Israel and Israel and Jerusalem and Judaism

  • News
  • Thread starter slugcountry
  • Start date
  • #1
I would like to briefly share an opinion as a non-practicing russian jew and United States citizen living in california.

I feel like many jews I know (including a good friend of mine - an argument I just had with her led me to start this thread) are making a fatal conceptual error in regards to Israel.

Israel is a country. Israel is a government.

Israel the government has nothing to do with Israel the location, otherwise known as the (and this applies to many religions) holy land of Jerusalem. In other words Israel the government has nothing to do with Judaism.

As a Jew (if one were devout), one should not feel obligated to support Israel simply because it is supposedly a "jewish" state. Israel is a country and governments act only in the interest of the nation - religion is of secondary concern in this respect.

In the United States we (supposedly...) have a separation of church and state.

These things seem very clear to me - however it feels like as a Jew I am very much in a minority on my opinion in this matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
whatta
256
0
hello sluga otechestva, as not Jew I can't comment on Israel. this topic just caught my eye since I've been in Israel twice. I can comment that in my country I feel just the same, government is not equal to location. Then, in Israel I have been under impression that some arabs just can't calm down, after everybody else did. I mean, there are plenty of arabs who accepted Israel government and have no problem living there, so why can't others do the same? It does not matter who rules; as long as it is not me, I would't really care if the president is jew or arab. Their war just does not make any sense.
 
  • #3
whatta
256
0
(oh wait I was tricked by "russian" in your post. I didn't realized "slug" was meaningful english word)
 
  • #5
TuviaDaCat
85
1
(israeli)
israel after all was founded not by religious people, and not for religious reasons.
it was founded as a shelter for jews to immigrant to when they must.
the government was never religious(though there are some annoying rules).
also, more and more people walk astray from religion, many people do perform jewish rituals, but most people just celebrate pesah, and hanuka...

but i have no doubt that israel will be a shelter for jews as long as it exists.

i myself, don't feel much about anything like tradition or love for the motherland, it might change if i will be off israel for a few months or years, but right now, i pretty much care only about my family and some friends...

btw, I am atheist, though i still attend to the kidush(and all other holidays) with my family every week, some of us see it as tradition and a family dinner, and for some (including me) its a family dinner. i did use to attend also to the synagogue when i was young, heh, I've been there fot 9 hours in yom kipur..
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Cyrus
3,150
16
In an interview I heard from one of the refusniks a while back on the radio (Democracy Now), the problem he saw with jews in this country is that they pray to israel and not to God.

I find this to be true from most Jews I've come across (American Jews).
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Yonoz
24
0
I urge you to try and get a copy of http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n1_v46/ai_19353455"".
Leibowitz's understanding of Jewish philosophy is acute, and he brings it to bear on current issues. He argues that the Law, Halakhah, is essential to Judaism, and shows how, at present, separation of religion from state would serve the interest of halakhic observance and foster esteem for religion. Leibowitz calls the religious justification of national issues "idolatry" and finds this phenomenon at the root of many of the annexationist moves made by the state of Israel. Long one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli occupation in the conquered territories, he gives eloquent voice to his ongoing concern over the debilitating moral effects of its policies and practices on Israel itself. This translation will bring to an English-speaking audience a much-needed, lucid perspective on the present and future state of Jewish culture.
The state he claimed was "essentially secular," and in the specific case of the state of Israel it "should be an arena in which the struggle for Judaism takes place . . . a struggle between the value of the world of Torah and the Mitzvoth and the value of the declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." He personally was disappointed by the outcome of that struggle, but he did not blame the state for it.

Secondly, he claimed that historically only Judaism as constituted by halakhic praxis has determined Jewish identity and despite the fact that many, perhaps most, Jews today wish to be Jews without Judaism, Leibowitz believed that no plausible and honest account of how that is possible would be forthcoming. Thirdly, he was persistently concerned both to expose and to warn against the tendency to avodah zarah, to idolatry, amongst both his religious and non-religious fellow citizens.

Ever since the beginning of the Zionist movement there has been a debate over the place of religion in the constitution of Jewish identity and the relationship between Judaism and the Jewish State. This debate within Israel has at times been so bitter that many have expressed the fear that it could lead to a civil war. Leibowitz was never really a participant in that debate. For him, all states, even the Jewish state of Israel, are "essentially secular." This was not his struggle. His struggle was against many on either side in that debate. Thus most of the vociferous religious sects taking part in that debate are in his judgment, idolaters: They "have deified the nation, adopted patriotism as their faith and made the state their religion. Their concern is not with the Jewish people as (potentially or in actuality) the People of the Torah, but with the Torah as serving the interests of the nation and the state."

...

In the consciousness of a people, the tie binding it to its country is unconditioned and not defensible on legal grounds. By the same token it is equally impossible to justify on such grounds. For the people in question it is part of their reality. As such it is far more living and poignant than any legal bond or "right." The country we live in was in ancient times the land of the people of Israel. Even when, in the wake of destruction and exile, the people were physically severed from their country the nation continued to exist with its national consciousness. Jews whose national consciousness is still alive consider this country the "Land of Israel" even without regard to claims of right. No counterclaim can deprive them of this feeling. It is the same for the Arab inhabitants.

Leibowitz believed that only "one way out of this historically created impasse is feasible . . . even if neither side recognizes it as justified or finds it really acceptable: partition of the country between the two peoples." Leibowitz consistently claimed from the first day following the Six Day War till the day he died that Israel should unilaterally offer to withdraw from the occupied territories. This he claimed is a precondition for peace, but he was never under any illusion that it would immediately lead to a state of peace: peace, he said, is a "vision for the distant future." His main reason for calling for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the territories was to end the corruption of Jewish life in Israel caused by the evils of occupation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
hello sluga otechestva, as not Jew I can't comment on Israel. this topic just caught my eye since I've been in Israel twice. I can comment that in my country I feel just the same, government is not equal to location. Then, in Israel I have been under impression that some arabs just can't calm down, after everybody else did. I mean, there are plenty of arabs who accepted Israel government and have no problem living there, so why can't others do the same? It does not matter who rules; as long as it is not me, I would't really care if the president is jew or arab. Their war just does not make any sense.
How would you expect them to do anything but resist colonization? Natives of areas like Australia and the Americas certainly resisted the foreigners settling those lands, what sense does it make to expect anything different from Arabs?
 
  • #9
Werg22
1,427
1
hello sluga otechestva, as not Jew I can't comment on Israel. this topic just caught my eye since I've been in Israel twice. I can comment that in my country I feel just the same, government is not equal to location. Then, in Israel I have been under impression that some arabs just can't calm down, after everybody else did. I mean, there are plenty of arabs who accepted Israel government and have no problem living there, so why can't others do the same? It does not matter who rules; as long as it is not me, I would't really care if the president is jew or arab. Their war just does not make any sense.

The key word here is occupation. In my opinion, the state of Israel is the biggest outrage/injustice of our time. I'm so disappointed in the western civ.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
denverdoc
963
0
Frankly I think the card has been played, Yes the victim of abuse gets a little leeway while settling down, but when you settle by mandate on otherwise owned property and then the settlers become expansionist, while developing nukes, then complain that others might have the same, and are upset that there is resistance, and so forth and so on, meanwhile you have US foreign policy strongly divided between loyalty to the have nots in Israel (oil wise), and those that have oil, but no political tread in the US, well what would be the best solution?.

From US foreign policy perspective. Give lots of support to Israel while fomenting dissent between any would be allies among the Arabs.

It has worked so far. ?
 
  • #11
TuviaDaCat
85
1
The key word here is occupation. In my opinion, the state of Israel is the biggest outrage/injustice of our time. I'm so disappointed in the western civ.

not only this comment has nothing to do with this thread, it also has nothing to do with reality. which led me to a very big "wtf" after reading your comment.
also some other comments has nothing to do with this thread since it is about the jew nation not being very jewish.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
also some other comments has nothing to do with this thread since it is about the jew nation not being very jewish.

No the point of this thread is that there is not, and should not, be a "jew" nation - or for that matter any religious nation.

Religion and nationality are entirely separate entities - any time they become intertwined religion becomes a tool for the state.

The Vatican is another poor example of this sad state of affairs - however the entire catholic religion seems to be centered more about following the word of the pope than any true deity worship.

Judaism however has never been a figurehead religion - yet somehow for american jews the prime minister of israel is the jewish pope.
 
  • #13
TuviaDaCat
85
1
No the point of this thread is that there is not, and should not, be a "jew" nation - or for that matter any religious nation.

Religion and nationality are entirely separate entities - any time they become intertwined religion becomes a tool for the state.

The Vatican is another poor example of this sad state of affairs - however the entire catholic religion seems to be centered more about following the word of the pope than any true deity worship.

Judaism however has never been a figurehead religion - yet somehow for american jews the prime minister of israel is the jewish pope.

thats extremely odd! why would they see our leaders as popes? we ourself can't stand them! seriously, how does that happen?
 
  • #14
good question - but here in the states (at least in the California Bay Area) it is not uncommon for jewish youth groups to attend for example, pro-israel rallies.

To me that's pretty much the story of the "evangelical" movement in support of the United States government - ah... I can't even find the words to express my frustration.
 
  • #15
Yonoz
24
0
good question - but here in the states (at least in the California Bay Area) it is not uncommon for jewish youth groups to attend for example, pro-israel rallies.

To me that's pretty much the story of the "evangelical" movement in support of the United States government - ah... I can't even find the words to express my frustration.
Why wouldn't they attend pro-Israel rallies? Israel is the home of the Jewish people. It has helped and continues to support Jews around the globe who are not as fortunate as those living in the United States, it is only natural that Jews will attend rallies in its support.
How familiar are you with the history of your ancestors in the USSR?
 
  • #16
Schrodinger's Dog
817
6
If you ask me the US is so far in Israel's corner that it can't even see Palestine, doesn't bode well for diplomatic relations IMO, in fact it just makes things worse.

The US badly needs to stop playing favourites, and start playing mediator again, or at the very least to stop vetoing every act the UN makes against Israel, 37 now I believe? How many have they vetoed against Palestine? 0, slightly one sided :rolleyes: Partisan diplomacy will get you one thing, a partisan response.
 
  • #17
Why wouldn't they attend pro-Israel rallies? Israel is the home of the Jewish people. It has helped and continues to support Jews around the globe who are not as fortunate as those living in the United States, it is only natural that Jews will attend rallies in its support.
How familiar are you with the history of your ancestors in the USSR?

Congratulations on completely missing the point of this thread.

Pro-Israel rallies are supportive of the Israeli administration - if you can't separate that from Judaism this thread is about you.

My point is that Jews should neither support nor attack the Israeli government under the flag of Judaism! To do so is simple religious nationalism - which in the past has been responsible for - oh, the crusades for one ...
 
  • #18
TuviaDaCat
85
1
Congratulations on completely missing the point of this thread.

Pro-Israel rallies are supportive of the Israeli administration - if you can't separate that from Judaism this thread is about you.

My point is that Jews should neither support nor attack the Israeli government under the flag of Judaism! To do so is simple religious nationalism - which in the past has been responsible for - oh, the crusades for one ...

well, actually its not about judaism, its about jews. about everyone immigrated here since they had to run away, not because of religion. if jews somewhere in the globe will need a place to run to, israel will welcome them.
israel still is the shelter it was meant to be...
 
  • #19
yeah that's fine that's why I was trying to distinguish israel the place from israel the government :uhh:
 
  • #20
mbrmbrg
493
2
I agree that it's necessary to differentiate between Israel the government and Israel the place.

But where the Israeli government has no jurisdiction, will Jews be able to find refuge in the land? (I hate to open this particular can of worms, but when Israel the government relinquished jurisdiction over Aza, Jews found that they could no longer live in that part of Israel the place.
 
  • #21
Yonoz
24
0
Pro-Israel rallies are supportive of the Israeli administration
Congratulations on missing the point of these rallies.
 
  • #22
Uterus Chewer
2
0
I'm not sure my post here is sufficiently related to the topic under discussion. Nevertheless...

I just read an article (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1265211.php) [Broken], and it just got me to thinking about how incredibly muddy my ideas regarding the foundations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are, so I posted a message on that webpage (under the name Wu Ming) in order to try to get some clarification. Here, I've reposted my comments from that page for the same purpose.

My comments from the above cited webpage:

This might very well be a stupid question as I'm not an avid reader about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but here it is anyway. What EXACTLY does "recognize Israel's right to exist" mean? Does it simply refer to the recognition of the Israeli people's right to have their own sovereign nation, or does it refer to the recognition of the Israeli people's right to have their own sovereign nation located in regions the Israeli people now occupy? (Or does it refer to something else entirely?) The first requirement seems reasonable enough; I can't grasp why any Palestinian group would refuse to comply. If the second requirement is the one for which the US and Israel would like to obtain compliance, I think it's fairly obvious that compliance will never be obtained. For the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's right to establish its nation on land the Palestinians view as having been stolen from them runs counter to the Palestinian people's entire beef with Israel. It would amount to a refutation of the Palestinians' main claim: that the land was theirs before Israel occupied it and, thus, still should be theirs. Surely the US and Israel know that asking the Palestinian people to do this is likely a deal-breaker. I can't imagine that the US and Israel would issue a requirement so obviously doomed for failure if their goals are to end the violence; it's just too stupid. So, I assume some of my premises must be incorrect. My definition of "recognition of Israel's right to exist," my current view that the Palestinian people did indeed inhabit some of the land now occupied by Israel prior to the occupation, or some other of my beliefs regarding the foundations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be wrong. Someone please set me straight these matters, especially the precise meaning of "recognition of Israel's right to exist."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Yonoz
24
0
What EXACTLY does "recognize Israel's right to exist" mean? Does it simply refer to the recognition of the Israeli people's right to have their own sovereign nation, or does it refer to the recognition of the Israeli people's right to have their own sovereign nation located in regions the Israeli people now occupy? (Or does it refer to something else entirely?)
This is what I found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist" [Broken].
Right to exist is a phrase referring to the question of whether the Jewish people, acting through the modern government of Israel, have a right to maintain a homeland for the Jews in the Land of Israel.

Basically, Hamas' acceptance of Israel's right to exist would mean changes to its charter which currently calls for its destruction and deems all of its land Palestinian.

The land was never the Palestinians': before the formation of Israel it was under British mandate, when the mandate ended, Israel declared independence in accordance with the 1947 partition plan and the neighbouring Arab nations declared war against it, capturing the land that was meant for a Palestinian State.
The goal is to end the violence, but not at the price of annihilation of the State of Israel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Schrodinger's Dog
817
6
There's a lot of history behind the reasoning of Hamas, and the Palestinians in the more hard line cases. It's not simply some arbitrary racism.

For the last near on 2 millenia or so it had been in their hands, but because of course they had no need or wish to declare themselves a state: it was not nor under UN law is it a state(US keeps vetoing it's rights as a state, despite there being an overwhelming majority in favour of it) now the majority of countries of the world recognise it so including the UK, about 122 at last count anyway I digress

After Ottoman rule the area fell into the hands of the British. The British left after some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats, leaving the area in the hands of the UN and it's new partition plan.

By some pretty lame rhetoric: Palestine has never had a state or owned the lands? Just because they haven't set up an official diplomatic corps and proclaimed the land there's in writing or whatever. do you think this gives anyone the right to kick the majority population out and hand it over with no say whatsoever? If the Massai were kicked of their lands in Tanzania and Kenya? Do you think they would have no rights to them? Would you be a little appalled at the technicality that they are not a state?

Not to mention the fact that pre Zionist movement of the late 19th century the Jewish population in the area was about 1%, which rose after the Jews began to move back in, and particularly escalated during and after the war, despite the British agreement with the Palestinians to seal the borders(they came in by boat anyway)

Thereafter with the flood of refugees the population rose to pre partition levels of about 33%, Most of the Jews living on land bought from the Palestinians, and in diverse settlements communities and amongst the Palestinians.

Truman under increasing pressure from Zionists eventually caved in and was fundamental in imposing the new plan on the Middle East, knowing full well it would lead to war, but seeing no other option- he agreed to the partition plan along side the UN and was instrumental in getting it accepted. As it turned out this was a terrible plan which had no agreement from the Palestinians or any other of the Arab nations. Forcing a majority population to vacate lands their ancestors had used for thousands of years, because of a supposed prior claim by Israel's Zionists.

This p'ed off a lot of Palestinians eventually leading to the 6 days war. where pre-emptively Israel stole some more of the Palestinian lands, which to this day it refuses to give up in their entirety and return to the UN's pre 1967 partition plan borders.

The more militant tendencies of Sharon amongst other factors probably lead to the voting in of Hamas, placing hard line against hard line; a series of rather brutal methods when he was in control of Israel's armies that lead to him being titled the Butcher by certain European media outlets. After this some countries wanted him tried for war crimes, but this was never likely to happen.

http://www.rense.com/general8/butcher.htm

Hamas are a very hard line organisation who unlike Fatah(who would agree to recognise Israel) Want to see Israel gone from the area.

Currently it's impossible to broker a deal because of Hamas's hard line stance, but Fatah and Hamas have recently put aside there differences and agreed to work side by side in the government, so who knows what may come?

Essentially though the Palestinians claim they have been hard done by, and to be frank only the most biased individual IMO would see the partition plan as even remotely fair. A two party state would of likely been better, couldn't of been much worse, but then I supose it's easier to judge the issue in hindsight.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
sara_87
763
0
i have a Jewish-Israeli friend that has vowed never to step foot in Israel again after what happened in the summer of 2006 between Israel and Leabanon. He says the actions of Israel are against Judaism, since in Judiasm it says you should be close to Israel spiritually. and I've also heard that people that are not Jewish do not get rights in Israel...is this true?
 
  • #26
denverdoc
963
0
There's a lot of history behind the reasoning of Hamas, and the Palestinians in the more hard line cases. It's not simply some arbitrary racism.


The more militant tendencies of Sharon amongst other factors probably lead to the voting in of Hamas, placing hard line against hard line; a series of rather brutal methods when he was in control of Israel's armies that lead to him being titled the Butcher by certain European media outlets. After this some countries wanted him tried for war crimes, but this was never likely to happen.<edited for brevity>

http://www.rense.com/general8/butcher.htm

So add to the eqn, kindasleezy Rice, who immediately stalemates any hope for progress by preempting from recognition any agent unwilling to disavow violence and/or the recognition of the Israel state. We need some lateral thinkers and we have a abrasive hard liner calling diplomatic shots, around and around we go.
J
 
  • #27
Yonoz
24
0
After Ottoman rule the area fell into the hands of the British. The British left after some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats, leaving the area in the hands of the UN and it's new partition plan.
How amusing - the area simply "fell into the hands of the British"? I suggest you come to terms with your nation's colonial history before criticising other nations.
You make it seem as if the British left due to "some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats" - though you made sure to phrase it vaguely enough, lest you be corrected about less important matters such as the 1947 partition plan or several Arab revolts.

By some pretty lame rhetoric: Palestine has never had a state or owned the lands?
There was never a Palestinian state, and the landowners were mostly Syrian and Egyptian families.
Just because they haven't set up an official diplomatic corps and proclaimed the land there's in writing or whatever. do you think this gives anyone the right to kick the majority population out and hand it over with no say whatsoever?
No I do not - nor do I believe it's as simple as that.
If the Massai were kicked of their lands in Tanzania and Kenya? Do you think they would have no rights to them? Would you be a little appalled at the technicality that they are not a state?
How ironic that a Briton should lecture someone about native rights using an African example.

Not to mention the fact that pre Zionist movement of the late 19th century the Jewish population in the area was about 1%, which rose after the Jews began to move back in, and particularly escalated during and after the war, despite the British agreement with the Palestinians to seal the borders(they came in by boat anyway)
You have a problem with Jewish refugees emigrating from Europe before, during and after the holocaust? Disgusting.

Thereafter with the flood of refugees the population rose to pre partition levels of about 33%, Most of the Jews living on land bought from the Palestinians, and in diverse settlements communities and amongst the Palestinians.
This land is today home to over 7 million people - there was obviously plenty of room for everyone back then, and since the land was bought, where's the problem?
BTW check the data on http://www.meforum.org/article/522" - it seems the Zionist enterprise made Palestine very attractive for quite a few Arabs.

Truman under increasing pressure from Zionists eventually caved in and was fundamental in imposing the new plan on the Middle East, knowing full well it would lead to war, but seeing no other option- he agreed to the partition plan along side the UN and was instrumental in getting it accepted. As it turned out this was a terrible plan which had no agreement from the Palestinians or any other of the Arab nations. Forcing a majority population to vacate lands their ancestors had used for thousands of years, because of a supposed prior claim by Israel's Zionists.
Now you've turned from spin-doctoring into outright lies. The partition plan did not force anyone to vacate any lands, let alone "a majority population" - it partitioned the land into two separate states, both of which included minority populations, and was not based on any "prior claim" - it just so happens that there were Zionists living in Palestine.

This p'ed off a lot of Palestinians eventually leading to the 6 days war. where pre-emptively Israel stole some more of the Palestinian lands, which to this day it refuses to give up in their entirety and return to the UN's pre 1967 partition plan borders.
The Palestinians were occupied by Egypt and Jordan before the Six-Day war, the war had nothing to do with them, but rather with Nasser's pan-Arab aspirations. Israel did not "steal" the land, it captured it from these two states, and did not even annex it. You also, for some reason, ignore several peace agreements with Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. For example, Israel returned to Egypt an area larger than Israel itself - in return for peace.

The more militant tendencies of Sharon amongst other factors probably lead to the voting in of Hamas, placing hard line against hard line; a series of rather brutal methods when he was in control of Israel's armies that lead to him being titled the Butcher by certain European media outlets. After this some countries wanted him tried for war crimes, but this was never likely to happen.

http://www.rense.com/general8/butcher.htm
What a mess of an argument. At least make your bashing coherent.

Essentially though the Palestinians claim they have been hard done by, and to be frank only the most biased individual IMO would see the partition plan as even remotely fair. A two party state would of likely been better, couldn't of been much worse, but then I supose it's easier to judge the issue in hindsight.
They were offered the plan in 1947. They refused to accept it. They joined 5 Arab nations in a war that they declared was aimed at destroying Israel. Now you think the original plan is "remotely fair".
Then again, you also have a problem with holocaust survivors immigrating to Palestine.
Figures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Yonoz
24
0
and I've also heard that people that are not Jewish do not get rights in Israel...is this true?
It's completely false.
 
  • #29
TuviaDaCat
85
1
i have a Jewish-Israeli friend that has vowed never to step foot in Israel again after what happened in the summer of 2006 between Israel and Leabanon. He says the actions of Israel are against Judaism, since in Judiasm it says you should be close to Israel spiritually. and I've also heard that people that are not Jewish do not get rights in Israel...is this true?

lol! absolutely not true. heh funny.

legally all citizens are on the same status.
practically there is difference if you are arab, but that is because of individual racism among people, but that's nothing extreme as what you would usually have when immigrants have a connection to countries which you are in war with.
its not like they sit in the back of the bus when jews are present, its more about people mouth trashing, or things connected to social service budgets in arab villages(mind i not remind that most arabic woman do not work, have whole lot of children, and many males do not work as well, all from statistics, so it is questionable how much they deserve it anyway...)
 
  • #30
Yonoz
24
0
(mind i not remind that most arabic woman do not work, have whole lot of children, and many males do not work as well, all from statistics, so it is questionable how much they deserve it anyway...)
They deserve the same treatment as every other citizen.
 
  • #31
TuviaDaCat
85
1
They deserve the same treatment as every other citizen.

yes, they do, I am just annoyed by it...

btw, would you please be our spokesman to any international events? youre good..
 
  • #32
Yonoz
24
0
yes, they do, I am just annoyed by it...
Unemployment is not a uniquely Arab problem.

btw, would you please be our spokesman to any international events? youre good..
Actually I believe I would do more good working inside Israel - this is simply a way to keep my English on par. You can sometimes find me at Peace Now activities.
 
  • #33
Schrodinger's Dog
817
6
How amusing - the area simply "fell into the hands of the British"? I suggest you come to terms with your nation's colonial history before criticising other nations.
You make it seem as if the British left due to "some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats" - though you made sure to phrase it vaguely enough, lest you be corrected about less important matters such as the 1947 partition plan or several Arab revolts.

I know how badly my country acted in the past, what does that have to do with the issue exactly?

There was never a Palestinian state, and the landowners were mostly Syrian and Egyptian families.
No I do not - nor do I believe it's as simple as that.
How ironic that a Briton should lecture someone about native rights using an African example.

Stick to the discussion not to taking pot shots at British history. The fact is the land was the land of the indigenous people. And it's no different from taking the Massai's land from them and then giving them a small amount of land in return.

You have a problem with Jewish refugees emigrating from Europe before, during and after the holocaust? Disgusting.

No all I said was the British tried to stem the tide of migration under the request of the Palestinians. Not that I disapproved of the policy or approved?

This land is today home to over 7 million people - there was obviously plenty of room for everyone back then, and since the land was bought, where's the problem?
BTW check the data on http://www.meforum.org/article/522" - it seems the Zionist enterprise made Palestine very attractive for quite a few Arabs.

I never said there wasn't migration on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that in 1895 Jews made up 1% of the population, this at least shows that they were not the occupants of this land until the Zionist movement of the late 19th century.

Now you've turned from spin-doctoring into outright lies. The partition plan did not force anyone to vacate any lands, let alone "a majority population" - it partitioned the land into two separate states, both of which included minority populations, and was not based on any "prior claim" - it just so happens that there were Zionists living in Palestine.

No it didn't force, but there were many that had to leave there home lands due to the division of land, none of which they agreed too, rather naively they thought they would retake the lands soon after, which explains why the refugees left peaceably.

The Palestinians were occupied by Egypt and Jordan before the Six-Day war, the war had nothing to do with them, but rather with Nasser's pan-Arab aspirations. Israel did not "steal" the land, it captured it from these two states, and did not even annex it. You also, for some reason, ignore several peace agreements with Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. For example, Israel returned to Egypt an area larger than Israel itself - in return for peace.

Semantics. It took land by force and then refused to give it back.

What a mess of an argument. At least make your bashing coherent.

They were offered the plan in 1947. They refused to accept it. They joined 5 Arab nations in a war that they declared was aimed at destroying Israel. Now you think the original plan is "remotely fair".
Then again, you also have a problem with holocaust survivors immigrating to Palestine.
Figures.

I never said this^^^ you're putting words in my mouth.

All complete spin doctoring, there is not a single number or fact there you can argue about, it's all pretty much true, as I said only the most biased person could believe that it was a fair deal for Palestine, gentlemen I present exhibit A, or do you agree it was not a fair partition?

And please don't start playing the racist card, I have never had any ill will towards Israel or anyone else, I just think both sides of the story need to be told, they're certainly not going to get it from you.

Kindly stick to the facts, and please don't read in details to presentation of history, that somehow because of the actions of my country, I must by default agree with them or that I am not in anyway sorry for our colonial past, it's not only irrelevant but it's disingenuous.

You'll note I agree that there was room enough for both, but that there should of been a two party state at the end, so I don't know where your getting this anti-sematism anti-emmigration vibe from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

The resolution is cited.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242), one of the most commonly referenced UN resolutions in Middle Eastern politics, was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter [5], and was reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 338, adopted after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The resolution calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (there has been some disagreement about whether this means all the territories: see UN Security Council Resolution 242: semantic dispute) and the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency". It also calls for the mutual recognition by the belligerent parties (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) of each other's established states and calls for the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries for all parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Text of Resolution

The Security Council;

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

The pre-resolution discussion.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument [Broken]

7. But as one looks around this Council table, when the future of a whole area and the destiny of a whole people are being decided on, one is struck by an anomalous fact, namely, that the party directly concerned, the Arab people of Palestine, who should themselves be the first speakers to be heard--since they have never ceded their inalienable rights to anybody nor forfeited them--are totally absent from the picture. No reference is made to them in the draft resolution, except, belatedly, in sub-paragraph (b) of operative paragraph 2, as constituting the refugee problem. Yes, this is the Arab people of Palestine, the uprooted, dispossessed people in exile, crying for justice for over twenty years now, without so far finding justice in the councils of the world.

8. The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, indeed, all the international documents pertaining to the unhappy history of Palestine, were not meant in any way to deprive peoples of their inalienable rights to self-determination in their own lands and their right to their homeland in which they had lived for over two thousand years; what is of pertinence here is enshrined in Article I of the Charter, to which no reference whatsoever is made in the United Kingdom draft resolution.

9. In our last statement, on 15 November, we outlined what we believe should be the basic guidelines for the solution of the present crisis. We stated then that:

"...one of the cornerstones of the Charter is the non-recognition of the fruits of aggression ... that any solution of the present crisis which does not recognize that principle is a negation of the Charter itself...that the new international order envisaged in the Charter...involved the renunciation for ever of the use of force for aggressive purposes...and non-recognition of any right based on conquest." [1377th meeting, para. 6.]


In fact, and once more, the very first Article of the Charter is a confirmation of these principles.

10. It goes without saying that the withdrawal of the Israel aggressive forces from occupied territories is at this stage the central point of the problem and should be the focus of the attention and efforts of the international community. The advocates of the draft resolution must know this axiomatic fact very well. That is why the question is a prerequisite for efficiently tackling the United Kingdom draft resolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Hi - believe it or not this thread has nothing to do with palestine - refer to the OP if in doubt :uhh:
 
  • #35
Schrodinger's Dog
817
6
Hi - believe it or not this thread has nothing to do with palestine - refer to the OP if in doubt :uhh:

Appologies, I merely wanted to explain the history to give a picture of why Hamas feels the way it does.

Please note I think Hamas is not the right sort of organisation to be in power, given it's hard line values, and am glad there is a coalition government now.

I'm sure if Yonoz wants to reply we can start up a new thread :smile:
 
Last edited:

Suggested for: Israel and Israel and Jerusalem and Judaism

Replies
3
Views
297
Replies
1
Views
313
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
223
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
332
  • Last Post
Replies
29
Views
953
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
627
Replies
7
Views
286
Replies
3
Views
250
Replies
86
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
359
Top