I know this isn’t the most popular thing to ask in America or at this moment but I think it needs to be addressed.
Part of the stipulation in any peace proposal is the recognition by Palestine and/or the Arab States to recognize the right of Israel to exist. (This was again included in the new Saudi proposal). This actually seems to be the sticking point because the Arabs believe that the Jews basically stole the land from the Arabs who were living in Palestine at the time to build their new state. Therefore, one could argue, the Arabs reject the State of Israel but not neccessarily the Nation of Israel of which nearly half live in the United States.
Also, there are many national bodies, some larger, and just as galvanized as the Jews that are stateless. The Kurds. The Copts. I am a Copt, the descendants of the original Egyptians, who, as a body, rally around one religion (Orthodox Christianity), have a rich archeological history (You know, the Pyramids, the Sphynx, King Tut), and, also, a history of persecution (primarily at the hands of the Muslims). Does the Coptic nation deserve a state as well–we’re peaceful, honestly–and what about the Kurds, the Armenians, etc.?
So to return to my question: Why does the State of Israel have the right to exist?
Why does the USA have the “right” to exist? Because it does de facto exist, because it has land, guns to guard it and other countried recognise it. What else do you want?
The U.N. has recognized Israel as a sovereign nation, and has since 1948. That makes Israel just as legitimate as any other nation in the region, and makes it an older country than many, many other countries in the world.
In addition, Israel has been a good world citizen. It has a healthy economy, a modern, peace-loving population. It’s a democracy, and rules by consent of the governed. That makes it a more legitimate state in my eyes than countries like Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or many other states in the region that were created out of the remnants of British Colonialism, but which are ruled by dictators and don’t have the consent of the people.
Israel is the only country in the world which, after 50 years of existence, still has to continually prove to the world that it has a right to simply exist.
It’s true that the Arabs believe that the land for the state of Israel was stolen at some point in the past. So what? Native Americans might believe that the land for the USA was stolen in the past, and they would be right, but we still have a right to exist. A country does not to give a “proof” that it has a right to exist that satisfies every single person. As sailor said, Israel does exist.
Its kind of like once a baby has been born, its pointless to argue whether it has a right to exist or not.
The real question is "do Israels neighbors have a right to conquer Israel and engage in some sort of ethnic clensing to remove the Israeli population from their borders?
Well, that’s the general answer given to this question, generally. However, only Israel and the US seem satisfied by this answer.
Just because someone is in possession of valuable property means he is the owner? Does that mean that the guy who steals your wrist watch gets to keep it as long as he shows that he is currently wearing it? If an armed man kicked you out of your house and then slept in your bed, is the house now his because he is already there? Fundamental fairness should come into play at some point.
By the way, I have another thread going about the Palestinian/Native American comparison.
Let’s see … it was Jewish before it was stolen by the Romans before it was stolen by … well let’s skip ahead to the Turks and then the British controlling it … and throughout all a Jewish presence remained and throughout all Jews prayed “Perhaps next year we will be free, perhaps next year we will be in Jerusulam.” So play the fundamental fairness game: who has a right to be there? It was the Jew’s before it was the Arab’s, Jews never abandoned their claim (either in spirit or in presence) and it’s the Jew’s now. And there was plenty of room in what was called Palestine for both the Jews and the Arabs so that both claims could be partially acknowledged.
Mambo: What do you mean, “Only the U.S. and Israel seem satisfied by the answer”?
Most of the world recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Almost ALL of the world. The only ones that don’t are a collection of backwards non-democratic Arab nations in the region.
There are many countries that disagree with Sharon’s current tactics, but none that disagree that Israel has a right to exist. The disgusting thing to me is the hypocrisy that’s going around - they recognize Israel’s right to exist, but refuse to do anything about all the Arab nations that don’t.
Only the Arabs had possession of what they stole long enough for it to count and for previous claims to be null and for current claims to be superceded.
Oh, I see.
No the Native Americam analogy is not relevant at all.
[slight hijack]
Your a Copt eh? I’m Coptic too, not Egyptian through. I’m a part of the Eritrean (formaly Ethiopian) Coptic Orthidox Chruch.
SOME BACKGROUND You see, an Egyptian bishop (Abune) converted us (Habesh) around 300AD. The religon stuck and grew, way after the head office in Egypt fell to the Muslims (luckly we hard a better time fighting them off). So that is why there is an Ethiopian Orthidox Chuch. After my country (Eritrea) broke away from Ethiopia we had our chuch do the same thing, that is why there is an Eritrean Coptic Orthidox Chuch. Both Chuches report to the Coptic pope in Egypt (hows the old guy doin’).
Since I now live in Halifax we don’t have an Eritrean church so we go to the Egyptian one and we see lots of Copts there. How you doing with the Fast? Mann, I never realize how much I love meat or milk until it comes. Only, 20 days until Easter (come come our lent is longer then 40 days).
[/slight hijack]
You are the first Coptic Orthodox I have met on the board. Its good to know there is someone else who understands the Church’s teachings and relevance.
I’ve noticed that prayers for the Church of Eritrea are now in our liturgies.
Alessan
Good point. That is what I think makes the situation seem so fundamentally unfair to the people who were living on this land. Human history has been one of constant migration. (From what I remember reading in a recent Scientific American, there is lingual evidence linking the Basques of Spain to some Native American tribes!)
Although the Jews were dispersed against their will, they were living in other countries for thousands of years. Why do these Europeans have a right to collectively return to their ancient homeland thus displacing the current occupants? One of the most common complaints I’ve been hearing from the Arab side is that new immigrants–Jews who less than a year before emigrated from Russia, the Ukraine, and other place to Palestine–are often the ones stationed at Isreali Army checkpoints that restrict the Palestinians’ (whose parents and grandparents were born on that land) travel.
I’m repeating myself in several threads, but this is a spread out conversation.
There was plenty of room in what had been called “Palestine” to acknowledge both claims. That is what the partition did. The Jewish claim is the oldest of any extant group. The Jews never relinquished that claim, having “next year in Jerusulam” as a central bit, and having a presence throughout all the years, despite tremendous persecution. Since 1948 700,000 Jews fled Arab controlled area (Jews whose parents and grandparents had lived in those lands) abandoning all property… they were integrated into Israel; 550,000 Arabs fled Israeli areas … they were left rot on the border for use as political pawns. Why care only about the wrong done to the displaced Arabs? And place the blame for their current plight where it belongs … on their Arab brethern who used them rather than helped them…
People like Mambo want to start the clock at conveinent times. Only the Arabs had the land stolen long enough that it should be considered theirs. The fact that it was Israeli, that it is Israeli, and that Jews never entirely left nor gave up their claim to it … that doesn’t count.
His/her portrayal of Israel as “European takeover” with superior force is specious: the Turks had it, the British took it, the UN divided it, the Arabs attacked with greater weapons and numbers but failed to destroy all the Jews as was their stated goal.
Actually, Jewish people do not have an inalienable right of return. Israel GRANTS them that right. If the people of Israel were suddenly struck by a wave of anti-immigration sentiment, they could close the borders tomorrow. It’s unlikely, and I think it would require a Constitutional change, but they could do it if they wanted to, and foreign Jews would be SOL.
Nobody has a “Right” to just immigrate into whatever country suits them. Every country does have a right to decide who they will or will not allow to immigrate.
Or we could de-populate the area entirely, set it up as a museum to human nature, and be done with it. Face it: When you’ve that many different religions, ethnicities, and nations playing in the same sandbox for millenia, it’s gonna be a mess.
Israel has a “right” to exist as long as it it can enforce it’s own existance. Right now, and for the forseable future, it can do so. In the end, that’s all that matters.
Lands and states change hands all the time, either by hook [war] or by crook [politics]; there is no “right” involved. And until nationalism and other human frailties are overcome, there is no cure. By the way, isn’t “Palestine” a modernization of the ancient “Philistine”? And where is Goliath when we need him?