16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76Maybe since Palestinian Arab representatives agreed to its existence at Oslo.
Given the population dynamics as they are right now, does Israel or any of the Jewish people therein have any legal or moral right to a state on the land upon which Israel currently sits or any portion thereof?
Is there a point lurking somewhere? Israel exists and will continue to exist as already stated. A unitary State in all of what was Palestine in 1948 is a political impossibility given the history so a two State solution is the only viable alternative. I can support a two State solution while holding to my position that the way Israel was created was morally and legally wrong; I'm a practical man who is willing to compromise for the greater good in this case.
Originally posted by no1marauderIn a tit-for-tat cycle of violence as has existed between Israel and its neighbors for 70 years, these arguments of historical blame generally gets down to who committed the "first" wrong and that depends, in part, on whether the state of Israel is legitimate.
Maybe since Palestinian Arab representatives agreed to its existence at Oslo.
Is there a point lurking somewhere? Israel exists and will continue to exist as already stated. A unitary State in all of what was Palestine in 1948 is a political impossibility given the history so a two State solution is the only viable alternative. I can support a two St ...[text shortened]... gally wrong; I'm a practical man who is willing to compromise for the greater good in this case.
If there's not at least an agreement that Israelis have the right to a sovereign state, then I can't get into a debate about historical blame. There's simply no common ground and I'm not interested in a talking-past-each-other debate.
I'm happy to discuss practical solutions, though.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76legal or moral right? it might be useful to define what you mean by those so that we know we argue on the same issues.
Given the population dynamics as they are right now, does Israel or any of the Jewish people therein have any legal or moral right to a state on the land upon which Israel currently sits or any portion thereof?
my understanding of the two:
from a legal point: how many years after a conquest does the conquerer have a legal right to the conquered land?
from a moral point:
the israelites owned israel, they were cast out. 2000 years later they come back. i guess they do have a moral right. the palestinians were living on that land for how much time now? don't they have a moral right?
on a side note:
do the native americans have a moral right to the US territory?
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76Since I am unimpressed with the Zionist claim that Jews have some nebulous "right" to own other people's land in the Middle East just because they think G-d gave it to them 5000 years ago, I can see why you'd like to avoid discussing the issue. The roots of the problem extend well beyond the creation of Israel in 1948 and the violence was not started by other Arab countries attacking a legitimate State at that point as you seemed to imply. Ethnic cleansing was always a necessary component of the Zionist project in "Israel" and is being continued in the occupied Palestinian territories. 60% of the land of those territories is in so-called Area C where basically only settlers are allowed building permits. It is the Israeli right wing political agenda to eventually annex this region.
In a tit-for-tat cycle of violence as has existed between Israel and its neighbors for 70 years, these arguments of historical blame generally gets down to who committed the "first" wrong and that depends, in part, on whether the state of Israel is legitimate.
If there's not at least an agreement that Israelis have the right to a sovereign state, then I can' ...[text shortened]... rested in a talking-past-each-other debate.
I'm happy to discuss practical solutions, though.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't consider what happened 2,000 years ago relevant.
legal or moral right? it might be useful to define what you mean by those so that we know we argue on the same issues.
my understanding of the two:
from a legal point: how many years after a conquest does the conquerer have a legal right to the conquered land?
from a moral point:
the israelites owned israel, they were cast out. 2000 years later ...[text shortened]... al right?
on a side note:
do the native americans have a moral right to the US territory?
I think that any identifiable group of people have the right to self-determination if the live in a contiguous area and are truly unlikely to be allowed their natural human rights under the rule of others in the area.
I have no doubt that Israeli Jews would be subject to all kinds of persecution and rights deprivation under a Palestinian government. Therefore, they have the right to self-determination.
Do the Palestinians also have the right to self-determination? Sure. Does Israel have the right to self-defense? Yes! Israel says they can't give Palestinians self-determination now because that would undermine their right to self-defense. (Some) Palestinians say that they wouldn't pose a security threat if they had their self-determination. (Many others openly admit their sole acceptable endgame is to dismantle the state of Israel.) And so you have the impasse. I'm all for a two state solution, of course, that would provide for rights and security for all.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's the extremists that base their claims on God or a religious factor. There are just as many or more extremists on the Palestinian side who claim the land for similarly religious reasons.
Since I am unimpressed with the Zionist claim that Jews have some nebulous "right" to own other people's land in the Middle East just because they think G-d gave it to them 5000 years ago, I can see why you'd like to avoid discussing the issue. The roots of the problem extend well beyond the creation of Israel in 1948 and the violence was not started by ...[text shortened]... building permits. It is the Israeli right wing political agenda to eventually annex this region.
Originally posted by sh76On what possible basis could Herzl and other Zionists have based a claim for a Jewish State in Israel over 100 years ago other than on religious reasons? The population of Palestine was barely over 10% Jewish in 1922. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html
It's the extremists that base their claims on God or a religious factor. There are just as many or more extremists on the Palestinian side who claim the land for similarly religious reasons.
Even in 1948 the conditions you describe were not met; Jews did not live in a separate contiguous area - even the GA partition plan envisioned almost as many non-Jews as Jews in Israel. Of course, this was not going to happen as the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the region as much as possible - which they did.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76"I don't consider what happened 2,000 years ago relevant."
I don't consider what happened 2,000 years ago relevant.
I think that any identifiable group of people have the right to self-determination if the live in a contiguous area and are truly unlikely to be allowed their natural human rights under the rule of others in the area.
I have no doubt that Israeli Jews would be subject to all kinds of persecution and ...[text shortened]... I'm all for a two state solution, of course, that would provide for rights and security for all.
then jews don't have a right to israel anymore
"I think that any identifiable group of people have the right to self-determination if the live in a contiguous area and are truly unlikely to be allowed their natural human rights under the rule of others in the area."
by this definition, the palestinians have every right to self determination.
"I have no doubt that Israeli Jews would be subject to all kinds of persecution and rights deprivation under a Palestinian government. "
probably how the palestinians are treated now. anyway, no palestinian has any hope they could actually obliterate israel and rule the whole land. no palestinian that isn't also a zealot.
"(Many others openly admit their sole acceptable endgame is to dismantle the state of Israel.) "
that is starting to become a non-issue goal. it is mostly mentioned by hamas and neighbouring arab states who don't give a fuk about palestinians and want the conflict to continue.
"I'm all for a two state solution, of course, that would provide for rights and security for all"
agreed on this one.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12472
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76Only as long as it upholds the moral and legal rights of all people living in its territory when it was founded, including the Palestinians it is trying to genocide on the sly.
Does or does not Israel have the moral and legal right to exist as a sovereign state?
Since it refuses to do that, and is disingenuous about it: no, not unless it betters its ways.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is well known that Theodore Hertzl was an avowed atheist. Hertzl's Zionism was based on two basic principles:
On what possible basis could Herzl and other Zionists have based a claim for a Jewish State in Israel over 100 years ago other than on religious reasons? The population of Palestine was barely over 10% Jewish in 1922. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html
Even in 1948 the conditions you describe were not met; Jews did no ...[text shortened]... as the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the region as much as possible - which they did.
1. Jews needed a "homeland"
2. That was not going to happen in Europe
Since Jews had "traditional" roots in the Palestine area and the area was loosely governed by a foreign empire (the Turks, at the time), this was a natural place. Hertzl would have and did consider alternative places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme) to the extent that Palestine would not work.
Of course there are religious Zionists who claim theocratic justification for the state of Israel, but by and large, the founders of Israel (including Ben Gurion and virtually all of the Haganah leadership) were irreligious.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76Herzl never seriously considered any other "homeland" but Palestine. As to the Uganda Program, it was considered a temporary "solution" and even at that almost split the Zionist Congress:
It is well known that Theodore Hertzl was an avowed atheist. Hertzl's Zionism was based on two basic principles:
1. Jews needed a "homeland"
2. That was not going to happen in Europe
Since Jews had "traditional" roots in the Palestine area and the area was loosely governed by a foreign empire (the Turks, at the time), this was a natural place. Hertzl wo ...[text shortened]... s of Israel (including Ben Gurion and virtually all of the Haganah leadership) were irreligious.
While Herzl made it clear that this program would not affect the ultimate aim of Zionism, a Jewish entity in the Land of Israel he proposal aroused a storm at the Congress and nearly led to a split in the Zionist movement. The Uganda Program was finally rejected by the Zionist movement at the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Herzl.html
Present day Zionist right wingers call those who want to limit settler expansion into the occupied territories as "Latter-Day Ugandists" because G-d gave Judea and Samaria to the Jews not the mostly coastal lowlands of 1948 Israel.
It is even less justified to claim that Jews deserve somebody's else land because other people treated them badly. Herzl's "nationalist" rationale is even more morally objectionable than a religious one though he also claimed that "Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland". Apparently that it was the present home of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews was of no importance.
16 Mar 15
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedVery few American Jews that I know of endorse Pollard's actions, though many (including myself) think his sentence was overly harsh. It should be noted that Pollard has already gone up for parole and if he'd just do a mea culpa and apologize rather than writing these bombastic missives about what a tragic hero he is, he'd probably be out by now.