# We should give Israel to the Mormons **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 19, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458 "2012-11-19T01:02:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/141 "2012-11-26T20:23:54Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Under international law, a belligerent is any entity engaged in war. Lol, quit weaseling. When you asserted that Israel is “the belligerent,” you obviously were not saying that Israel was engaged in war. Obviously Israel is engaged in war. Duh. I guess you are abandoning your ridiculous claim that Israel is the aggressor and the Arabs are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can. > [@](#): > > I should have been more cautious in using a legal term of art. You should have been more cautious in making ridiculous claims. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/142 "2012-11-26T22:24:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > . . . Yes, as Israel, the state, was created by war. . . . ??? I thought Israel was self-declared as a state, and confirmed in its existence by the U.N. The war followed, to try to destroy Israel, but the war wasn’t what created it. The war (and subsequent wars) certainly altered its boundaries, but didn’t create the state. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/143 "2012-11-26T22:50:58Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > ??? I thought Israel was self-declared as a state, and confirmed in its existence by the U.N. The war followed, to try to destroy Israel, but the war wasn’t what created it. The war (and subsequent wars) certainly altered its boundaries, but didn’t create the state. Neither the simple declaration of statehood, not the UN’s seal of approval, created the Israeli state. It was created by the fact that it won the war in 1948. Had it lost, there would not now be an Israeli state. Moreover, had it not been fought, the Israeli state would have looked much different. The “partition plan” approved by the UN looked nothing like the “pre-1967” borders of Israel. In short, in every way that counts, Israel was in fact a creation of the War of 1948. In as much as any country is ever a product of war. Now I suppose one could take the position that wars simply do not create countries. In which case, of course, Bangladesh was not created by war, either. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/144 "2012-11-26T22:57:42Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Neither the simple declaration of statehood, not the UN’s seal of approval, created the Israeli state. It was created by the fact that it won the war in 1948. Israel did not fight the war in 1948 ? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/145 "2012-11-26T23:00:19Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Israel did not fight the war in 1948 ? ??? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/146 "2012-11-26T23:14:12Z")
Well you said Israel did not exist until the war was over/won. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/147 "2012-11-26T23:17:37Z")
I see it the same way that **The Flying Dutchman** does: if Israel didn’t exist until after the war (the war that created it) then how could it have been a participant in that war? I certainly agree that, if the war had gone otherwise, Israel might have been very, very short-lived. Biafra and all that. But it was “created” by the declaration and U.N. recognition. It was simply preserved by the outcome of the war. Anyway…minor semantical dissent. (Since this is the Pit, I’ll add “fuckety fuck fuck” just for form’s sake.) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/148 "2012-11-26T23:26:22Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Well you said Israel did not exist until the war was over/won. Nor, for all practical purposes, did it. The war was fought at first by the organization known as the Haganah, which had in point of fact existed since around 1920 or so. Only a couple of weeks after the declaration of independance was the Haganah re-named the “Israeli Defence Forces”. > **[Haganah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah)** > > Haganah (Hebrew: הַהֲגָנָה ha-Haganah, lit. 'The Defense')\[a\] was the main Zionist paramilitary organization that operated for the Yishuv in the British Mandate for Palestine. It was founded in 1920 to defend the Yishuv's presence in the region, and was formally disbanded in 1948, when it became the core force integrated into the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Israeli Declaration of Independence. > Formed out of previous existing militias, Haganah's original purpose was to defend Jewish ... ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/149 "2012-11-26T23:32:13Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > ??? I thought Israel was self-declared as a state, and confirmed in its existence by the U.N. The war followed, to try to destroy Israel, but the war wasn’t what created it. The war (and subsequent wars) certainly altered its boundaries, but didn’t create the state. Well, first of all, the war started in earnest in November 1947, six months before the state was declared. It was a civil war and not an invasion, but Israel still considers it part of its War of Independence. Second of all, the U.N. never confirmed the existence of Israel. It approved the Partition Plan and ordered the end of the British Mandate, but past that its first official recognition of Israel was when it accepted as a member in 1949. You could say, then, that Israel was founded in 1949, if by the same logic you accept that the United States was founded in 1945. Third of all, if Israel didn’t fight in its war of independence, then neither did the United States in 1776. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/150 "2012-11-26T23:39:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I see it the same way that **The Flying Dutchman** does: if Israel didn’t exist until after the war (the war that created it) then how could it have been a participant in that war? > > I certainly agree that, if the war had gone otherwise, Israel might have been very, very short-lived. Biafra and all that. But it was “created” by the declaration and U.N. recognition. It was simply preserved by the outcome of the war. > > Anyway…minor semantical dissent. > > (Since this is the Pit, I’ll add “fuckety fuck fuck” just for form’s sake.) The war was initially fought by the Haganah on behalf of the Yishuv. Merely calling something a state does not make it a state in fact. What creates a state is an entity having the power to control its territory and to engage in relations with other states. This is not a mere quibble, it is central to the definition of what a “state” is. Under Declarative Theory a significant aspect of statehood is the fact that a state has a defined territory which it in fact controls … mere self-declaration is not sufficient and neither is international recognition. > **[Sovereign state | Declarative theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_theory_of_statehood#Declarative_theory)** > > By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.\[3... This is contrasted with the “constitutive theory of statehood” under which international recognition alone is sufficient … but IMO the Declarative Theory simply makes more sense. A state exists even if others refuse to recognize that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/151 "2012-11-27T00:16:50Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Well, first of all, the war started in earnest in November 1947, six months before the state was declared. . . . Well, that helps a little, but still doesn’t do the trick. > [@](#): > > Third of all, if Israel didn’t fight in its war of independence, then neither did the United States in 1776. But when did the U.S. come into existence? July 4th, 1776? Then it existed prior to the Revolutionary War. (One could say the war began upon the instant of the Declaration.) The war didn’t “create” the U.S., but simply ensured that it was not directly dismantled. > [@Malthus](#): > > . . . IMO the Declarative Theory simply makes more sense. A state exists even if others refuse to recognize that fact. Tricky… How many others? If no one recognizes it? If no one sends ambassadors, no one receives their ambassadors, no one marks it on their maps, etc.? Does Biafra (or Sealand) exist, even if no one recognizes that fact? Does South Viet Nam exist? Did Latvia exist (as a state) in 1965? I would say there has to be some “tipping point” where consensus and functionality merge to define reality. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/152 "2012-11-27T02:11:14Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This is not a mere quibble, it is central to the definition of what a “state” is. Under Declarative Theory a significant aspect of statehood is the fact that a state has a defined territory which it in fact controls … mere self-declaration is not sufficient and neither is international recognition. By this definition, Gaza is a (the only?) Palestinian ‘state’, governed _de facto_ by Hamas. And it will continue to be a _de facto_ ‘state’ until, and unless, Israel (or someone else) goes back in, definitively defeats Hamas, and governs the damned place. Something Israel has never done. Of course, Hamas has never bothered with the ‘govern’ bit, either, so there’s that. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Tricky… How many others? If no one recognizes it? If no one sends ambassadors, no one receives their ambassadors, no one marks it on their maps, etc.? Does Biafra (or Sealand) exist, even if no one recognizes that fact? Does South Viet Nam exist? Did Latvia exist (as a state) in 1965? I would say there has to be some “tipping point” where consensus and functionality merge to define reality. Does the [Conch Republic](http://www.conchrepublic.com/welcome.htm) exist? Their passports have been accepted by several governments for international, and even Diplomatic travel. It’s not a very clear-cut distinction. Especially since _that_ was intended as a joke, but it’s been taken seriously. Effective control of your supposed ‘state’s’ territory. You’re a ‘state’ if you exercise effective control over it, and no pre-existing state can (or will bother, in the case of Sealand) effectively contest that control. By that definition, Hamas has a _de facto_ ‘state’ in Gaza. And, due to their lack of interest in actually _governing_ it, rather than merely using it as a base from which to attack Israel, is responsible for the fact that it’s a miserable, unlivable hell-hole. [sub]I blame **Bushrak Obamney**. And **Jimmy Netanarafat** probably has something to do with it, too…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/153 "2012-11-27T04:48:29Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Does the [Conch Republic](http://www.conchrepublic.com/welcome.htm) exist? Their passports have been accepted by several governments for international, and even Diplomatic travel. I’d question the veracity of the claim that the Conch Republic’s passports have been accepted by even one government. A mistake made by a border guard does not constitute diplomatic recognition of a state. But I’m sure you already know that. By the way, the US does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea; however, nobody seriously asserts that North Korea is not a state, a failed one but a state nevertheless. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/154 "2012-11-27T04:55:12Z")
p.s. AFAIK, the Conch Republic passports are merely souvenirs. In other words, they’re issued as a joke. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/155 "2012-11-27T08:47:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Imposing a blockade is certainly an act of war. However, in the case of Gaza and Israel, there already exists a state of war, as Hamas refuses to make peace. The blockade was initiated when Hamas acceded to power, that’s true, but according to the UN, Gaza remained an occupied territory. Occupation is an equally an act of war. > [@](#): > > I disagree that such a “structural difference” makes, or should make, any actual difference in the legitimacy of the state created thereby. Otherwise, you are in effect rewarding rejectionism. In point of fact, the borders of the states were _not_ agreed, and have remained controversial (to say the least) to today. [/quote] There were representatives of all parties which had a historical claim on the territory though. If a state is created unilaterally by an imperial power with the dissent of large numbers of its citizens, surely that damages its legitimacy? That’s the source of contention for Kashmir, for instance. > [@](#): > > How is this “structurally different” from the creation of Israel by war … ? > > Yes, as Israel, the state, was created by war. Yet for some reason a question has been raised about its legitimacy, and not the legitimacy of Bangladesh. There’s a difference between a revolutionary or civil war to achieve emancipation or autonomy for a group that has no political representation under their state and a war of conquest where a state wishes to acquire more territory. > [@brazil84](#): > > I guess you are abandoning your ridiculous claim that Israel is the aggressor and the Arabs are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can. Well, “aggression” is a legal term too pertaining to a war waged without a claim to self-defence. In which case, I don’t think Palestine can be claimed to be an aggressor given it is acting to protect its borders. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/156 "2012-11-27T09:21:35Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > The blockade was initiated when Hamas acceded to power, that’s true, but according to the UN, Gaza remained an occupied territory. Occupation is an equally an act of war. How about “consequence of war”? > [@](#): > > There were representatives of all parties which had a historical claim on the territory though. If a state is created unilaterally by an imperial power with the dissent of large numbers of its citizens, surely that damages its legitimacy? That’s the source of contention for Kashmir, for instance. The partition plan for Palestine was a UN initiative, wasn’t it? > [@](#): > > There’s a difference between a revolutionary or civil war to achieve emancipation or autonomy for a group that has no political representation under their state and a war of conquest where a state wishes to acquire more territory. How about “defensive war”? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/157 "2012-11-27T09:22:26Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > (One could say the war began upon the instant of the Declaration.) You could. Most people, however, would say that it started at Lexington and Concord. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/158 "2012-11-27T09:57:48Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Well, “aggression” is a legal term too pertaining to a war waged without a claim to self-defence. Perhaps, but so what? Please respond to the point I am actually making as opposed to the point you wish or imagine I had made. In the Arab/Israeli conflict, it does not matter what the Jews do – there will be a conflict so long as there is a Jewish state in the area. Israel could withdraw from Golan and the West Bank tomorrow and there would still be a conflict (in fact the conflict would intensify) just like there was intense conflict before there was a single Israeli soldier in those areas. > [@](#): > > In which case, I don’t think Palestine can be claimed to be an aggressor given it is acting to protect its borders. I’m not sure what you mean by “Palestine,” but let me ask you this: 1. Before 1967, what exactly were the Arabs doing to “protect their borders”? 2. Exactly what borders are Hamas trying to protect with their rocket attacks on Israel? 3. Do you believe Hamas when it states its goal is to destroy Israel? Or do you think Hamas is lying and it actually just wants to protect borders? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/159 "2012-11-27T14:11:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Tricky… How many others? If no one recognizes it? If no one sends ambassadors, no one receives their ambassadors, no one marks it on their maps, etc.? Does Biafra (or Sealand) exist, even if no one recognizes that fact? Does South Viet Nam exist? Did Latvia exist (as a state) in 1965? I would say there has to be some “tipping point” where consensus and functionality merge to define reality. If that’s your position, then surely in the case of Israel the “tipping point” was after the War of 1948, not before, as only after 1948 did it have “functionality” as well as “consensus”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458/160 "2012-11-27T14:18:43Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > The blockade was initiated when Hamas acceded to power, that’s true, but according to the UN, Gaza remained an occupied territory. Occupation is an equally an act of war. Then the UN is incorrect, in that it is using some technical meaning of “occupation” that does not accord with reality, given that blockade does not generally equal occupation - just as beseiging a city is not the same thing as capturing it (although both are acts of war). > [@](#): > > There were representatives of all parties which had a historical claim on the territory though. If a state is created unilaterally by an imperial power with the dissent of large numbers of its citizens, surely that damages its legitimacy? That’s the source of contention for Kashmir, for instance. The partition plan was not a “unilateral act by an imperial power”, but rather a UN plan. Britian washed its hands of the place. > [@](#): > > There’s a difference between a revolutionary or civil war to achieve emancipation or autonomy for a group that has no political representation under their state and a war of conquest where a state wishes to acquire more territory. The 1948 War was hardly a “war of conquest” by the Israelis, given that it was they who accepted the UN partition plan and were invaded by their neighbours. > [@](#): > > Well, “aggression” is a legal term too pertaining to a war waged without a claim to self-defence. In which case, I don’t think Palestine can be claimed to be an aggressor given it is acting to protect its borders. How is Hamas “protecting its borders” in the current fracas? As noted, there is no threat by Israel to take over Gaza (other than in retaliation) - it unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and there are no plans to return. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-should-give-israel-to-the-mormons/641458.md?page=9)