No, he’s saying that the Europeans were the ones who caused the state of Israel to be necessary. So instead of them being the ones to sacrifice their lands to create the state, they took the land of a people who had nothing to do with anything and gave it to the Jews.
And he’s right. Israel clearly should never have been created in the manner it was. That said, it was created that way and everyone is going to have to suck it up and move on with it. Israel is not going to be moved, not only because the populace there doesn’t want to be moved but also because it would be completely impractical. The sooner the Arabs accept this, the better it will be for everyone.
My point is that the Jews were there first; before the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Muslims, the British, the Turks, the Christians, the Franks, the Romans, etc. So any argument based on “my ancestors have a better claim than your ancestors” will default to the Jews. And the Jews are there now; which establishs a pragmatic claim on ownership. No matter what angle you approach the issue from, the Palestinians have a weaker claim than the Jews do.
UWho the fuck cares? Seriously, the fact of the matter is that 60 years ago Europeans committed the Holocaust, then felt bad for the Jews so they took lands that belonged to the Arabs and gave it to the Jews. The Arabs are still rightly pissed off about that.
Whatever. I’ve already stated that Arabs need to get used to the idea of Israel being there because it’s not going anywhere. That doesn’t mean that the founding of Israel as it was done was the correct thing to do, just as the native Americans aren’t going to be getting their lands back anytime soon even though their removal wasn’t the correct thing to do, either.
Neurotik, I’m going to disagree with your characterization of the formation of Israel. Europe didn’t “give” Israel to the Jews, not even Britain did that. Israel was founded by Jewish immigrants, it wasn’t established by the European powers and handed over to the Jews.
Things are considerably more complicated and less one-sided than that. First off, we’re not talking about Arabs anyway. And its not true that the Jews simply took all the land and stiffed the Palestinians, either. There are, in fact, a great many “Palestinians” who enjoy Israeli citizenship to this day. And of course, it was Britain, who had nothing to do with the Holocaust, who actually allowed the whole thing; or at least concluded it wasn’t their business.
As the Partition Plan was neither agreed upon nor enforced, it really was nothing more than a fig leaf, an excuse for the British to withdraw from Palestine with a modicum of dignity. When you consider that in the two decades following the war the Brits ended up pulling out of virtually all their colonies anyway, there’s no reason to believe that they wouldn’t have left here as well. A Jewish state would have come into being either way.
Actually, it was. The UN was controlled by Europeans (and the US) at that time. Britain and the UN decided an Israeli state would exist on that land. The UN drew up the borders. There were Jewish immigrants there, but it was the UN that gave them the land and the legitimacy of their state. And it was done specifically because of the Holocaust. It’s a fact.
Yes, the UN recognized Israel, but it didn’t “create” Israel. I don’t think we disagree as much as you think, I think the difference is one of emphasis.
Look at another situation, did Britain “create” the nation of India when it withdrew and gave India independence? Or did India become independent and Britain chose not to dispute Indian independence?
Look, the UN doesn’t exactly give a country legitimacy. Countries exist in our minds, they exist because lots of people agree they exist. The United States doesn’t exist because the UN says it does, the US exists because US citizens say it does and we have an army, and nobody else with an army is willing to argue with us about it.
Israel exists because Zionists established Israel, Britain and the UN and the rest of the world ratified it, maybe encouraged it, but they didn’t create it. The UN didn’t do more than sign a few documents. The jewish immigrants to the region were the ones who fought the wars, set up the government, created citizenship criteria, patrolled the borders, etc.
OK, I see what you’re getting at. No, the UN didn’t “create” Israel, but it did give it legitimacy. At any rate, one has to ask onesself if helping that state come into existence was worth all the trouble that has ensued. Not that I agree with Ahmadinejad-- what’s done is done and it shouldn’t be “undone”. Nor would creating a Jewish state in Europe be a plausible solution to the problem.
Seeing how his suggestion of moving Israel to Europe didn’t fall out so good, Iran’s indomitable President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now suggest Israel should be moved to Alaska. - Iran: Move Israel to Alaska
– also in his speech on national tv: Holocaust didn’t happen:
I was just logging on to denounce this latest bile in a new thread but as this is sitting at the top. Time for Austria to invite him for a State Visit and throw his ass into the same cell as Irving.
To be fair, you should do that at one of those “we have beers from everywhere” bars. Whatever country he picks, you down one of their brews. At the current rate, I think you might manage to hit the round the world in a month.
Oddly enough, virtually every country on the planet has borders with other countries which were not exactly how they are today, or some convoluted history as to how it came into being, or both.
This leads everyone to get slightly twitchy when people start suggesting that the location of borders and populations or the whole existence of countries is up for revision. The mere idea of ‘moving’ Israel is bonkers because not only is it totally impractical, with that precendent you could make a case for almost anything.
Although oddly enough the Spanish don’t get this reaction when they whine about how they ought to have Gibraltar back, even though at the very minimum this would put every European treaty since Utrecht (1713) up for renegotiation. Which wouldn’t be good.
