It is unbelievable beyond measure that in this day and age the powers-that-be allow a group of people to get away with the fraud that they are the "chosen ones" . It is also unbelievable that any discussion about their Legitimacy can be suppressed/ignored by alleging that the same constitutes "anti-semitism".

Firstly, the term semitic has been debased. There is no genealogical evidence that the present occupiers of the Talmudist State - white Europeans and Russians - are "semites" and/or that they are somehow connected to the Ten Lost Tribes Of Israel.

In 1917 , Palestine's population consisted of 800,000 Palestinian Arabs.

The Principal Allied Powers agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to the UK - the Mandatory - the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire. Her majesty's government decided to ingratiate itself with the zionists by allowing 800,000 of them to migrate to Palestine. The UK allowed the massive immigration Even though it had been given instructions not to permit anything which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

The zionists placed into effect their plan to remove the Palestinians by whatever means were necessary.And the rest, as they say is history

Questions for the debate:


(A) Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?,


(B) Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?

I want to clarify that I have nothing against the Jews as a group or individuals.

I do object however to ANY group , gang, tribe who claims that because they are the "chosen ones" they can engage in ethnic cleansing!!!!!!!!!!

By that logic America (and large swaths of Canada) should be returned to the Indians, Belgium to the Flemmish, Wales to the Celts, England to the Catholics, Persia to the Zoroastrians, Italy to the Etruscans, Mexico to the Aztecs/Mayans, Egypt to the africans, the Arabian peninsula to the Bedouins, etc... Heck, why not resurrect the Neanderthals and give them Europe?

See where I'm going? Every cultural conquest has at its core the two traits that you describe; a belief in the superiority of the Conquerers, and a sublimation or annihilation of the vanquished culture. It is neither right or wrong (in a historical perspective), merely a fact of history. We can draw on the eventual "Zionist" creation of Israel as a more contemporary example, but where do we draw the line. Israel does exist in the same way that modern China, America, Canada, England, France, etc... all exist. Rights have nothing to do with it; the only objective standard by which we can measure a Nation-state's viability is inherently contemporaneous... Any attempt to measure the historical validity of a state immediately invites subjective valuation.

Perhaps you should state how any country aquires the "right" to exist before you insist that Israel is lacking in that department.

I see. So might is right?

In that case Iran , Syria and Hez are well within their rights to attempt to wipe out the Jewish State from the map? Right?

But UJ, by that very argument- Israel DOESN'T have a right to exist- they were not a country for 2000 years before we stirred up a hornet's nest and created a country and allowed a large European immigration to an ethnically Arabic majority population, and displaced those that lived there- and, even more of a travesty- there are large populations of poeple displaced by this creation of a state that are still alive and thier very legitimate claims need to be addressed.

It is more akin to the UN declaring Texas belongs to the Indians and kicking every man woman and child out of Texas that doesn't agree with that at the barrel of a gun.

the point is all moot now- because a couple of generations have been born there.

It is a horrible precedent set by the creation of Israel, and well, several other countries, to be fair- both the Balfour declaration and the UN mandate that created Israel destablised that region to the Nth degree.

I'm guessing that Political Science is not your stock-in-trade...

I did not say "might is right." I was not arguing that cultural conquest is justified... in fact I never said anything remotely resembling that. I was merely pointing out that your criteria is useless because it is so general, you just dressed it up with inflammatory descriptors and attached it to the creation of Israel. What I said was this... That you have not established any objective standard by which states can be said to have "a right to exist," and as such, any effort to decry Israel's "right" is silly. It has same the intellectual legitimacy as my saying that "bears are better than cougars." Without any criteria or baseline for establishing the "rights" of a nation, how can we say which states possess those rights with any legitimacy?



Thank you for restoring my faith in the failure of American culture to inculcate a proper appreciation for sarcasm. Oh, and the Palestinians were never considered Arabs, at least until 1948 or so, so you may want to reconsider that little "statement" of fact.

I will make my position easy to understand: Since nobody has provided an objective standard by which states have a right to exist, Israel cannot be said to "not have the right to exist."

According to the UK, in 1917 Palestine's population was 800,000. 95% of them Palestinian Arabs. They fought very hard in order to obtain their independence from the Turkish Empire. But now they are subjugated by the zionists , they have been reduced to be slum dwelllers and treated as foreigners in their own land. Is there some reason for which our own declaration of independence does not offer a measure of objectivity to their rights?!?


We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men

Sorry- I did not follow your point- must be the time of the morning- but yes, might makes right- and Israel has been established and made into a state basically with the US- I don't think Israel would last long without the US, it certainly won't stand alone, and may eventually fail just from the population boom of the arabic ethnic groups (including the persians)

BUT the palestenian poeple WERE the indeginous poeple there before the 1948 decree, and it basically robbed them of thier homes, a succesful ethnic cleansing.

With Israel's precedent setting as a state- there is a very, very valid argument that we need to form a soveriegn nation within the US for American Indians, and the ethnic cleansing we performed on them.

I'll dip my toe in before this becomes the usual free for all erupts on the issue of Israel.

(A) Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?,

I'm not really in the business of declaring a person or a nation's right to exist null and void. This one is pretty "self-evident" for me. Yes Israel had a right to exist. It exists therefore it is.

[B] Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?

Yes of course the British had the right to issue that policy statement. I believe the language was something laong the lines of "his majesty's government views with favour the existence of a national homeland for the Jews in the Palestine . . . as long oh drat that part's hard to remember it is,

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Linky poo



As we take leaps of logic to make the argument that Palestinians do not have the rights to exist because we say that Israel has a right to exist, I guess I could point out that that is NOT what I'm saying.

Since we are linking to early American history and the Declaration of Independence, there seems to be a parallel. What percentage of people living in the present United States do you think were English settlers in 1640? I'd venture to say less than 5%. So once again, does that statistic invalidate the United States' right to exist.

The colonial charters were like the Balfour Declaration, edicts issued from the English/British government and they seemed to not properly take in account the claims to the territories of the indigenous people. These are the same indigenous people who were pushed off their land by force in the Battle of Fallen Timbers/Treaty of Greenville, Battle of Tippecanoe, and Battle of Horseshoe Bend/Treaty of Fort Jackson after Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence while he was a significant factor in the government of the United States.





I love the Declaration of Independence as it sets forth ideals for humanity. We clearly fall short of the ideal. So why, of all nations that have come into being in part by force and dubious documentation, does Israel have to be the one to disband itself?

Eeyore=- I agree with you, totally. At this point- it is a done deal. We should stop propping them up, however, they need to sink or swim on thier own. The box is open, the cat is out of the bag- whatever cliche' you wish to employ- but Israel is a state now- and therefore, has a right to exist. That doesn't mean Israel shouldn't be forced to make those Palestenians forced out to become citizens again, with all the same rights as any other citizens.

Inventing history does little to bolster your argument... And you still haven't provided an objective criteria. America was the result of a cultural conquest, so how does the Declaration of Independence speak to YOUR position?

The "Palestinian Arabs" did not fight to reject the Ottoman's rule; a disparate group of entities fought for various reasons under various flags to dispell the Turks. The primary actors in this were Sharif Hussein, who was in fact an Officer in the Turkish court who sought post-war autonomy... and fought under the impression (knowingly advanced by the British) that he would be installed as a Caliph centered out of Baghdad or Mecca. In fact, Chaim Weizmann and the new "Emir" Faysal (son of Sharif Hussein) drafted an agreement in 1919 regarding their collective interests in the Middle East. It makes for an interesting read. Of particular note is how "Palestine" is considered. Here's the prelude (emphasis mine):



The agreement would later fall apart as Britain's contradictory agreements to both Arab and Jewish parties undermined the immediate ambitions of both; but nothing bothers me more about the "Israel Debate" (in all of its manifestations) than the way people simplify the history leading up to the creation of the State of Israel. It was not, as Contumacious describes... an uprising of Arabs against Turks which led directly to a cruel oppression from new invaders. It was a complex chain of historical events in which competing interests USED what was then Palestine to further their own goals. The primary ARAB actors in the period following the collapse of the Ottoman empire were not Palestinian and held the people there in as much regard as the British, French, or Zionists. THAT is what history tells us, and it would be wise for ALL of us to be more mindful of that when we try to analyze the ensuing decades.

Does Israel have a right to exist.

Did not White Europeans and the like deem Israel the right to exist. Therfore... I guess it does. You see when we ask does someone have the right... what are we talking from a illusionary morality point of view or from a legal point of view.

Legally speaqking, might doesn't make right, but might makes laws and laws are legally right... follow??

So was the creation of Israel and our support through out it's existence just???

Well that all depennds on how racist you truly are. Here is a nation created in the middle of Arabic land with out the consent of any arabic people by a bunch of European and some arabic jews.

now look at the arguments set forth already

Ultimate Joe



Eeyore


They point to invasion and occupation. Thus they point to unjust behavior. Why did we fight the first gulf war for those who believe that it was a just cause... ahhh because Saddam was evil... Why was he evil... ahhh.... because he sought to invade.

As shifty as morality can be (due that it is only a point of view) at what point do you make a standard to which you as an individual abide by. What is just and unjust behavior??

So by my standards the existence of israel is unjust, by the way they claimed the land and by the way they maintain it, as is our support.

Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?

Obviously the same answer applies. Might makes laws. Laws give rights. Might make right. there is little I can do about the general population that conflate right in terms of morality, just, and lawful... that is just the way of the world.

I'm fairly certain you just called me a racist Droop...



So you say. Then lets go to my previous examples (which I did NOT use to justify anything, merely to point out the fairly amorphous concepts being discussed here)... Does America have the "right" to exist? Howabout England?

(A) Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?,
Yes. When I read the opening post, all I could conclude was "ahh, another venture into raging anti-Semitism." Nothing said thus far by Contumacious in this thread has altered that perspective.

( Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?
Yes. As sovereign over the lands in question, they had that right.

Um, the word "semite" also includes those non-jews from that region.

BD- you are incredibly anti-semitic, obviously

So, your post- if the US were to withdraw our support, and the full 50million plus arabs/non-jews from that region invaded and DID "wipe Israel off the map"- by thier might, and thier excercise of force over that region- would those poeple have a "right to exist" by your definitions- let's be clear- without the US, and to some degree, European, support, Israel, as a nation, would not last a decade.

so, really, it is US intervention that even allows that "soveriegnty"

Other than the "might makes right" ethnic cleansing of the indigenous poeple- which you seem to be okay with- why is the European invasion of those lands any more 'right" than Saddams invasion of Kuwait?

I agree with Eeyore.

This will probably be my only post on this thread, with which I have several problem. First, the author asked a question in the title and then gave his answer - “Absolutely Not” - in the subtitle. How much more could one possibly do to bias a thread? In three years, I can't remember seeing anything like this before. Second, like his posts on the 16th and 18th Amendments, the author seems to want to do away with established history with the mere snap of his fingers. Third, given that Harry S. Truman recognized the state if Israel nearly 60 years ago, I think this thread should be moved to the history forum.

Some time ago I started a similar thread based on a novel, The Chosen, by the late rabbi, Chaim Potok, that looks at the issue from both sides through the eyes of two young men, whose fathers are on opposite sides of the issue.

With very little undue bragging, I think my thread was superior to this effort, because:

1. It was not biased.

2. It was placed in the correct forum.

3. Although it received only a handful of replies, those replies provided well thought out positions - not kneejerk reactions.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=13130

Trading one colonial ruler for another does not enhance the right for self determination. This is an incredibly offensive, not to mention immature statement. In effect what you have stated is because someone else has exerted influence in the lands of Palastine, this behaviour isn't out the ordinary and should be tolerated. As one can see this imposes a culture and system of laws onto an indigenous culture that the losing party must accept. Such action is easy to do when the imposing culture is in the majority. When the imposing culture is in the minority yet maintains the right to regulate all aspects of another's existance you have to give your head a shake.

Think about it, all land use and appropriation has and still is the exclusive right of one party. Hasn't anyone noticed there is no litigation until a third party interjects itself? This should tell you something on how the law is intrepreted. One-way only until external factors force the issue.

So sir you tell me why Israel should exist when the only existance they are concerned about is themselves?

We want it back!



(A) Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?

Yes it most certainly does, for if Turkey is allowed to exist on stolen Greek land then so does Israel have the right to exist on stolen Muslim land. What is good for the goose is equally good for the gander and I am not going to accept any argument that puts Israel in a different catagory than Turkey. Turkey is far and away a much greater land grab and it has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, Greeks, Armenians and Cypriots to name but a few. Turkey has many times sought to expand its territorial gains, yet despite a long and sordid colonial past is never regarded with the same scorn and hatred as the other post colonial nations. You won't find many UN resolutions calling the Turks to account!

Turkey is also supported by the USA to the tune of a vast sum of money (though you seldom hear about that). The crucial and telling difference between the two of course is that Turkey is not inhabited by Jews...



( Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?

Yes. No. There is nothing to debate. It depends entirely on your political bias.


edited to add a missing word

Droop are we dealing with shifting morality of shifting reality. A question for the thread is whether Israel has a right to exist, not whether it is just that it exists. For my part of the examples given, by that standard, then I clearly conclude that it is not just that the United States exists.

But here we are with a world full of nations that have descended from one form of injustice or another. Do they not have a right to exist?



If shameless self-interest is a criteria for a person or a nation to lose the right to exist then we are similarly in trouble.



I also would like to point out that we give too much credit to the US, Great Britain, and the UN for the creation of Israel. Moral or not, Israel creation was formed on the battlefield by Zionist soldiers against the armies of the surrounding newly formed Arab nations. IF our mere will (the United States) was enough to keep a government in existence, the Taiwanese government would be based in Beijing and Saigon would be the capital of Vietnam. Zionism grew into a strong political movement and it congealed into a determined nation of people with Realpolitik, hard, and often unjust policies to make their nation come into existence. The creation of that nation was made my the efforts sweat, and blood of the inhabitants. And it has happened at the expense of some of the inhabitants of the region. The story is not a pretty one, but it is a real one.

How right it is that Israel exists is clearly open for debate. But if we were really debating that (which we are not per the thread questions) and deemed that Israel did not have the right to exist in reality. How would the end of Israel really be achieved? What would we do with the millions of Israel born citizens that we decide have lost their nation?

I guess the flip side of the question is then, since the main answer is "we used our might to make right"- is- do the palestenians (or displaced indigenous people, whatever ) have not only a right but a duty to resort to "terrorism" or "guerilla warfare" in order to fight this injustice done them? I mean, since the Germans commited atrocities and ethnic cleansing on the jews, I guess it is the Jewish state's right to do the same thing to the poeple they displaced?

I mean, why are we so against "palestenian terrorists"- since they are just fighting for what is thiers, and they are just using any means neccesary to gain back what they lost?

If the "might makes right" argument is the only real reason that they exist- shouldn't we EXPECT terrorism as a by product?

Thank you for you opinion.

You did not identify the facts upon which you relied for the same. Cynics might accuse you of being a zionist hence your interests may be conflicted.



Why? Why was her majesty so gracious about granting the zionists a national homeland? Was it to get them out of London? Was it because the zionists were a power house in UK's politics?

President Wilson's 14 points addressed the Palestinians right to a secured sovereingty ...undoubted security and UNMOLESTED OPPORTUNITY OF AUTONOMOUS DEVELOPMENT


XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development,


Gee, nothing about a national homeland for the zionists

Why wasn't her majesty so understanding when James Madison , Thomas Jefferson , Patrick Henry et al asked for a national homeland for the colonists? Not so easy giving away your land? But easy as heck to give away someone else's? Right?

I found your earlier statement to be rather facetious because every nation can exist somewhere. Self-interest is the problem which is preventing both parties from articulating their concerns. The issue of existence on a crowded piece of land needs to shift from "me" to "we" if there is to be any hope of reconciliation and power sharing. "Existence" is not the issue so much as displacement. This requires intensive communication, something that an inhomogeneous group of people have diffuculty with. Lebanon almost had it. Turkey isn't too far behind. The point I'm getting at is we need to focus where multi-ethnic societies have taken hold in the arab world. To do so is in Israel's best interest and must be an integral part of the "existence" debate.



Why would you end it? You are talking in absolutist terms. Moving that many people who no longer want to move doesn't strike me productive. What I'm advocating is disolving much of the Israeli state functions by incorporating all remaining Palastinian land and people into a one state solution. A two state anything cannot work with the fragmented remains of Palastine. Look at a map, what's left is unworkable. I am saying by cutting their own authourity in half and allowing Palastinian representation and influence into their own knesset, we might have a chance of setting up an Arab province within the existing Israeli framework using Israeli development dollars. If the Lebanese melting pot solution cannot be pursued than we will be hung up on this issue for many years to come.

Before we go too far down this road- the turkish goverment has been as equally bad as Israel to a variety of ethnic groups- the largest of which would be the kurds.

The problem I have here is with this "they did it so can we" debate we seem to be having here. If history is to teach us SOMETHING at some point- it is that creating homelands where they haven't existed for over 2000 years is NOT a good idea, no matter the injustice done to them.

The reality is- the Israelis DO have a homeland right here in the US, there are far more Jews here in the US than Israel. They are much more free than they could ever be in Israel, right here in the US. Free to not be killed would be a good freedom I would think.

I have Jewish children, which means I could live there if I wanted too- however, the poeple that were born there are still not allowed to return.

That is a real injustice as well. Just because one ethnic group has atrocities commited against it doesnt' give them carte' blanche' to do the same I would think?

No way, Jose.

Either get a second job or the feds will be forced to print more money,ie, inflate the currency.


More Money for Israel?

They're richer than ever, and they don't need it – so why are we giving it?

by Justin Raimondo

American military aid to Israel has been increased yet again, which leads us to ask the inevitable question: What are we getting for our money?

Well, we're getting this, as well as this, and this – not to mention this.

The regularly quoted figure is $3.5 billion per year. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt go with the figure of $3 billion in their new book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, averring that this is "generous, but it is hardly the whole story." This "canonical" figure, they say, "omits a substantial number of other benefits." The authors cite former congressman Lee Hamilton as saying that Israel is one of three countries whose aid total "substantially exceeds the popularly quoted figures." The actual figure, said Hamilton, is more than $4.5 billion

And here I was saying I wouldn't post again.


Undisputable. My question is, why do we continue providing economic and military support if Israel demonstrated it's willing to fight for its existence in the past? Would withdrawing U.S. support result in an Arab invasion or removing the leverage that enables Israel to avoid negotiating with Palestinians for land?


I second this. Sort of. The feds are already trying to keep the economy going and it doesn't have anything to do with Israel. Hey Con, what do you think about a thread proposing the end of federal assistance for Puerto Rico, chico?

As for weather Israel has a right to exist it's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. All doubt would be removed if the U.S. withdrew support and Israel settled territorial disputes on its own. I don't think our support is politically sustainable and I think it's very much in Israel's interest to make us think otherwise.

Am I overreacting to the debate question, "Does Israel have a right to exist?"

And while I sympathize with your sentiment of working together to solve problems, I find very little in the modern histories of Turkey or Lebanon to make me feel better.

And if you are not aware, Palestinian Arabs are able to vote in Israel, the ones that are citizens of the nation.

I hope you also see that sharing power with Hamas or any group that has a foreign policy position that Israel does not have a right to exist and should be destroyed is a difficult fit for power sharing.

How far back do we go to justify "right"? The Israelis officially recieved Palestine nee Israel from the UK with the UN's full approval. The UK got it from the Ottoman Empire after it was on the losing side of World War One. The Ottoman's got it from some other Arab powers way back when..., the Arabs in question seized it by bloody conquest (thus igniting the Crusades), the Christians inhererited the Holy Land when the Roman Empire collapsed, the Roman's took it from the Jews, who got it, lost it, got it back, etc. Of all existing peoples today, the Jews have the best "historical" claim, but it wouldn't be unfair to say that the reason their claim is best is because the folks they got it from were wiped out, gone. They have, for want of a better description, outlived any of the earlier claimants.



btw Moif, why would y'all want England back, isn't just a bit too not flat for you Danes?


Ahh yes, the old "all the descendants of Shem" conflation. As you know, the term "anti-Semite" refers to bigotry/bias against Jews. Today, those who discuss bigotry or bias against the other branch of Shem use the term "anti-Arab" bias.

My definition? I didn't offer a definition. Nor will I. Even without our support, Israel has a right to exist.

But hey, let's take what appears to be your contention, that without American support, Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Fine. Then none of the countries in Eastern or Western Europe have a right to exist, neither does South Korea, Thailand, or any other country that we supported during the Cold War. We supported Western Europe for a number of reasons, primary being that we felt that tossing them under the Red boot wasn't exactly in keeping with our principles. Well, ditto for Israel. Its not a perfect country, but its a darn sight closer to our ideals than any of its neighbors.

This will be my only foray into this subject..

He seems to be very free with name calling and straying from his own subject. Really calling Eeyore a Zionist that is funny and then to have the chutpath to say that a Zionist should not have any say on a subject introduced by a neo-Nazi that is true chutpah.

Now the subject is because the US decides to give foreign aid to Israel.

Well this discussion started in the gutter and has gone down hill rapidly into a hate Israel fest. Much like the United Nations.

I will state my position one more time, since each post I offer seems to confuse people even further. Without first defining HOW a nation has a right to exist; asking if Israel has that right is a stupid endeavour. Nobody who is arguing for the "NO" side has even attempted to do so...

And Trouble, you seem to have missed my point once again. All I was arguing with my last post (you know, the one with primary documents that disputed the assertions of Contumacious and others) was that the development of Israel was an incredibly complex political process, and THIS discussion is hampered by the simplification that we are describing it with.

Complex? Not in the least. You are attempting to muddy the arguement by focusing on the early creation as compared to the later history which is harder to excuse. In fact I would say this probably the most cut and dry topic in this entire board.



I avoided this comment because if you feel the need to point this out, then wouldn't it make sense for you to provide the objective standard? If you cannot, then your premise is meaningless.



The point I would take from this argument is that Contumacious was trying to set a minimum baseline that in the early 20^th century the Palestinian demographic was fairly homogenous. You then disagreed by saying "The primary ARAB actors in the period following the collapse of the Ottoman empire were not Palestinian and held the people there in as much regard as the British, French, or Zionists." Yet provide no auxillary information to supplement your argument.

You also portray a dialog between Faisal and Weizmann as the mainstream argument(which for all intents was wishful thinking that never was implemented) and then attribute its failure to British to agreements. On the second half I can partially agree. The key word is partially.

What you have not done is quantify the depth of British involvement, especially from wwII on which was particularly important in shaping middle east affairs. Also how do you account for relations post 1948 when the British left? Most of my argument focuses exclusively after this period. The 'complexity of multiple actors influencing events' angle lost its appeal after Israel declared its Independence that same year. To make the argument today is intellectually dishonest because Israel has been clearly in the driver's seat of its own destiny for 59 years!

You have not presented a credible arguement of 'complexity' and actually furthered the perception of taking an initially complex situation and turning it into an issue of political convenience to implement an unchallenged Israeli policy. I do not accept the 'victim of circumstance' nomenclature because the same traits of expansion which created the conflict did not stop when the British left, and this suggests a higher level of complicity than your arguement implies.

Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?,
This is a poorly formed question that can only be responded to by a tautology. The Zionist state of Israel is recognized all over the world as a state so it is accepted, it is real, it exists and for the most part operates like any other nation. Even the surrounding Arab nations have accepted Israel in principle as witnessed by the Saudi proposal. What is broadly in question presently are the exact boundaries of that state. UN Resolution 242 pretty much declares the added post 1967 boundaries as illegitimate so I would say the rightful boundaries until further agreement is reached between the interested parties is that 1967 boundary.

At what point was any country handed its boundaries as a right formed in justice and morality? I guess the imprimatur of the Pope might suffice with some, but not with most folks.

The thread would make more sense if the question was asked in the form "Was the creation of the state of Israel a good thing overall." A thread created along these lines was started by Cruising Ram a few years back. It turned into an interesting thread. One lady persisted in arguing in the affirmative based on Biblical grounds. Arguing with her won me my one and only strike. In case anyone is interested, here is the thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=5854&hl

Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?
You might as well ask "do imperialist decisions have standing?" Perhaps the question is asking whether the BD violated a previous agreement not to prejudice the rights of the natives. Clearly it did and, as has been shown, this was understood. However an imperial power is not a legal court; it is a set of interests and Britain pursued theirs in this case. Perhaps we will reach a point where there is international respect for local autonomy. That was very much not the case back then.

Trouble, I know that we have discussed this privately, but I will say it again. You have a habit of reading far too much into statements... usually as a way to find something to disagree with in what I am saying. I have not argued victimization; I have not argued that Israel is not complicit in unjust deeds in this past 60 years. Then again, you have categorically failed to understand the things that I have said, so I can't say that I'm surprised.



What is my premise, which is so meaningless? I have not provided an objective standard because I don't believe one can be provided. States are non-human entities... and I believe that their "rights" are entirely artificial constructs derived out of power and authority. My point is (and this is the last time I am going to explain something to you for a while) that all the people who have made declarations that Israel does or does not have a right should explain what that right is and how it is derived if they want to have credibility. You have not done so, all you have done is misread and misinterpret and avoid directly answering the question.

UJ- I am not sure if I am quite following you- is it your contention that a state 'exists, therefore I am, I have a big gun, and can enforce that ideal"- in other words- might makes it right?

Imperialist borders can stand, and are legitimate, as long as you have the guns to back it up?

Therefore, should we EXPECT the world to have a contant supply of terrorists?

I think so, at least threats of terrorism. The terrorist state, the terrorist organization and the terrorist individual are the life blood of the garrisoned unified nation state. It is definitely a condition for existence. As a variation imagine the Zionist state of Israel without the threat of anti-Semitic terror. Israel has helped cement its existence by promoting virulent anti-Semitism
in the Arab world where it was a minor factor before. It provides a necessary glue.

Lets review an earlier post of mine, shall we?



People are making a positivist assumption and it is starting to drive me crazy. I have argued that until SOMEONE explains to me what a "Right To Exist" for a state means, and how we measure such rights, it is pointless to say if a state does or does not have that right.

I have suggested that there is no such thing as a states' RIGHTS. States are constructed entities and have no individual free-will, or natural rights... As a result of international relations states are able to codify conduct between one-another and within themselves, but that is the long and short of it. Does military prowess "justify" a state? Not in any moral sense that I can understand... and that seems to be the thrust here, but it has nothing to do with RIGHTS.

Israel as a state exists... It exerts sovereignty and is recognized (by and large) by the international community. What other objective criteria are there for the justification of a state's existence? I can think of no-standard by which Israel can be found by itself as lacking, and yet I've never seen these sorts of questions asked about other countries. This is not to suggest anti-semitism; Israel occupies a unique place in the politics of the United States, and the world at large... I just wish that people could take a step back from that and try to approach these questions without letting those experiences cloud their judgement.

Okay- I am understanding you better. And I agree - in the context that it is a recognized country, has existed a bit over 50 years, and exerts authority over it's territory, I think you are correct.

In the historical context ( and I agree BOFs questions were FAR better written! ) I think we had a collosal mistake made- however- the cat is out of the bag so to speak- so the follow up question- is obvious- why do we continue to support Israel, why do we kowtow to thier demands like we are lapdogs or something yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum- all off topic questions- so really- the questions are very poorly written- it would be better to revive BOFs better written questions for a real honest debate. I do feel the original thread question is more than a bit anti-semitic as well, and I think Loreng probably hit that nail on the head pretty hard.

You may be onto something CruisingRam maybe a rewording of the question is in order.

For the record exercising sovereignty can be pared down to groups as small as refugees or homesteaders. Where do we draw the line? The only difference is how widely accepted the claim is. Here we are just dealing with larger groups and more opinions. I'm not sure how such an open ended definition can taken seriously when one group superimposes itself on another. Claiming land is fine if the land remains uncontested. It is quite another matter when it is contested . Then the simple act of exercising sovereignty appears gaudy and self indulgent when it is at another's expense. We don't need to pick on Israel either, there are other examples in history.

This is why I have never accepted Eeyore's claim of existence + articulation as a well defined measure of legitamacy. To simply "be" is not enough. It strikes me as absurd. We need a better descriptor.

Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?

Technically there is no such thing as a "right to exist" among nations. They either exist or they do not exist, as may be determined by the people who occupy the territory in question. Or, in case of war, by others. That applies just as much to France or Great Britain as it does to Israel.

The question is, should a particular national entity exist? In the case of Israel, my answer is no. That does not mean that I want to see any of its Jewish citizens killed or forced to try to swim to Cyprus. It is just that I think that Israel is a racist state that was unjustly constituted on Palestinian land, and which, since the day it was founded, has consistently used violence to seize more and more land and to force its Palestian occupants to flee.

The difference between this state of affairs and that in, for example, Ohio is that the Shawnees were so thoroughly defeated that they have no prospect winning back Ohio. And the few pitiful Shawnee descendants, out in Oklahoma, aren't trying. The Palestinians and the other Arabs, on the other hand, have very real prospects of defeating Israel and winning Palestine back. That is how the case differs from that of the American natives; not in principle, but in the number of young people willing to fight, and the deep support they enjoy not only among their people but from those throughout the world who are concerned for justice.

A principal outrage is that an American Jew can send any amount of money to support Israel, go fight for it even, and not be bothered by the U.S. authorities; while it is considered a serious crime to send a dime to Hamas, a principal Israeli opponent in Palestine; and actually to go fight for it will get you condemned to many years in prison (or these days, many years in prison without even the nicety of a judicial condemnation).

And it is worth pointing out that the notion that Syria and Iran are "state sponsors of terrorism" rests almost entirely on the support these nations give to anti-Israel fighters in Palestine.

Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?

From the point of view of today, it is preposterous that anyone would suppose that Britain had any right to dispose over Palestine, a territory over which it enjoyed rule solely due to its dominant position as a worldwide colonial power and one of the victors of World War II. The creation of Israel (and yes, I know that it was U.N.-sanctioned) is just as much an imposition of European imperialism as the foundation of the Orange Free State or the Belgian occupation of the Congo. And it was similarly founded in the strong conviction that only white people are suitable to govern any particular piece of this planet.

It is by no means an accident that Zionism only really began as a world movement during the latter part of Queen Victoria's reign, when the notion that the "White man's burden" was to govern the "lesser breeds without the law" was commonplace. It is precisely a world context of European domination and expansion into the territories that were home to these "lesser breeds" that gave Zionism its great hope. The great chance was that somehow, a nice crumb would fall to the Jews. And so, unfortunately for the peace and welfare of the future Middle East, it did. And if you listen to Zionist rhetoric, you will always find that very prominent among its intellectual props is that the Arabs are a lesser breed.

The Jews found Israel a desert and turned it into a garden; the Jews established democracy where there was before autocracy; the Jews established the rule of law where before it was clan against clan; and so on, and so on. "A people without a land for a land without a people," indeed!

Eeyore


Well if you deem yourself a just person than the answer is simple. No, a nation created by unjust means does not have a right to exist. This of course, can never change the reality that it does exist. But as an individual, with your own sense morality, should you not see the injustice and stand against it?? Even if that stance is only in words and thoughts.

Bikerdad


By what right did the the UN and UK have the right to "give" a group of europeans Statehood?? How many arabic nation indigenous to the surrounding area of Israel approved of this?

UJ
First let us ask this question.

Is the right of America to exist in question to any serious degree??
Is the right of Israel being questioned to any serious degree??

You once asked UJ was I calling you a racist?? Maybe, maybe not. It is not for me to decide. There is nothing racist about acknowledging Israels existance. It is there it exists. The question is do you "defend" it's right to exist. If the answer is yes... I don't want to seem to be name calling, but one might want to examine how you've come to defend it with out the notion that "whites" are superior to people globally.

Two sides war on one side(predominately not all) we have and indigenous people to that land and the surrounding area. On the other side we have europeans (predominately) who have come and taken land, pushed the indegenous people out and been created in to an "official" state by fellow europeans.

How does one, not saying you, defend the right of israel to exist with out having some belief that europeans have a right to give what is not theirs, take what is not theirs, and be oblivious to the plight of those that were oppressed on.



Many will point to the fact that there seems to be something special about Jews.... I would point out South Africa. Many in our country began to see South African government and our support for it disgraceful. Why?? Cause it was blatant racism to support the oppressors just because they were European descendants.

"Israel was created, it exists, move on" Here is the problem with this mentality. There are still people in that surrounding area who have not moved on, and will not move on... thus the conflict.

So if we as a democratic nation were to make a judgement.. not just let the government tell us what we want.

Who do we support, if anybody. My answer is that if we are a just nation then we must support the just cause, or aat the very least stay neutral.

Two sides conflict.

By what stretch of the imagination do we say the side where the invaders and their children and children childern reside, who created a nation and moved out the indigenous people is the just side.

How does a just human being say that Israel is just without first thinking on some level "the other people don't matter" Cause if I was to ask you is it just for a man to come in your house with a gun, take it, and move you out... would you say such an action was just?? Now if 10 years went by and this man has a kid and a wife, are you unjust for still wanting the man out your house??? Is that man unjust for still residing in your house.

Thus we put a question with obvious answers on a global scale. Everyone's idea of justice will not be the same, but your idea of justice should be consistant.

Lastly,


I understand your frustration, but "does Israel have the right to exist" we must infer that this means more than... "does Israel exist" So I'm guessing like many others the question is your stance on Israels existence. If the only point is to say existence=existence... I got you, but that is nothing to debate, now is it??

Well, Droop, 'words and thoughts' don't count for much unless, as an individual, you turn over everything and give it to the Native American population right now. To not do so would rather make you a hypocrite by your above take on the issue, wouldn't it? Stand against the injustice!

Per the topic...We already have a fair idea of who "owns" America. But Israel isn't as clear. Look over this map and please determine who “owns” Israel, and then explain to us why that "ownership" is "just", exactly, in your estimation.

Good point. I think the idea of going back to nations' original owners would be a never ending debate. Who rightfully owns Europe? What nations' borders haven't been procured by military power? That list would most likely be very small.

The notion that Jews should be in their holy land is interesting. I think from a practical standpoint it's important that we understand that having Israeli allies in the middle east is good for the west, particularly the United States.



HUH?
I'm confused, but this part of your post is the most confusing.

Israel and it's inhabitants, as Jews, have as much of a historical claim to that land as any of their muslim aggressors to the North, South, or East. The real question would be to what degree does any nation lay claim to it's land?

I believe that the issue really lay with the fact that most all nations were established via the "sword". Why is Israel different? It frankly, was a means to an end (or so one would think). Remember, in the beginning there was a 1/2 Jewish land, and 1/2 Arab land. The Arabs decided to perpetually attack the Jews. The Jews won, and gained more land. That's how it works. Live with it.

Mrs P


Did the thought that Natives were darn near exterminated by europeans escape you Mrs P?? There is no domestic native group militantly fighting us to gain their independence. They have their reservations... and that is "techincally" their land. I would also add that Indians were nomadic so what land exactly would we give them. Lastly, I'm not the emperor of the US so I can't give them back anything at all.

But let's see how your moral compass floats?? With out going way off debate. Was the actions of early europeans against the native of America just and moral behavior. Is it something you would tell your children is appropriate??




looking at your map what do we see. Changes in empire, not people. See the difference. When Israel was first destroyed say 2000 years ago do you think it was a country full of europeans, or people native the european continent?? Think about that. Did it ever occur to you that the first Jews were people indigenous to the surrounding land???

Thus is the nature of religion, thus is the reason I made a debate a while back about Jews not being a race. The minute you make the mistake of conflating the two you are lost. You can see if you have two eyes that the Ashkenazi Jew is not an indigenous group of the middle east. Yet they are the power structure responsible for the creation of Israel in the middle east. Their features are much more common among... surprise surprise... Europeans, and Russians. So it doesn't matter what empire controlled an area, as eventually all nations crumble and are reformed... it is the people we are talking about.

How does a bunch of Europeans going into a land and taking ownership and moving the indigenous people out become just to your eyes. How do you explain that the takers are the "good" guys to yourself.

QUOTE

Again as I explained to Mrs P you are conflating religion and race. Because the people of Israel were Jews does not give another people the right to the land 2000 years later because they are the same religion. You believe in Jesus does that give every Christian a right to live in Jeruselem... I guess if you still thought like a crusader.

Why is Israel different... because a nation that claims to be just (that would be us) is backing a nation that is unjust. Why was Saddam such a bad guy Aevans?? I mean he invaded Kuwait he was stronger, why go to war over it, we should have just lived with it??

Beware of what you become when you are willing to justify anything just so yourside can be "right"

See, this is where you're missing the boat.

Israel was turned into a nation basically to stop the fighting among Arabs and Jews. The British were sent in before the establishment of Israel to stop the fighting. The Arabs were attacking Jewish pilgrims.

Then, eventually, they split the land and said "Arabs get this 1/2, Jews get the other". That didn't work because those silly Arabs kept attacking the Jews. Guess what? Who won? The Jews.

It's not about who's right and who's wrong. It's about who won. The Jews didn't go into their holy land 100+ years ago to 'steal' anything. It just worked out that the Arabs behave and now they're suffering the consequences.

Aevans


Where did you learn this version of history... bible study.

Once upon a time... There were the poor Jewish Pilgrims who only sought to be near the ancient land of Israel. But the big mean nasty arabs attacked and attacked the sweet jewish pilgrims. Along cam the great Great Britain and saved the pilgrims and said "we wil give you half and you half" but the greedy nasty arabs would not allow it and continued to attack the pilgrims. Then the prilgrims stood up and fought back defending themselves and their right to live in peace.

So at least now we know how you justify the behavior of invasion and conquer when some one you "like" does it. You spin a tale where the oppressors are the victims. Good Job. So the fact that these pilgrims in great part were not middle eastern is lost on you??

Perhaps we should view existence as legitamacy based on property rights and the regulation thereof? This is where I've felt the debate could go.

Maybe I'm a fool for even venturing into this thread, but there will likely be few consequences for doing it, so here goes...

Does Israel Have A Right To Exist?

About as much right as the U.S.A. has the right to exist "from sea to shining sea," plus Alaska, Hawaii, and some protectorates.

Did the UK have a right to effectuate the Balfour Declaration?

They took the initiative to do it, and they had the power. The right, though? Does anyone have a right to plant a flag on land where someone else has lived or is living and claim it for their own? History says that countless countries have done so for countless generations, the bloodshed notwithstanding.

It wouldn't have been so bad if the Palestinian people weren't displaced to such a degree as has happened since Israel was established as a nation. It wouldn't be so bad if the Israelis and the Palestinians could get along.

But it really doesn't work to hold responsible subsequent generations for the actions of their ancestors. The time to correct matters was when it first happened. At this point, anywhere, there are innocent people who should not be punished for things that were done decades and centuries ago. It is the wrongdoing of the present that we might have the power to stop and rectify. We can't change the past.

Exactly, on that note, I think I'll pose a few other questions to debate.

No. You made an argument that Israel doesn't have the right to exist because you feel it was "created by unjust means". The implications of that are fairly direct. Virtually NO nation has the right to exist, by that logic... least of all ours. Your response here is amusing. Native Americans were almost slaughtered to extinction and placed on reservations so this makes a better case that we were created legitimately? Oh, right...they were "nomadic" (not all, but some..) Okay, in that case I guess it should be noted that the Pals have "reservations" too.


There is no emperor of Israel either...but any consistency whatsoever to your argument would require that you turn over your own property to the original owners now.


Irrelevancy. I'm not the one arguing that nations acquired by one means or another in the past currently don't have the right to exist. That would be YOU. I'm curious when this 'unjustly acquired timeline' begins and ends exactly and how you would arrive at that number...There simply aren't any nations I can think of that weren't acquired by conquest at one point or another. All of Europe was acquired through a long series of bloody feuds (after killing off the original Neanderthals). If anything, Israel gained its statehood more "justly" than most.

The Arabs are not 'indigenous to the surrounding area of Israel'. The Arabs who lived in the previous colonial province of the Ottoman empire were themselves outsiders living on stolen land.

Thats the problem with this whole argument. Every one in the region has a claim to that stupid plot of earth and the Jews are merely the last in a long line of owners living on the lands of former occupants. The difference is, Israel is not some Arabic ghetto beholden to a distant Caliph or Grand Vizier, it is an independent democratic state and strong enough, thus far to hold its own. Whether it will survive in the long run remains tt be seen, but one thing is for certain. Your notion of Israel as being a European colony is absurdly biased.

None of the Israeli's I have ever met were 'European'. They resembled Arabs both in looks and manners far more than any of my Turkish friends do, the Israeli's make the Turks look European. Second. The Arabs in the area stole that land from the Greeks and are just as much outsiders as the Jews of today are. That some of them have been around longer than others is no argument at all. Half the Palestinians are not Palestinian at all. Look at Arafat for example, the man was an Egyptian. There never was an indiginous Arab population of Palestine. Palestine was previously an Ottoman territory populated by a mixture of people, Jews, Turks, Beduin, Druse, and some of whom were Arabs. They were all considered 'Palestinians'.

The fact that today people have conveniently forgotten this does not change the truth. The modern 'Arab Palestinians' have no greater claim to the land which is now Israel than the Israeli's. In fact the Israeli's have a greater claim, both because it is older, but mostly because they have succeeded in building a viable democratic state. Something no Arab nation has ever managed to do.


So if one defends Taiwans right to exist then one is claiming all 'yellow people are superior to people globally'?

Where does skin colour fit into this debate?


That is how all the nations of the entire middle east were created. There is not one single political entity or cultural group amongst what you erronously refer to as the indigenous people that is not in the Middle East by means of inva