[RawPower]

I realize that this is a touchy subject, but I figured I would try to get some more opinions on the matter since I'm not all that well informed about it. My feelings so far are ambivalent, because while I think there needs to be a Jewish state to provide a safe haven if persecutions ever break out again, I don't necessarily agree with displacing their Arab neighbors. Thoughts?

[el retorno]

yes and yes. Anti-semitism still exists. Where its borders are is another issue. I believe the 67 lines are pretty fair, though I have no idea how to sort out jerusalem though

And all the settlements need to become Palestinian (unless Palestine agrees to transfer them). Don't like it? Move back to your country.

[Sadsic]

yeah sure why not

[Zeppelin]

Well, not where it's currently located. Just because the Romans kicked them out 2000 years ago doesn't mean they have a right to that land today.

But I honestly find the question rather pointless. They're there now. They ain't gonna move.

[harSon]

At the time of its conception? No and yes. Do they have a legal and moral right to exist now that they already exist? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is an immoral apartheid state.

[Canuck76]

It's tough because they both have a pretty good claim to having their own states

[Computer]

States are illegitimate by definition, so my answer is no.

[el retorno]

It's tough because they both have a pretty good claim to having their own states

Where does Israel having a state preclude Palestine having a state? Why is it one or another?

States are illegitimate by definition

I'm interested in hearing you expand on this.

[Xdrive05]

Two-state solution BITCHES!!!!

[Dead Man]

Israel the country as it stands today? Maybe. It certainly does not have the right to exist as a religious state or ethnic state in its current form. If it was a secular state committed to finding a solution to Palestinian disenfranchisement caused by its creation, it absolutely would have a moral right.

I forsee great things for this thread though.

Well, not where it's currently located. Just because the Romans kicked them out 2000 years ago doesn't mean they have a right to that land today. But I honestly find the question rather pointless. They're there now. They ain't gonna move.

Yep.

At the time of its conception? No and yes. Do they have a legal and moral right to exist now that they already exist? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is an immoral apartheid state.

Yep.

[el retorno]

If it was a secular state committed to finding a solution to Palestinian disenfranchisement caused by its creation, it absolutely would have a moral right.

How is the current palestinian disenfranchisment caused by the creation of Israel?

Well, not where it's currently located. Just because the Romans kicked them out 2000 years ago doesn't mean they have a right to that land today.

Why is where they're located no legit?

[Captain Tuttle]

Israel the country as it stands today? Maybe. It certainly does not have the right to exist as a religious state or ethnic state in its current form. If it was a secular state committed to finding a solution to Palestinian disenfranchisement caused by its creation, it absolutely would have a moral right.

I agree. I fear that Israel is becoming a Theocracy though.

[ReBurn]

Two-state solution BITCHES!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/05/world/...x.html?npt=NP1

Gotta get rid of the right wing cash first.

[RELAYER]

Well they exist as of today, so I guess you are several decades late in asking if they have a "right" to exist or not.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If it's recognized by other countries then it has a legal right I suppose, but morally it is on far shakier ground. An ethno-centric, religious state should never exist, and this one in particular has been responsible for a string of pretty atrocious things. The nation never should have been created in the first place, but now that it has and all of these people live there, it needs to be replaced by a new government that is actually interested in representing all of its people and not screwing over the Palestinians.

[el retorno]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/05/world/...x.html?npt=NP1 Gotta get rid of the right wing cash first.

"So why not reintroduce this plan again, and present the challenge to the Palestinians?" asked Olmert.

This is my biggest confusion on this whole issue. Nobody ever tries to play the "bigger man" and every put anything forward. Everything is always behind close doors and never "real."

[ZackieChan]

I think I read an interview with Noam Chomsky where he basically made the point that no state has ever had a "right" to "exist." States by their very nature are fluid, depending on governments, takeovers, wars, etc. When "Israel" was there thousands of years ago, the idea of the Nation-State didn't even exist (I think). In the question of states' existence, Might Makes Right.

And to those who said above that "anti-semitism still exists," and that they need a safe haven from persecution, what about all of the other religious and ethnic groups out in the world that are dealing with persecution and genocide? Do they have a right to their own state?

I do agree with Zeppelin, though, that now that they're there, they ain't moving. But to deny that they insinuated themselves into the land and basically took over, or to say that they had some kind of claim to the land from thousands of years before is ridiculous and not indicative of how the world works.

[Greyface]

No nation-state has the legal or moral right to exist... well, they shouldnt anyway. I sympathize with the Jews desire for a homeland in thr greater Israel area for whatever reasons ('survival', religious etc) but that's not a good enough justification to fuck over the Arabs settled there. I support a one country solution. Fuck the divisions and let anyone immigrate to the land as equal citizens.

[Mr. Serious Business]

Does the United States not have a legal or moral right to exist because it was built on the displacement (and genocide) of millions of American Indians?

[el retorno]

If it's recognized by other countries then it has a legal right I suppose, but morally it is on far shakier ground. An ethno-centric, religious state should never exist, and this one in particular has been responsible for a string of pretty atrocious things. The nation never should have been created in the first place, but now that it has and all of these people live there, it needs to be replaced by a new government that is actually interested in representing all of its people and not screwing over the Palestinians.

Since when are Palestinian's Israelis? And no "ethno-centric" states? (btw israel isn't only for jews and there are more than a million non jews there) Most states where drawn on ethnic, liguistic or religious grounds.

[Xeke]

Does the United States not have a legal or moral right to exist because it was built on the displacement (and genocide) of millions of American Indians?

Was about to post that.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

I don't think the question is so much in regards to whether a Jewish homeland should exist at all (I can't think of a reason as to why it shouldn't) but rather where and that has been a question angrily, often violently, posed for over 60 years now.

[Dead Man]

Since when are Palestinian's Israelis? And no "ethno-centric" states? (btw israel isn't only for jews and there are more than a million non jews there) Most states where drawn on ethnic, liguistic or religious grounds.

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

How is the current palestinian disenfranchisment caused by the creation of Israel? Why is where they're located no legit?

You don't see how people being displaced to create a country and people losing their land because of their ethnicity are not problems caused by the creation of said country?

[Scullibundo]

Does the United States not have a legal or moral right to exist because it was built on the displacement (and genocide) of millions of American Indians?

Hello.

[nib95]

Now that they're there, imo yes, they have the right to exist. Should they have been put there in the first place? No. But what's done is done.

All I would say now is, they should only be permitted the 67 borders and nothing else, and that the aggressive and illegal expansion Israel is forcing through Palestine is inhumane and heinous, and needs to be stopped.

[el retorno]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel You don't see how people being displaced to create a country and people losing their land because of their ethnicity are not problems caused by the creation of said country?

Arab citizens are Israeli.

And there are arab citizens of Israel has you clearly point out. My question is how did the creation of Israel push these people out and disenfranchise them? (rather than a war and the politics that followed)

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

Assuming there was political agreement between the two tomorrow, how long would it take for things to heal in the region?

[tino]

Neither moral nor legal game rule exist in the international statehood.

You are a nation when you have a big enough club.

[el retorno]

Assuming there was political agreement between the two tomorrow, how long would it take for things to heal in the region?

generations. the civil war isn't even close to being healed in the US.

I'd say 50 or so before any kind of violence would be condemed without reservation on all sides.

[RawPower]

And to those who said above that "anti-semitism still exists," and that they need a safe haven from persecution, what about all of the other religious and ethnic groups out in the world that are dealing with persecution and genocide? Do they have a right to their own state?

That's a good point.

I do agree with Zeppelin, though, that now that they're there, they ain't moving. But to deny that they insinuated themselves into the land and basically took over, or to say that they had some kind of claim to the land from thousands of years before is ridiculous and not indicative of how the world works.

We did actually inhabit that land 2000 years ago, though. However, you are right that it's not an excuse to evict people from their homes.

Well, not where it's currently located. Just because the Romans kicked them out 2000 years ago doesn't mean they have a right to that land today. But I honestly find the question rather pointless. They're there now. They ain't gonna move.

But where else they going to go, if not Israel?

[falastini]

Arab citizens are Israeli. And there are arab citizens of Israel has you clearly point out. My question is how did the creation of Israel push these people out and disenfranchise them? (rather than a war and the politics that followed)

700,000+ civilians were forcibly expelled from Isreal following the 1948 war. How is that not disenfranchisement? And they still haven't been allowed to return (with compliance to international law).

edit: Oh you said the creation specifically. I'd still argue the war was the result of its creation.

[Greyface]

Arab citizens are Israeli. And there are arab citizens of Israel has you clearly point out. My question is how did the creation of Israel push these people out and disenfranchise them? (rather than a war and the politics that followed)

Arab citizens of Israel are citizens in the same sense that black people of South Africa were citizens during the apartheid era or black people were citizens in the Jim Crow era.

[speculawyer]

Yes . . . . but it is slipping away. They need to shit or get off the pot with regard to the occupied territories. They are becoming an Apartheid state wherein they rule over a large number of people who have no right to vote for their representation.

[nib95]

Assuming there was political agreement between the two tomorrow, how long would it take for things to heal in the region?

Hard to answer. How long did it take for things to cool between Bangladesh and Pakistan, or Ireland and Northern Ireland?

[el retorno]

Arab citizens of Israel are citizens in the same sense that black people of South Africa were citizens during the apartheid era or balck people were citizens in the Jim Crow era.

BS the south african examples need to stop when it comes to Israel proper.

700,000,000+ civilians were forcibly expelled from Isreal following the 1948 war. How is that not disenfranchisement? And they still haven't been allowed to return (with compliance to international law).

Reread my post.

[Canuck76]

Assuming there was political agreement between the two tomorrow, how long would it take for things to heal in the region?

Never been there so i have no idea, but i always thought the idea of a united Israeli/Palestinian state or country would be one of the most powerful in the region.

[Dead Man]

Arab citizens are Israeli. And there are arab citizens of Israel has you clearly point out. My question is how did the creation of Israel push these people out and disenfranchise them? (rather than a war and the politics that followed)

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population in 2010 was estimated at 1,573,000, representing 20.4% of the country's population.[4] The majority of these identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.

They are also Palestinian.

As for how it was done, do you really want to try and separate out causation for the refugee situation? Yes, many of them were fleeing from war. Many of them were also removed from their land. The war started as a civil war because the British proposed a plan that the Palestinians did not accept. At no point have I blamed any particular party for the refugee situation, but to deny it was caused by the creation of the new state is wilful ignorance.

[speculawyer]

Since when are Palestinian's Israelis? And no "ethno-centric" states? (btw israel isn't only for jews and there are more than a million non jews there) Most states where drawn on ethnic, liguistic or religious grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Only a minority of Palestinians are Israeli citizens. Most of them are not. Most stateless people living in the West Bank or Gaza.

[goomba]

Yes sure Israel can exist but it must become a democracy and give all Palestinians citizenship and the right of return as given to Jewish people around the world. This include the Palestinians exiled during Israel's founding.

[Greyface]

BS the south african examples need to stop when it comes to Israel proper.

http://jkcook.net/Articles3/0575.htm#Top

http://jkcook.net/Books.htm

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Since when are Palestinian's Israelis? And no "ethno-centric" states? (btw israel isn't only for jews and there are more than a million non jews there) Most states where drawn on ethnic, liguistic or religious grounds.

Israel is a self-identified Jewish state, and has an immigration policy drastically favoring Jewish people. It was created with the express purpose of having a nation "for Jews". Having an ethnic majority is not a problem, but expressly promoting one is not appropriate, doubly so when it's already a majority.

[davepoobond]

if any country is allowed to exist, then israel should be allowed to exist. it doesnt matter how it is formed or under what terms, but as long as it is "there" then it is "allowed" to exist. if someone didnt want it to be in existence they would have done something about it.

[Dead Man]

Only a minority of Palestinians are Israeli citizens. Most of them are not. Most stateless people living in the West Bank or Gaza.

Yeah, but to suggest there are no Palestinian Israelis is wrong. His post indicated that if someone was Palestinian they could not also be Israeli.

[el retorno]

They are also Palestinian. As for how it was done, do you really want to try and separate out causation for the refugee situation? Yes, many of them were fleeing from war. Many of them were also removed from their land. The war started as a civil war because the British proposed a plan that the Palestinians did not accept. At no point have I blamed any particular party for the refugee situation, but to deny it was caused by the creation of the new state is wilful ignorance.

When I hear palestinians I refer to those that are without a state. Not the citizens of the state of Israel. Just like Chinese Americans aren't "chinese" when discusing everyday issues.

You said it your self in your post what caused the war. The Palestinians and Arabs not accepting the state and the conflict that followed. I'm trying to find how the state that was declared in the Israeli declaration of independence in 47 disenfranchised the palestinians residing withing the UN jewish state. They were giving the right to vote. And made full citizens and the document said this

Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

My point is not that the creation of israel didn't create a domino effect that set off other and created what we have no which is sure as hell creating a disenfranchised palestinian polulation. The question this thread is based on is does Israel have a right to exist. I don't see how it existing excluds and disenfranchises palestinians.

I can certainly see how actions since 47 have created that situtation.

Israel is a self-identified Jewish state, and has an immigration policy drastically favoring Jewish people. It was created with the express purpose of having a nation "for Jews". Having an ethnic majority is not a problem, but expressly promoting one is not appropriate, doubly so when it's already a majority.

Do you have the same problem with Japan, Ireland, Spain, Germany, etc. Whose imigration all favor certain immigrants? Do you have a problem with aslyum seekers getting automatic acceptance?

[ElectricBlanketFire]

I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot pole...

[ZackieChan]

That's a good point. We did actually inhabit that land 2000 years ago, though. However, you are right that it's not an excuse to evict people from their homes. But where else they going to go, if not Israel?

"You" didn't live there 2000 years ago. That was a completely different people, and such a long span of time doesn't give anyone the "right" to go back and kick people out. That's like me saying that I want to go back to Italy and kick everyone out to start my own state, because my ancestors were from there. Ridiculous. I know that's a crazy example, but I think you see my point.

I remember reading that there was a plan to move displaced Jews into Sierra Leone, or somewhere else in North Africa.

Like others have said, I certainly empathize with Jews not having a place to call a homeland, but the lack of one doesn't give you the right to take another one over. However, since they had the strength and political backing to do it, that makes their claim just as legitimate as any other conqueror's claim throughout history.

[el retorno]

Like others have said, I certainly empathize with Jews not having a place to call a homeland, but the lack of one doesn't give you the right to take another one over. However, since they had the strength and political backing to do it, that makes their claim just as legitimate as any other conqueror's claim throughout history.

How did the creation of the 47' state "take over others land"?

[RawPower]

"You" didn't live there 2000 years ago. That was a completely different people, and such a long span of time doesn't give anyone the "right" to go back and kick people out. That's like me saying that I want to go back to Italy and kick everyone out to start my own state, because my ancestors were from there. Ridiculous. I know that's a crazy example, but I think you see my point.

How were they a completely different people? I agree with the non-bolded parts though.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Do you have the same problem with Japan, Ireland, Spain, Germany, etc. Whose imigration all favor certain immigrants? Do you have a problem with aslyum seekers getting automatic acceptance?

If your immigration policy expressly favors people on meritocratic grounds (e.g. you get fast tracked if you're a medical doctor), that's not problematic. If it's "easier" to get citizenship because you already fluently speak the primary language of the country you're emigrating to, that's not so bad either. But it's difficult to justify a system whereby your ethnicity automatically grants you entrance to a nation, irrespective of other factors. And why are you trying to equate Jews to asylum seekers?

If the German or Japanese immigration policies grant automatic entrance to people with German or Japanese ancestry (even if they've lived in another nation for 400 years), then yes, I have a problem with that for exactly the same reason. My country, Australia, has a long and shameful history with its immigration policies. The first act of our parliament was the "White Australia Policy", IIRC.

[ZackieChan]

How did the creation of the 47' state "take over others land"?

Prior to the creation of the state, it was the policy of the US and Britain to allow unprecedented amounts of immigration into the area. From WWII on, there were tons of jews flowing into Palestine, to the point that bloody clashes were happening all the time prior to the formation of the state. So first there was a de facto taking over, which was by mass immigration, and then there was a de jure takeover where they created their own state.

The Teaching Company has a great lecture series, The US and the Middle East, which goes into detail on the story of the creation of Israel. Very interesting.

How were they a completely different people? I agree with the non-bolded parts though.

Admittedly, I'm guessing here, but it seems that thousands of years in a diaspora all over the world would lead to some kind of mixing with other ethnicities, creating an "impure" bloodline. I could be wrong, though. I know that there are three types of Jews, right? But I'd love some info on why you think that they are the exact same people as they were when they were kicked out of Israel long ago. I certainly don't think I'm the same as the Imperial Romans or Germanic tribes, but the European situation could be very different. Educate me, GAF.