Reason number one that most supporters of Israel tend to use is an emotional, moral reasoning. They claim that the world has an obligation to the Jews for the centuries of abuse they have suffered and hence should be granted a homeland and that furthermore the Jews have a spiritual connection to the land.
That is a valid basis for a Jewish country, and another reason for it keeping it's Jewish identity, no matter how much its demographics differ. One of the big reasons the Holocaust was so deadly was because no countries would accept Jewish refugees. If Israel was around then, the Jews would have had somewhere to go. That is also another argument for NOT shrinking Israel's borders. God-forbid there is another catastrophe like the Holocaust, where Jews are the target of yet another attack, where would they all go?
Also, did I mention that religion was not part of it? I don't think I had, so where did you get that notion from?
I never said that you did, I was simply defusing an argument that could come up in the future.
So why would going to the UN constitute a terrible step? Think about it. In ANY conflict, getting a THIRD PARTY is the best step at mediation, not begging the bullies for mercy.
So get a neutral entity involved. Not the UN, not the US, but a completely neutral party.
That is a valid basis for a Jewish country, and another reason for it keeping it's Jewish identity, no matter how much its demographics differ. One of the big reasons the Holocaust was so deadly was because no countries would accept Jewish refugees. If Israel was around then, the Jews would have had somewhere to go. That is also another argument for NOT shrinking Israel's borders. God-forbid there is another catastrophe like the Holocaust, where Jews are the target of yet another attack, where would they all go?
One of the founding members of Israel, Nachem Goldman once said, it wa s sacrilege to use the Holocaust as a justification for oppressing others. He was referring to something very real: exploitation of probably the world's most horrifying atrocity in order to justify oppression of others. That kind of manipulation is sick.
So how come when Britain offered Uganda or when Stalin offered the Crimea as a Jewish homeland they have refused so? If they were so concerned about their safety, why would they refuse anyone who offers refuge, but insist on settling down in another hornet's nest? Given the world wide horror at the Holocaust which would prevent any more of such massacres from happening, that lasts until today, and the presence of the UN, which can intervene in any possible massacres, why do the Jews specially have to have a state? The Native Indians don't have a state, and they were massacred before. So have the Aborigines. Yet they're more or less still safe now.
If we use your reasoning, shouldn't the Palestinians be given a state to prevent more IDF soldiers from killing them? Or take it another way, by setting up a Jewish state, it has provoked three more wars and much more conflict, rather than finally give the Jews peace.
And actually no. Franco accepted them. Italy did too.
And you haven't actually refuted the basis of my counter, which is that a spiritual link to a land long lost does not give you the right to retake it.
So get a neutral entity involved. Not the UN, not the US, but a completely neutral party.
Cough. The UN not neutral? Wait it isn't. The USA can veto anything. Furthermore, there are no other more neutral organizations than the UN. The Quartet? Ridiculous. If 3/4 of the world supports the Palestinians, there's no denying that.
I never said that you did, I was simply defusing an argument that could come up in the future.
I don't actually see how taking out religion might help me. In fact, by stating that the Jews based their reasoning on a Holy Book, it provides more ammunition for me to shoot down their arguments.
I don't actually see how taking out religion might help me. In fact, by stating that the Jews based their reasoning on a Holy Book, it provides more ammunition for me to shoot down their arguments.
ah, but don't you realize, thats one of the first reasons we did anything in the beginning of our existience.
So how come when Britain offered Uganda or when Stalin offered the Crimea as a Jewish homeland they have refused so? If they were so concerned about their safety, why would they refuse anyone who offers refuge, but insist on settling down in another hornet's nest?
simple, uganda is a climate that they aren't used to, and would be experiencing major problems to it in the longer run. crimea was a better choice, but it was extremely isolated, and would impact their economy.
the best place for them to go would be one they were genetically accustomed to so they could adapt quickly, while not being isolated to the point that could impact their economy. FORMER palestine was a perfect place to go.
Or take it another way, by setting up a Jewish state, it has provoked three more wars and much more conflict, rather than finally give the Jews peace.
it may have, but the palestinians were instigators of the war, it doesn't matter that other countries chipped in, even for selfish means. they still said "we oppose this, we will fight this!" if the palestinians just accepted it in the first place, then none of these wars would ever have happened, but they did, and palestine has to suffer for it.
you claim that the "nation" of palestine was picked apart by ravenous animals, but it was never a nation to begin with. so how could they call themselves victims when clearly there was nothing they could claim was theirs in the first place?
it may have, but the palestinians were instigators of the war, it doesn't matter that other countries chipped in, even for selfish means. they still said "we oppose this, we will fight this!" if the palestinians just accepted it in the first place, then none of these wars would ever have happened, but they did, and palestine has to suffer for it.
you claim that the "nation" of palestine was picked apart by ravenous animals, but it was never a nation to begin with. so how could they call themselves victims when clearly there was nothing they could claim was theirs in the first place?
Very funny its like being asked by a robber to let him live in your house at gun point,\\ Red indians were not a nation in themselve so the whitmen can't be held responsible for their misstreatement?
One of the founding members of Israel, Nachem Goldman once said, it wa s sacrilege to use the Holocaust as a justification for oppressing others.
How am I using the Holocaust as a justification to "repress" others. I simply advocate and put down your foolish argument that Israel cannot hope to maintain it's Jewish identity by saying that this way there is a guaranteed place for Jews to go. If it gets much smaller, than another catastrophe on the scale of the Holocaust against Jews could possibly be permanently damaging to the religion.
Red indians were not a nation in themselve so the whitmen can't be held responsible for their misstreatement?
Back then, nations didn't exactly exist in the sense that we would view them. They had almost no contact with the Eastern world, but they had their own governments. Also, they negotiated with the whiteman, and are now autonomous countries, who make their own laws.
If 3/4 of the world supports the Palestinians, there's no denying that.
Change that statement to "3/4 of the world doesn't support Israel" and you're spot on. It's not that they exactly want to help the Pals, but they want to get rid of Israel.
Back then, nations didn't exactly exist in the sense that we would view them. They had almost no contact with the Eastern world, but they had their own governments. Also, they negotiated with the whiteman, and are now autonomous countries, who make their own laws.
A red indian country? thats a new thing to hear. A nation or not, that was their land.
like palestine, we gave them a place to live, unlike palestine, they accepted the terms. what you are arguing is only partially similar.
Still ur forefathers did wrong.
at gun point, I'd gladly let a guy live in my house. palestine didn't take a hint and so they had to lose their house.
This is not about America. This is about Israel. Quit trying to argue a moot point that everyone has gotten over.
So u do accept Israel was made by force .
No, he says that if he was held at gunpoint, he would let anyone live in his house. You really need to stop trying to look for "in-depth" meaning in everything.
This is not about America. This is about Israel. Quit trying to argue a moot point that everyone has gotten over.
This is about whole world, if today bad guys win than that they will win again and again. U agree with it or not but the thing is ur ancestors did pretty nasty things in their times. he said
at gun point, I'd gladly let a guy live in my house. palestine didn't take a hint and so they had to lose their house.
It is using the Holocaust to repress others. By advocating a Jewish state it entails pushing the natives out if thr land, repressig them, and war whilst utilizing the Holocaust as a reason. So why is YOUR safety mote important than the Palestinians? Think, before calling an argument foolish.
And no. Most of the nations who support the righ for a Palestinian nation ALSO support the right for Israel to exist, and not aim to destroy them. Get your facts straight before making wrong statements.
@Blade
There is no such thing as "genetically suitable" land. The Europrans colOnised the entire globe and people From virtually anywhere live in places where thy never were before so using "genetics" and "climate" is feeble. So one who forfeit one's safety just because one feels Uganda is too hot? Spuds brilliant to me! And for the economic point, why would bein placed in the Black Sea, a bustlin trade route affect their economy? Given that in Israel they didn't have much economic ties anyway, being mostly newcomer refugees, you shouldn't exaggerate the economic impacts of the land.
Because they viewed rightly that the Jews were invaders. If someone stomped into Your land, committed acts if terrorism for decades and suddenly gets your land you would strike too. The Jews were essentially invaders.
Furthermore Blade, as I mentioned there us no more " land gained by conquest" as stated in international law.
And how can you claim that they were not a nation? They certaint had a united culture, a leadership and for a certain time existed as a nation.
Furthermore, none of you have actually given me good reasons why Israel should exist.
And how can you claim that they were not a nation? They certainly had a united culture, a leadership and for a certain time existed as a nation.
simple, they had no borders, no recognition as a nation by anyone. that's how they aren't a nation. sure they can have a culture and custom, but the grim truth is that it was nothing more than tribes wondering the area, nothing else.
Furthermore Blade, as I mentioned there is no more " land gained by conquest" as stated in international law.
Furthermore, none of you have actually given me good reasons why Israel should exist.
I don't need to answer why it should exist, I'm answering why it is existing, and we can't change what's already done.
if you want to know why it should exist, then my best guess is because the jews needed a home. now they find a home, and settle in it and you want them to change what has already been done? if you want to remove the families that are already settled now, then go tell israel's leader why they are in the wrong and should leave.
So if nations never existed back then than Israel never did exist as a nation eh?
technically, no, but they exist now, and that's all that matters.
by which he means that pals should have givenup
I mean they should've allowed it in order to prevent themselves from losing more, as they already have now by instigating war. quit saying stuff that borderlines what an uninformed politician says.
