because their thesis would give the Hebrews a better claim at being “indigenous” to Palestine than the bible does…
By the way, if I convert tomorrow to Judaism, do I get a valid claim to palestinian land too (not according to Israeli law, but according to your opinion of what makes a claim valid)?
Finally many have stated that American, Canadians, Australians, etc… people are hardly in a position to support the idea that the land belongs to the descendants of the people who were there first, or who have a longstanding claim to said land.
It seems to me that if you are a citizen of one of those country, you can’t make a statement about Palestine and at the same time avoid to explain your position regarding your own country. So, who, in your opinion, has a legitimate claim to North America or Australia and why?

55

You don’t actually have any idea what you’re talking about, do you? Israel Finkelstein is the Chair of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University. What are your credentials?

Your desperately hand-waving characterization of The Bible Unearthed shows a great deal of ignorance on the subject of ANE archaeology. If you knew anything about the subject, you’d know that The Bible Unearthed was not particularly radical and certainly not “revisionist,” but on a popularization of what has been well-known within the field for years. You also show ignorance of the evidence itself.

I notice that you use a lot of words in your dismissal of Finkelstein and Silberman but you don’t actually provide any evidence or argumentation to back any of it up. Would you care to give that a try. Could you give an example of somethingh ou think they “revised” and explain why they’re wrong. Please support your examples with evidence.

56

But who are Aboriginal people?

Australian Aborigines came from New Guinea and no doubt from somewhere else previous to that.

The Maoris came from the South Seas.
In N.America Native American peoples drove other N.American peoples West,South and North,remember we talking about a continent here.
And the N.A.s came from Siberia in the first place.
Clovis man,the main contender for being the earliest inhabitants of North America before dyeing out(most likely by being killed off by the present "Native Americans)came from France.

The S.American Indians came from the S.Seas and probably somewhere in S.E. Asia before that.
Many E.Europeans came from the ME as did the present day Greeks.
The original inhabitants of S.Africa,the Bushmen were wiped out by Black Africans who came from a much more northerly part of the continent,the Zulus normally get the blame.

The English came from Germany and Scandanavia.

The Irish came from France.

And there are blue eyed people who have lived in the N.W. of the subcontinent of India for a couple of thousand years who are actually descendants of Alex the Greats troops.

And while we are in India the Moghuls who ruled the place before the Brits came from central Asia and their are many Indians descended from Africans.

I could go on forever but thankfully for Dopers everywhere I’ll shut up now.

57

Huh??? :confused: Could you elaborate?

58

I think he is referring to the Solutrean hypothesis.

59

Diogenes the Cynic said:

I answer:

I admit, head held high, that I didn’t read the book. But I’m willing to bet my last dollar in an ultimate act of defiant arrogance that he is a revisionist, not so much unlike so many in the academia nowadays, days defined by “This is what I think. Don’t agree? Your problem. Now try to disprove it.”

Why would his book be better than those of others, so many of them, saying otherwise, and why would you choose to base your stand on his, when there are so many proponents of the opposite side?
Really, why did you bring HIS theory? To disprove the Jewish Right of Claim, of course, which may be not of malicious intent, but just to show that this is not a justified case.

I’m not saying that he is to be rejected outright, but why would you expect me to adopt a stand that is so off-beat, while the mainstream, much more propounded, is there to ponder on and to guide me also?

It’s interesting to read another idea, but another take is not a revolution, you know.

I gave it a little thought and I decided that it is just a piece of revisionism, rampant in the high-put circles of thought as in those of the misfits of the Internet. I am well versed w conspiracy exotics, which might come from the academia, too, and I know by now how to sift between them and what to choose at second glance.

Frex, I reject outright the attempt to give the Israeli lobby the power that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt claim it has. Or the infamous stance of Prof. Churchill on US policy and 9/11 and its subsequent followers that gain ground in the academia, now, trying to prove w scientific objectivity that the 9/11 conspiracy of a US self-inflicted attack to advance its World Gov’t sinister program.

No, I do not sybscribe to Finkelstein’s denial attempts. No, sir.

60

For Tamerlane, mainly.

Let’s review the Jewish circumstances.

Exiled. Meaning “I am where I am not of my own volition”.

Commitment - 2k yrs of uninterrupted vows and commitment to the ancestral land, expressed in each and every aspect of the national ethnic and familial life, wherever they were, and are, still, as in this famous Jewish vow: “If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy “ (Psalm CXXXVII)", which is recited every day in their prayers.
This commitment is persistent and permanent, as reflected in the Israeli anthem, ha-Tikvah, “The Hope”, composed in the 19th cent., one of which lines is “The hope, two thousand years old”. The meaning of that hope? To return to Israel and to rebuild it as a national home.
What can be more convincing of the ties of a group to its origins than such an unwavering commitment?

Common knowledge of this commitment - No one can say w honesty that he didn’t or doesn’t know about it.

Persecution, permanent, common - You mention it correctly, agreeing to it, as a cause for a need for a national home. This is exactly what Herzl did in incepting the Zionist movement.
Note that the name of this movement is taken form the nickname for Israel, Zion, yet another witness for this nation’s commitment to its land of old and of origin.

Return - Finally, they came back, making true the claim to which they referred for so long.
What are the implications? The current occupiers of the land, the unlawful squatters, have to get up, pack and leave. Not less. They knew what they did. They knew perfectly what would be the consequences of their unlawful actions.

Yes, of course that if you agree w such a revolutionizing stance on national aspirations, you make a very big wave, a wave that can rock the boat of the accepted state of the global situation everywhere almost.

Uncomfortable? You bet! And if I may be blunt, as others were here, I don’t give a fuck nor a shit about the repercussions of such an action. This is what I need, so this is what I do, especially when it is so obviously right and justified.

Now this is a very interesting point, w many wide and deep implications, to which I respond in my next post.