Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[jasonwill2]

I'll admit I don't know everything about the situation with modern Israel, but the idea I hear sometimes that it is on Biblical justification because Jews had it thousands of years ago is a strawman to me. I've read from anything that the Jews and Israel has a right to the land to that they stole it and that Israel is a terrorist state.

For about four years I maintained that Israel really didn't have a right to the land after learning more about it, and before then, I didn't really have an opinion. Though most recently I think I have realized that maybe I prematurely formed my views on it, though I have my suspicions of how both sides paint each other. If anyone has an opinion on either the formation of modern Israel or Israel's situations in the Middle East politics and world events, I would like to hear it.

 

[sandandfoam]

To my mind the important question is not a historical one but a contemporary one.
Do the people of Israel have a right to their state? The answer seems obvious to me. Of course they do. Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

'Vae victus' pretty much sums it up for me. They hold it from all comers. That's basically all anyone needs. A state is a nebulous entity, whose identity doesn't really exist; the people living there decide by collective force of arms and political motions who rules and owns it. We can squabble about who is behaving badly but if the Palestinians are somehow disenfranchised by living in a 'Jewish state', they can leave, or overthrow the government, or live there all the same. If you can't do anything about it yourself... you can't do anything about it.

 

[lunakilo]

To my mind the important question is not a historical one but a contemporary one.
Do the people of Israel have a right to their state? The answer seems obvious to me. Of course they do. Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

To my mind the important question is not a historical one but a contemporary one.
Do the people of Palestine have a right to their state? The answer seems obvious to me. Of course they do. Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

Just saying ...

 

[Shermana]

Do the people of Palestine have a right to their state?

See: Jordan.

Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

Should they be given any place they call "Palestine" to be a state? Why not any place historically called "Judea-Samaria" claimed by the Jews to be entitled to the Jews? Why must there be a compromise on disputed land instead of acknowledging the refusal of Palestinians to acknowledge that they already have a Palestinian state called Jordan. Why not focus on the Palestinian state that already exists called Jordan. Maybe we should just rename Jordan to Palestine, since it was historically in fact referred to as Palestine before 1946 (was an emirate/province of the Palestinian Mandate from 22-46), so that would be an easy transition. I'm sure the Israelis would be happy to offer free bus rides and transition funds to Amman to unite the Palestinans in Judea-Samaria with their majority Palestinian brethren in "Jordan". The Hashemite Monarchy might not approve but why does he have a right to rule Jordan?
Jordan Is Palestinian :: Middle East Quarterly
Jordan is Palestine - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

Note: Jordan is over 20x the size of Judea-Samaria and Gaza with about an equal population (of mostly Palestinians) and sprawling with usable land natural resources and great economic opprotunity that could be greatly benefited by the influx of such a great migration.

 

[TheKnight]

What exactly constitutes a right to land?

I think the historical trend is that if a group of people come together and defend a piece of land calling it their own, then so long as they can defend it, it is theirs to do with as they please.

If we were to get philosophical about it, then technically no one has a right to any particular plot of land. When land disputes arise, the only real way to settle it is to determine who can, with either force or diplomacy, defend their stake. Outside of that any conjectures about who is entitled to the land is moot.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The nation state is a relatively recent construct.

 

[Flankerl]

This thread should be good. opcorn:

 

[jasonwill2]

I have yet to see anyone speak on how Israel was formed and if there was any real justification or not for doing so.

I guess one could, as two or three people did, speak of the "might is right" view point, but I feel that is an inadequate way to determine if the sovereignty of the land and previous people was violated or not.

The nation state is a relatively recent construct.

True, but the modern state of Israel was founded roughly 200 years after the rise of nationalism. So unless you elaborate I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[lunakilo]

See: Jordan.


Should they be given any place they call "Palestine" to be a state? Why not any place historically called "Judea-Samaria" claimed by the Jews to be entitled to the Jews? Why must there be a compromise on disputed land instead of acknowledging the refusal of Palestinians to acknowledge that they already have a Palestinian state called Jordan. Why not focus on the Palestinian state that already exists called Jordan. Maybe we should just rename Jordan to Palestine, since it was historically in fact referred to as Palestine before 1946 (was an emirate/province of the Palestinian Mandate from 22-46), so that would be an easy transition. I'm sure the Israelis would be happy to offer free bus rides and transition funds to Amman to unite the Palestinans in Judea-Samaria with their majority Palestinian brethren in "Jordan". The Hashemite Monarchy might not approve but why does he have a right to rule Jordan?
Jordan Is Palestinian :: Middle East Quarterly
Jordan is Palestine - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

Note: Jordan is over 20x the size of Judea-Samaria and Gaza with about an equal population (of mostly Palestinians) and sprawling with usable land natural resources and great economic opprotunity that could be greatly benefited by the influx of such a great migration.

That sounds fair. Lets load up all the palastinians and deport them.
Those pure blod israeli need lebensraum after all

 

[lunakilo]

I have yet to see anyone speak on how Israel was formed and if there was any real justification or not for doing so.

I guess one could, as two or three people did, speak of the "might is right" view point, but I feel that is an inadequate way to determine if the sovereignty of the land and previous people was violated or not.



True, but the modern state of Israel was founded roughly 200 years after the rise of nationalism. So unless you elaborate I'm not sure what your point is.

As far as I remember Israel was formed after the second world war mainly because a lot of european nations felt kind of bad about all the jews who had been massacred during WWII.
They were happy to export the problem by 'giving up' some land in a far off place called Palestine.

I don't think you can claim that it was right to do so at the time, but it is over 50 years ago, and many people, both israeli and palestinians have grown up on that land since then, and I would say that by now you cannot claim that the israeli do not have a right to be there.

Why?
Hævd.
I don't know how to translate that word. Hævd is danish word which means something like 'right to claim'
The meaning is that if you use a piece of land which does not legally beling to you for an extended period of time (many years) and no one comes along and kicks you out you have won the right to claim that piece of land.

I think the israeli can claim exactly that.

The problem is so can the palestinians, which was what I was trying to indicate with my first post.
No one has kicked them out, so they have a claim to the land too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have yet to see anyone speak on how Israel was formed and if there was any real justification or not for doing so.

I'd make a book recommendation but it would be a tremendous waste of time.

 

[sandandfoam]

To my mind the important question is not a historical one but a contemporary one.
Do the people of Palestine have a right to their state? The answer seems obvious to me. Of course they do. Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

Just saying ...

And I don't disagree

 

[hossein]

if you use a piece of land which does not legally beling to you for an extended period of time (many years) and no one comes along and kicks you out you have won the right to claim that piece of land.

I think the israeli can claim exactly that.

I think the israeli can't claim exactly that.
becoz israeli could claim it if there was no people in palestine but they fighted many times in beginning of their establishment and killed and deported by force many native Palestinians such as they are doing now.
its so obvious even the race of people whom they transformed from west to palestine is not middle eastern. even their ancestors never heard name of that land!!!
the only solution is to return the deported palestinians and call an election in which they decide what do with occupiers

 

[fallingblood]

I see no reason why Israel shouldn't have Palestine. If nothing else, they have fought to keep the land when others were trying to wipe them off the planet. Not to mention that before it became a state, many Jews were already living there, and transforming the land into a better living area.

 

[hossein]

they have fought to keep the land when others were trying to wipe them off the planet. Not to mention that before it became a state, many Jews were already living there, and transforming the land into a better living area.

who fought to keep the land??? they attacked and killed natives.
jews and muslims and christians lived there 100s of year, the problem is not the religion there so many countries which people with different believes live together.
as mentioned in my previous comment people whom they occupied the palestine are not middle eastern.
how could claim that's their land and even force native people to leave the palestine??

 

[fallingblood]

who fought to keep the land??? they attacked and killed natives.
jews and muslims and christians lived there 100s of year, the problem is not the religion there so many countries which people with different believes live together.
as mentioned in my previous comment people whom they occupied the palestine are not middle eastern.
how could claim that's their land and even force native people to leave the palestine??

The Israelis, after the country was newly formed, came under attack by the surrounding countries who wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Israel fought, and won.

As for natives, many of these Jews were natives. They had lived there for generations. Yes, Christians and Muslims also lived there, but the fact is, at that time, the power was in the hands of the West.

Also, obviously they didn't force all the natives away as if they had, there would be no conflict. The fact that there has been conflict there forever, shows that the idea of driving away the natives simply isn't correct.

Also, many who do inhabit Palestine are Middle Eastern, or are at least are descendants. Just because they been forced to move elsewhere doesn't mean they are no longer Middle Eastern. And the fact that they have lived generations there, would also suggest they are Middle Eastern.

 

[Super Universe]

I recommend reading Benjamin Natenyahu's book "Place Among the Nations".

Most Jews left the area that is now Israel long ago but not all, some Jews remained in Jerusalem. The external Jewish population grew in other countries but kept their traditions, married within, and were usually viewed as foreigners by the other nations.

In the late 1800's Jewish writers began calling for a return to Jerusalem and thus a return home began. The Jews began returning to their ancient homeland and BOUGHT land. The "arab" type of people who lived there raised the prices on their lands and willingly sold it to the incoming Jews. It is now the death penalty for any Palestinian to sell land to any Jew.

Once the Jewish population around Jerusalem became sizeable enough they realized they wanted to declared themselves a nation of Israel but they needed weapons to defend themselves, just in case, but no other nation would sell weapons to them openly. They were able to get a hidden shipment of some automatic rifles from an Eastern European country.

Once the Jews declared themselves a nation they were invaded on all sides but the Jews prevailed and gained some land. Once a cease fire was called Jordan then siezed the West Bank and Egypt siezed the Gaza Strip from the local people who are now known as Palestinians.

Since then there have been two more major wars between Israel and it's neighbors with Israel prevailing in each and winning more land including the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Israel eventually returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty but still holds the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights.

Many Palestinians fled the lands won by the Israelis but the nations, such as Jordan, would not allow the Palestinians to live among them and put them into refugee camps. In Israel the Palestinians have the right to become full citizens but they refuse because they will not serve in the military which is required.

Essentially the war continues it's just that the arab nations have gotten smart about it, they use the Palestinians as pawns now instead of using their own people to attack and harass Israel.

 

[Caladan]

I'll admit I don't know everything about the situation with modern Israel, but the idea I hear sometimes that it is on Biblical justification because Jews had it thousands of years ago is a strawman to me.

I've seen this thrown around on forums several times. Perhaps it's a popular idea in Christian America. But in reality a little education about the Zionist movement and the establishment of the state of Israel will show a largely secular movement and pragmatic reasons for the establishment of the state.
Naturally Israel is central in Jewish culture, and there is old Jewish history in the land, but the history of the emancipation in Europe, and real social reasons by the Jews of Europe to find a solution for the state of affairs of their communities are the prime reasons for a homeland for Jews in Palestine.

I've read from anything that the Jews and Israel has a right to the land to that they stole it and that Israel is a terrorist state.
For about four years I maintained that Israel really didn't have a right to the land after learning more about it, and before then, I didn't really have an opinion. Though most recently I think I have realized that maybe I prematurely formed my views on it, though I have my suspicions of how both sides paint each other. If anyone has an opinion on either the formation of modern Israel or Israel's situations in the Middle East politics and world events, I would like to hear it.

The irony is that many people who express these feelings about Israel may live on land which was stolen after committing genocide against the natives, while in the case of Israel many Jews legally bought land from the Turks who ruled Palestine. So whenever American members for example discuss Israel's right to exist on its land, they need to remember they have no rights on their land.
I've had members on this forum lecturing me on the land of Palestine, while I live on land which was legally bought by my family generations ago, where they dried swamps and fought malaria... and in reality these members live on land which was not bought, but literally ethnically cleansed from Native Americans.
But no serious person tells Americans today that they have no right to live on their land. Just food for thought.
Another issue, is that the territorial disputes in the region are not only limited to Israel and the Palestinians. Many other Arab nations around Israel have borders and land disputes between themselves. And the turmoil in Syria at the moment is a testament to the arbitrary postcolonial drawing of borders, as opposing religious and ethnic groups make the Syrian state disintigrate. It's an irony, as nations like Syria have used the Palestinian card against Israel all this time, while they end up killing tens of thousands of Syrians in what is really a regional feud between Shiites, Sunnis and various of other groups.

 

[jasonwill2]

As far as I remember Israel was formed after the second world war mainly because a lot of european nations felt kind of bad about all the jews who had been massacred during WWII.
They were happy to export the problem by 'giving up' some land in a far off place called Palestine.

I don't think you can claim that it was right to do so at the time, but it is over 50 years ago, and many people, both israeli and palestinians have grown up on that land since then, and I would say that by now you cannot claim that the israeli do not have a right to be there.

Why?
Hævd.
I don't know how to translate that word. Hævd is danish word which means something like 'right to claim'
The meaning is that if you use a piece of land which does not legally beling to you for an extended period of time (many years) and no one comes along and kicks you out you have won the right to claim that piece of land.

I think the israeli can claim exactly that.

The problem is so can the palestinians, which was what I was trying to indicate with my first post.
No one has kicked them out, so they have a claim to the land too.

Thank you, I have found this the most useful post so far.

I'd make a book recommendation but it would be a tremendous waste of time.

If you have nothing better to do, you could always take up a hobby, volunteer for something, or just go for a walk. I am here for a serious discussion, if you have nothing to contribute then please, walk out the door.

I've seen this thrown around on forums several times. Perhaps it's a popular idea in Christian America. But in reality a little education about the Zionist movement and the establishment of the state of Israel will show a largely secular movement and pragmatic reasons for the establishment of the state.
Naturally Israel is central in Jewish culture, and there is old Jewish history in the land, but the history of the emancipation in Europe, and real social reasons by the Jews of Europe to find a solution for the state of affairs of their communities are the prime reasons for a homeland for Jews in Palestine.

So what specifically were these pragmatic reasons?

Also, you mentioned that the land was legally bought somehow? I have not heard this before, can you tell me more about this?

... and in reality these members live on land which was not bought, but literally ethnically cleansed from Native Americans.

Well, it should be noted that the vast majority of the people that died was due to disease. Sure, there was displacement and wars and slaughter on both sides, but a lot of it came down to disease that the Europeans brought. But this is off point, I don't even see why this came up as we are talking about Israel, not America. Offly off topic but I'll shut up now on it.