Poll: Israel: Is it's existence justified?

[Brett Alex]

I agree, it was quite a stupid place to put Israel at the time.

But after seeing a video on various American Presidents at school today, some (Specifically Andrew Jackson) of them treated the Native Americans as sub-beings. Infact, Andrew Jackson specifically, stated that "The only good Indian is a dead one". I'll go so far as to say that their hatred for Indians at the time was likeliness to Hitler's hate for Jews!

This was less than 200 years ago, and there's no justification of how Americans slaughtered thousands of Native Americans for their own Manifest Destiny, that it was their "god given right" to expand coast to coast. This is coming from an American, so I (hopefully) know what I'm talking about.

But the point I was trying to grasp at is that people didn't ***** about American earning, that's right, earning their right to live on this land. It was done in a horrible way, no doubt about it, but nobody ever says that "America shouldn't be here because they're on stolen land!" because that is basically true. But we fought for it and we got the land, that's how war works.

It should be no different with Israel right now. While they were voted on to establish the nation, the Israelis have fought and bloodied their way to keep themselves here for 60+ years. They faced off enemies from all directions in the 6 day war for God's sake, and they survived! And they crushed them is six freakin' days!!

I don't want to get too far into this debate, but what I'm saying is that Israel more than deserves to be on the map. It doesn't matter if they "stole" it from the Palestinians, it doesn't matter if they lose the next war, Israel is continually fighting for the land and that alone means that they have the right to be there. Until one or the other is wiped out, Israel is on the map and they continue to bloody the holy ground just so us Jews can call something officially home.

I just really hope I don't get dragged into this debate...

Thats how the world used to work. At the same time, at the exact same time as the nation of Israel was establishing itself through force, the whole world was moving forward from that belief and condemning it.

That is perhaps the worst argument for claiming Israel's sovereignty of all of them. They earned it. They can, and will kill people so it makes them right. Bullshit.

If you think it is fair for military force to equal authority, then yes, Israel's existence is perfectly and irrevocably justified.

But then so is the reign of the Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the Apartheid in South Africa and many, many other brutal dictators and regimes throughout the world.

 

[G1eet]

Overall i think we should come down to one thing , Were they there first ?

Thousands of years ago, yes.

If you want to start "who was there first" then everybody but Russia needs to give up all their land.

Russia only gets off because nobody has the balls to say anything to them.

The Mongols might try to make something of them... doubt it, though.

 

[Jumplion]

Thats how the world used to work. At the same time, at the exact same time as the nation of Israel was establishing itself through force, the whole world was moving forward from that belief and condemning it.

That is perhaps the worst argument for claiming Israel's sovereignty of all of them. They earned it. They can, and will kill people so it makes them right. Bullshit.

If you think it is fair for military force to equal authority, then yes, Israel's existence is perfectly and irrevocably justified.

But then so is the reign of the in South Africa and many, many other brutal dictators and regimes throughout the world.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I never said that I justified Israel killing anyone or that killing anyone made it "right". They're not killing people because "Hey! Back off, this is our fucking land!" they're killing people because they need to survive.

Israel has a "right" to be there because they are fighting for it, not because they're the ones with the most Killeath ratio with 100 more points. From what I know of Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the Apartheid (admittedly, I only know about Castro) they're just killing people, not out of survival, but to make themselves a position in power.

Do not get me wrong, it's horrible for anyone to be killed in this, but the Arabs/Palestinians are killing innocents because the Jews are on "their land". The Israelis are killing them because they're attacking them, never out of a show for dominance.

 

[capnjack]

My proposed solution is that Palestinians stop throwing rockets at the Israelis, and bugger off to a country that wants them Israel pays for resettlement.

I dont see any problems there.

Mmm. So if I walked into your house with a gun, forced you to give it to me, and the law found this completely just... Would you just walk out and leave for good? Does the house belong to me now? How many years until it belongs to me? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

Sorry for the simplification, but that's the the situation. Israelis came to Palestine, did something terribly injust, and were not reprimanded for it.

Israel should never have been created. This does not mean, however, that I don't think Isreal should exist. At this point, it would be equally unjust to kick the Jews out.

If only there was a way the two races could share the same land and coexist...

 

[neoman10]

any country that wins so many wars in so short time and being so small deserves it

 

[Brett Alex]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I never said that I justified Israel killing anyone or that killing anyone made it "right". They're not killing people because "Hey! Back off, this is our fucking land!" they're killing people because they need to survive.

Israel has a "right" to be there because they are fighting for it, not because they're the ones with the most Killeath ratio with 100 more points. From what I know of Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the Apartheid (admittedly, I only know about Castro) they're just killing people, not out of survival, but to make themselves a position in power.

Do not get me wrong, it's horrible for anyone to be killed in this, but the Arabs/Palestinians are killing innocents because the Jews are on "their land". The Israelis are killing them because they're attacking them, never out of a show for dominance.

Wait, so whats the difference between killing people for your land and fighting for your land?

 

[Arbre]

...while others think that after the horrors of the Holocaust the Jewish people were well deserving of a land to call their own.

I just fail to see the relation between A & B here.
Of course, the idea that the creation of Israel, as planned before WWII and according to a certain way of thinking during the 20th century, would act as a beachhead in Middle East, for the interests of the US, Zionists and various banking forces, is perhaps not obvious enough?
We should be civilized, but the point is that much of the crap that goes on is largely caused by obscure energy related and geostrategical interests. I don't even think the average Jew matters, as long as there are enough of them flocking in this land to give it enough credibility as a nation and, above all, as a theocracy - which I just cannot accept, since I'm fundamentally opposed to theocracies.

Those with superior firepower are the ones who will take the land as their own.

And if this little history lesson has anything to teach, that is it.

Is that really all it boils down to, "Might is right"?

Call me a cynic, but that's exactly what I believe.

Are you sure the word "believe" is the right choice here? Wouldn't you reluctantly call that fate instead?
That even if you know it's wrong, the way things go for the moment, nothing will change?
Otherwise, if it's truly your core belief, then I suppose you wouldn't mind if my and my pals we knocked on your door and put you out because, well, we outnumber you, we have weapons, more weapons, bigger weapons, and that all your base are belong to us, right?

Being Jewish I can agree that disagreeing with Israel isn't anti-semetic, however after the Jews were kicked out of over 50 country's, don't you think that saying they can't set up where they came from a bit....Assholish? Over 50 country's, seriously look back at how history has treated the Jews, then try to blame them, even if you do criticise they don't care, it comes to a point where you can't blame people for hating you after you fuck them over.

There's really a time when such excuses should be put to an end. Griefs should be given a rest.
Otherwise you could look at Europe or Eastern Europe and say that anyone deserves to live anywhere, no matter the region, the borders, and invade a country just, well, just because (Uh oh Serbia) because over the millenia, it's been a huge dance of empires and conquests. However, we tend to settle and seek peace and tolerance.

No seriously, this has to stop.

 

[Therumancer]

I've spoken on the subject before.

The Palestinians were conquered, time for them to get over it and move on. At least nobody has tried to seriously "ethnically cleanse" them... yet. Though we'll see what happens if they keep pushing Isreal.

As far as the colonist's treatment of the natives goes, there have already been a number of attempts to document it in a politically correct fashion. The problem is of course that a lot of the "oh the poor defenseless natives whom we slaughtered and stole the land of" is nothing but a giant steaming pile of BS. Things were pretty peaceful to begin with, with plenty of space for everyone. There were a number of cultural disagreements, but nothing that sparked wide-scale violence. For example Indians had a tendency to see white settlers as another tribe, one of the customs being for Indians to abduct their bride from another tribe (arguably a custom designed to help prevent inbreeding). Needless to say this kind of thing lead to some problems but nothing that lead to wide-scale violence.

The big turning point largely came about when France basically convinced the majority of native tribes to back them in a move to drive off the English colonists. This lead to a rather substantial war known as "The French and Indian War" which saw France losing to Britan.

That event changed relations between the victorious colonists, and the Natives, pretty much forever and that is when things got seriously nasty as Tribes began to be seen as an enemy/threat that needed to be removed.

This is of course a simplistic version.

For example as many people can tell you there were tribes like The Mohegans who backed the British colonists all through their stay here. Chief Uncas being a local hero/myth down here in Connecticut. Local landmarks are things like "Uncas' leap" where he rode his horse over a waterfall, and other things.

Our two Casinos (The #1 and #3 largest casinos in the world, and that is not just counting Indian Casinos) our run by two rival tribes. The Mashantucket Pequots and The Mohegans. When the Mashantuckets opened their museum there was a bit of a hoo-ha over how they portrayed Uncas because he pretty much wiped out their tribe while allied with the Colonists.

At any rate, you might ask what happened since the colonists eventually killed Chief Uncas. Well for starters it's not our greatest moment, everyone will pretty much admit that. But the central conflict was over land rights and wealth, with Chief Uncas wanting more than was agreed upon. He basically got greedy and felt he was more integral to the success of the region than he actually was. Given the general paranoia about natives, despite this guy having been an ally, well you can guess what happened when dialogue broke down.

How things would have played out in America might have been a lot differant except for that key element (which I think is overlooked in history). Had some compromise been reached... well.

The problem was also admittedly compounded by the fact that as the colonists drove natives out (towards the west) they came into conflict with other tribes over living space/hunting grounds. This lead to a lot more native on native fighting than most would like to acknowlege as well as a number of tribes that of course blamed "us" for other tribes encroaching on their land and turned around and attacked, which of course just caused the problem to get progressively worse.

At any rate, the point being that those who typically want to re-write "how the colonists treated the natives" take a very anti-"white", pro-native approach. The thing is that it really can't be done because like anything in history it's all shades of gray and neither side was entirely right or wrong in how they behaved. Especially when you go back to WHY colonists and their descendants became so callous towards killing the native peoples.

Your typical politically correct guy wants to portray colonists as pigs who were dying off, saved by Squanto, and then proceeded to gut-shoot him with a musket and kill all of his people and then just kept on moving in a wave of unthinking racist death. Things didn't progress that way. The "unthinking racist death" came about later down the cycle and the attitude was formed by a lot of events, not all of which are going to speak in favor of the Natives.

I am not a huge expert on it though, I just know some stuff from being on the East Coast where the beginnings went down. I've also worked for both the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans, seen the Mashantucket Museum, talked to tribal members from elsewhere come down to visit, etc... I've heard both sides, and honestly the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle between the two extremes. I'm reluctant to call either side "right" overall, though there was a clear winner and a clear loser.

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[PTSpyder]

The land was a territory of the British at the time. They chose to give up the land they were legally entitled to, whether or not you think it was fair that they were entitled to it, for the cause of creating a state for Jewish refugees. We live in a world that is regulated by and dictated by the laws of nations and internationally recognized governing bodies. As such, legally, where's the problem?

 

[Agayek]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I never said that I justified Israel killing anyone or that killing anyone made it "right". They're not killing people because "Hey! Back off, this is our fucking land!" they're killing people because they need to survive.

Israel has a "right" to be there because they are fighting for it, not because they're the ones with the most Killeath ratio with 100 more points. From what I know of Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the Apartheid (admittedly, I only know about Castro) they're just killing people, not out of survival, but to make themselves a position in power.

Do not get me wrong, it's horrible for anyone to be killed in this, but the Arabs/Palestinians are killing innocents because the Jews are on "their land". The Israelis are killing them because they're attacking them, never out of a show for dominance.

Wait, so whats the difference between killing people for your land and fighting for your land?

The major difference from my perspective is the difference between killing people who attack you, and killing civilians.

Personally, I don't think the country of Israel should exist, but comparing the deaths of enemy soldiers/terrorists to the murder of civilians pisses me off.

 

[Brett Alex]

The land was a territory of the British at the time. They chose to give up the land they were legally entitled to, whether or not you think it was fair that they were entitled to it, for the cause of creating a state for Jewish refugees. We live in a world that is regulated by and dictated by the laws of nations and internationally recognized governing bodies. As such, legally, where's the problem?

Its a problem because they promised it to both Israel and Arabs at the same time. That is not a legal move.

EDIT:

The major difference from my perspective is the difference between killing people who attack you, and killing civilians.

Personally, I don't think the country of Israel should exist, but comparing the deaths of enemy soldiers/terrorists to the murder of civilians pisses me off.

So its only soldiers and terrorists that are killed in the conflict?

 

[PTSpyder]

The land was a territory of the British at the time. They chose to give up the land they were legally entitled to, whether or not you think it was fair that they were entitled to it, for the cause of creating a state for Jewish refugees. We live in a world that is regulated by and dictated by the laws of nations and internationally recognized governing bodies. As such, legally, where's the problem?

Its a problem because they promised it to both Israel and Arabs at the same time. That is not a legal move.

In poor taste, yes. Not legal, no. The land was verbally promised to the arab's, but give in a treatie to the Jewish refugees.

 

[Jumplion]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I never said that I justified Israel killing anyone or that killing anyone made it "right". They're not killing people because "Hey! Back off, this is our fucking land!" they're killing people because they need to survive.

Israel has a "right" to be there because they are fighting for it, not because they're the ones with the most Killeath ratio with 100 more points. From what I know of Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the Apartheid (admittedly, I only know about Castro) they're just killing people, not out of survival, but to make themselves a position in power.

Do not get me wrong, it's horrible for anyone to be killed in this, but the Arabs/Palestinians are killing innocents because the Jews are on "their land". The Israelis are killing them because they're attacking them, never out of a show for dominance.

Wait, so whats the difference between killing people for your land and fighting for your land?

A world of difference.

Killing people for your land means that you're killing people because your land doesn't like them here. Examples would be Germany, obviously. They killed millions of Jews because they were on "their land" or something similar.

Fighting for your land is doing what is necessary for your land, or people, to survive. If that means killing people then sadly, yes, that would be fighting for your land. But you could also be fighting for recognition, fighting for peace in your land, or fighting for your land to be independent.

The Israelis are fighting for their land, but that doesn't mean that they want to be killing people. They're the ones who want the peace most of all.

 

[Brett Alex]

The land was a territory of the British at the time. They chose to give up the land they were legally entitled to, whether or not you think it was fair that they were entitled to it, for the cause of creating a state for Jewish refugees. We live in a world that is regulated by and dictated by the laws of nations and internationally recognized governing bodies. As such, legally, where's the problem?

Its a problem because they promised it to both Israel and Arabs at the same time. That is not a legal move.

In poor taste, yes. Not legal, no. The land was verbally promised to the arab's, but give in a treatie to the Jewish refugees.

It was actually given in a treatise by the UN after WWII, Britain abstained from the vote.

Britain promised the land to the Arabs in the McMahon-Hussien correspondence, and to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration. They clearly didn't seriously mean for both of them to get it.

 

[Brett Alex]

A world of difference.
Killing people for your land means that you're killing people because your land doesn't like them here. Examples would be Germany, obviously. They killed millions of Jews because they were on "their land" or something similar.
Fighting for your land is doing what is necessary for your land, or people, to survive. If that means killing people then sadly, yes, that would be fighting for your land. But you could also be fighting for recognition, fighting for peace in your land, or fighting for your land to be independent.
The Israelis are fighting for their land, but that doesn't mean that they want to be killing people. They're the ones who want the peace most of all.

Who decides the difference between the two?

Israel wants the peace most of all? Really? The settlements are just some elaborate practical joke then?

Neither side wants the peace enough to stop fighting for the land. Palestinians have had several chances for peace, but so have Israel with Nasser in the early days; and he was willing to stake his popularity to do a legit peace deal, until Ben-Gurion ordered commandos across the borders again.

 

[Jumplion]

Who decides the difference between the two?

Israel wants the peace most of all? Really? The settlements are just some elaborate practical joke then?

Neither side wants the peace enough to stop fighting for the land. Palestinians have had several chances for peace, but so have Israel with Nasser in the early days; and he was willing to stake his popularity to do a legit peace deal, until Ben-Gurion ordered commandos across the borders again.

I dunno, how do you know that neither side doesn't want peace?

Israel definitely wants peace, they pray every day for peace, they plant trees for a beautiful and better life, they pray to god that this will all end. I should know, I have relatives there that always hope that this whole war will end.

I don't know much about the Palestinians, but I know for a fact that Israel wants peace and you only needn't to look at all the peace treaties they've tried with everyone else.