?
The reasons are many and convoluted. In 1918, the UK assisted a loose confederation of Arab states against the Ottomans and liberated the area of the middle east often referred to as Palestine. In 1922 the League of nations tasked the UK with the formation of a Jewish homeland in that same area. While the UK struggled with it’s contradictory commitments, thousands of Jewish emigrants began moving into the area.
In the years leading up to WWII tensions increased, and violence was already commonplace. Even if there was room enough for everyone to live in and govern their own lands (which there arguably was not) the two cultures had a distinct and longstanding mistrust for one another. Complicating matters was the perceived sanctity of certain areas, Jerusalem for example, with both groups seeing it as an integral part of their religious beliefs.
The White Paper written by Britain in 1939 sought a compromise by limiting immigration, while promising a democratic system of government for both ethnic groups. The two problems were that neither ethnic group really wanted to work together to bring about this promised government, and the pressures of the holocaust caused Jews to work around the immigration limits and grant refuge to the displaced in large numbers.
In 1948, Britian handed the problem over to the UN who determined to divide the area into two nations, with the heavily disputed city of Jerusalem being under international control. Neither side was entirely pleased with the settlement, but the Palestinians were arguably the more outraged group. They felt that not only did they have to share (or give up) lands to usurpers, but were being made to pay for the crimes of Europe in displacing so many Jews to the middle east.
There is more to the story, of course. Conflict continued, and violence escalated on both sides. But I think this is the best I can do to factually answer the question as to why many Arab states do not believe Israel has a right to exist. In short, it is a new nation put in place by the international community against their wishes.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I have to ask, why were the Jews granted a homeland, and why was Palestine apparently “punished” by having some of their land taken away?
The British were in control of Palestine; there had been a movement to create a Jewish homeland since the second half of the nineteenth century due to various pogroms (particularly in Russia) and anti-semitism around the world; there was Biblical and Toranical precedence regarding “the promised land” for a Jewish state; simply put, it could be interpreted as imperial arrogance.
Interestingly though, at the turn of the century, the World Zionist Organization was even considering creating a Jewish homeland in Africa, which would have ‘punished’ the Ugandans or Kenyans by removing some of their land.
So that you know, the Zionists operated a number of terrorist organisations such as the Irgun Zvai Leumi (headed by Menachem Begin from 1943 to 1948) and the Stern Gang (headed by Yitzhak Shamir).
It is not a pretty picture.
I don’t think it’s as straightforward as one group being intentionally ‘punished’ by the other. You will note that at the time the British entered the picture, the lands were newly seized from the Ottomans. It would be inaccurate to say there was a sovereign nation of Palestine which was subsequently divided. That being said, it is perfectly accurate to state that the vast majority of Jews were newcomers to the area at the time the nation was created, and the entire operation was mishandled by Britain and the UN.
As Waverly previously stated the land was divided between Israel and Palestine. Israel set up a nation, with a government, etc. The “Palestine” Arabs never set up a nation of their own as they were too busy conspiring with the other Arabs to rid the land of the Jews. That’s why there is no nation of Palestine to this date.
There have been many other threads on this subject, but no one forcibly evicted the Arabs from the state of Israel. In fact, Israel encouraged them to stay and build a nation together, but they left. Much of the land that the Jews acquired were desert lands which they acquired by purchase. The Arabs thought they were getting a good deal, but when the Israelis irrigated the land and made it valuable, all of a sudden they were swindled. Other lands were in a state of disputed ownership. Arabs in other countries appeared to have title, and the Arabs on those lands were mere tenants. The Jews bought these lands from the apparent owners and kicked the tenants out, but they had the (disputable) right to do so since they owned the land.
I should have added that the Arabs who left the land in the nation of Israel were not admitted into the “Palestine” part, but became refugees in a no-man’s land. The PA offered them no help, but it was the Israelis who gave them humanitarian aid. Then the PA used them as cannon fodder against Israel.
Those organizations, which the “Zionists” called freedom fighters operated to establish a nation for Israel and were instrumental in the British throwing their hands up and leaving it to the UN to divide the land into the two nations (only one of which came to fruition due to the intransigence of the PA).
Because Israel’s ancient scrolls said this was their “promised land”, silly. 
Besides just being pissed, there are legal reasons why the Arab states don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist. In international law, one measure of the validity of a position is consistancy over time. To draw a parallel, if Congress passes a law that I feel is unfair, and I write a letter to Congress declaring so and announcing that I will not abide by it, and Congress allows me to get away with it by not arresting or killing me, eventually a Court will uphold my claim (if the court us acting under principles of international, rather than criminal or civil, law).
Also, they can’t recognise Israel’s right to exist in a vaccuum, they must also acknowledge the specific territorial boundaries within which Israel would have such a right.
Finally, international agreements are forever, at least in theory. Once they recognize a neighbor’s right to exist in place, they cede all future claims to the land and jurisdiction over the people on it.
I’m NOT saying Arab states are being good international citizens here. What I am saying is that there is considerable legal and historic precedent for their diplomatic positions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yojimboguy *
**Besides just being pissed, there are legal reasons why the Arab states don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist. In international law, one measure of the validity of a position is consistancy over time. To draw a parallel, if Congress passes a law that I feel is unfair, and I write a letter to Congress declaring so and announcing that I will not abide by it, and Congress allows me to get away with it by not arresting or killing me, eventually a Court will uphold my claim (if the court us acting under principles of international, rather than criminal or civil, law). **
[quote]
Congress cannot arrest you or kill you. It only passes legislation. The executive branch is the enforcing branch. If it ever gets to court, then obviously you were arrested. (Probably not killed, however.)
**
The territorial boundaries were set by the UN. See below.
**
The UN set up territory in which both Israel and Palestine could establish nations. That had nothing to do with any title claim to the land. It was purely jurisdictional. In fact, many Arabs lived in Israel - and a few still do. That was the whole purpose of the UN’s action: give land to each for each’s jurisdiction to set up a nation and to live in peace in their respective nations.
barbitu8, I was drawing a parallel between private and govermental behaviors. I understand that an individual cannot get away with acting the way I suggest. But NATIONS can and do routinely accept or reject various initiatives in international agreements and laws. And refusal to recognize the result of such agrements is a fairly common method of rejection.
Suffice it to say that this historical interpretation is sharply at odds with the one given by William L Cleveland in A History of the Modern Middle East, a fairly standard text. You are correct that there have been other threads on Arab/Israel history. eg Israel Palestine Primer please
That is the sort of revionistic history that gets people pissed off.
That’s from <em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em>.
If people committed this kind of atrocities can be called “freedom fighters,” so can the PLO, and even Hamas.