Legitimate title to the land ?

[droberts1958]

From what I have read about the region's history the non Jews were in a substantial majority right up untill the time that the UN declared the state of Israel in existance and many Arabs for various reasons fled. This was the case for around 2,000 years and the strongest claim during this period was that the Jewish population had a "continuous presence".

Can someone explain to me how a "continuous presence" gives you a right to the land when you have been a minority for most of a couple of thousand years ?

Is there another justification for Israel's historical claims to present day Israel, Jerusalem or the West Bank/Gaza.

I am interested to learn what the Jewish perspective on this is.

Thankyou.

[Belgium@EU]

Maybe the bible? The Bible is reliable source, everything what's in it is true. Apart from some contradictions ... only extremists believe what the Bible or Koran says.

[Gatorade]

I would recommend reading the Arab Perspective thread down the page. It covers how people think about this quesiton.

I guess Joan Peters book covers this topic too. I haven't read it but might soon.

My uneducated thoughts. I am recently interested in this debate too. - England controlled the land. They agreed that a Jewish homeland should be created there. Jews started to move into the area and the Arabs revolted. It became apparent that Arabs and Jews weren't going to be able to live together peacefully, so the British proposed a partition in 1937. The Arabs didn't agree to this. The Jews agreed to the idea of partition but not the particular partition line in 1937. The British wanted to get out of the area and asked the UN to deal with the issue. The UN drew the 1947 partition. The Jews agreed to it and the Arabs didn't. Then a half of dozen Arab nations attacked trying to take all of the land and eliminate Israel.

Bottom line, you can think of Israel right to exist from a variety of ways - a peaceful break from Britian and the UN. I more of this view. However, you could also consider it existing because it fought and took the land - not much different than how Californians took over Mexico. Does the United states have historical claims to California?

You can claim that land was Israelis by the bible (I don't like that one) or you can say it was based on need since most everywhere Jews had lived, the country eventually turned on Jews, so Jews needed a homeland where they would be protected from persecution and England offered this homeland to them.

sorry this is messy but I don't have time to clean it right now.

Jersusalem had a majority of the population Jews for a long time - at least before 1845.

The West Bank - one could claim that since Jordan attacked Israel that Israel has rights to these land because they won the land and Israel wasn't the aggressor. Israel actually sent a letter to Jordan no to get into the war, but they did anyway.

However, Israel really doesn't claim most of the West Bank their land. They haven't annexed it into Israel. They offered to give it up in 1967, a week after they won it for peace and the Arab nations rejected the offer and began their policy of no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation. They also made an proposal to give up over 90+% of it in 2000. The percent they wanted to keep was some settlements for security reasons.

[Mediocrates]

Trivia fact of the day ===> did you know that the US had a ambassador to the Ottomans focusing on Jewish affairs in Palestine in 1884?

A long relationship the EU has to come to terms with.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU Apart from some contradictions ... only extremists believe what the Bible or Koran says. So believing the Bible makes me an extremist? I guess being an atheist makes you a pacifist.
I am an unapologetic adherent to the Scriptures and they provide the standard by which I live. It is in these words I believe to be uttered by G-d Himself that I live and breath. I am a "conservative Christian" and by the standards of the left wing I am part of the "right-wing conspiracy" because I hold to the value of human life, the need for moral standards, and the importance of faith to the fabric of a nation. Hillary Clinton calls me an extremist, me and anyone else who holds to a Judeo-Christian moral code.
My position on Israel is based on both the Scriptures and the common practices of international law. If that makes me an extremist I am at least in good company.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Can someone explain to me how a "continuous presence" gives you a right to the land when you have been a minority for most of a couple of thousand years ?

Is there another justification for Israel's historical claims to present day Israel, Jerusalem or the West Bank/Gaza.

I am interested to learn what the Jewish perspective on this is.

Thankyou.

droberts1958,

Here are some facts to consider:

Israel was under foreign occupation for 2,700 years. The rulers were (in historical order):
- The Assyrians (conquer Judah and Israel kingdoms. 10 tribes exiled (Ten Lost Tribes).
- The Babylonians
- The Greeks (during the Greek period, an independent Jewish state was established by the Hasmoneans for 7 years following a successful rebellion)
- The Romans (Herod, Roman vassal king builds the second temple) (two Jewish rebellions “The great rebellion” and Bar Kokhba’s uprising)
- The Byzantines
- (630-640) Arab tribes originating from present Saudi-Arabia continuously invade land of Israel, finally conquering it in 636. they continue to conquer all of north Africa and southern Spain.
- Arab Rule (636-1099) (On site of First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock built by Caliph Abd el-Malik in 691)
- The Crusaders (Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem)
- The Mamluks
- Ottoman empire rule (Turks)
- British empire rule

As you can see, except for a brief period of 7th-10th cent., the land of Israel was never ruled by the indigenous population. Furthermore, Palestinian nationalism was invented by Yasser Arafat after the 1967 war. Until that time, the Palestinians saw themselves as part of the surrounding Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan and Syria).

The Zionist movement was founded as an answer to the continues persecutions of Jews in Europe. The Zionists claimed that Jews can no longer live in Europe and that they can only find peace and prosperity in a land of their own. Although several options were considered, the land of Israel was an obvious choice, given the emotional connections to the land shared by Jews worldwide.
At that time (second half of the 19th cent.), the land of Israel was part of the Ottoman empire and was extremely undeveloped. Most population were cramped in the cities along the shore (Jaffa, Akkad, etc.) and Jerusalem. Much of the rest of the land was a wasteland infested with diseases and wild animals. There were almost no agricultural settlements and the roads were dominated by gang of robbers.
The Zionist proclaimed that the land of Israel was “a land without people for a people without a land”. This was (IMO) not so far from the truth.

The Zionists started immigrating to the land in the 1890s. The immigration took form of waves. Such waves were the “second Aliya” (1904-1914), “third Aliya” (1919-1923), “fourth Aliya” (1924-1930) and “fifth Aliya” (1934-1939). The Zionists purchased open land from the Arab owners (with the aid of wealthy Jews like the barons Rothschild and Montefiory). They established the first neighborhoods outside the walls of Jerusalem. They fouded in 1909 a new city on the sand dunes north of Jaffa (Tel aviv). They established agricultural settlements and started developing the land.

At the time of the founding of the independent state of Israel in 1948, 600,000 Jews lived in the country. 550,000of them came to Israel in the last 50 years. They found a place to live without evicting a single Arab. (the Arab displacements are results of the Israeli-Arab wars of 1948 and 1967 – all of which occurred after the establishment of the state of Israel)

[droberts1958]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sharonbn


droberts1958,

As you can see, except for a brief period of 7th-10th cent., the land of Israel was never ruled by the indigenous population. Furthermore, Palestinian nationalism was invented by Yasser Arafat after the 1967 war. Until that time, the Palestinians saw themselves as part of the surrounding Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan and Syria).



Frankly why is any of this relevant to whether the Jewish immigrants could simply take the land. The fact is that there were Arabs living there who did not want the Jewish immigrants. They were attempting to excercise the same protection to their borders which all countries do these days including Israel. That is the right to admit only those who they want.




The Zionist movement was founded as an answer to the continues persecutions of Jews in Europe. The Zionists claimed that Jews can no longer live in Europe and that they can only find peace and prosperity in a land of their own. Although several options were considered, the land of Israel was an obvious choice, given the emotional connections to the land shared by Jews worldwide.



Emotional attachment unfortunately counts for nothing in international law.



At that time (second half of the 19th cent.), the land of Israel was part of the Ottoman empire and was extremely undeveloped. Most population were cramped in the cities along the shore (Jaffa, Akkad, etc.) and Jerusalem. Much of the rest of the land was a wasteland infested with diseases and wild animals. There were almost no agricultural settlements and the roads were dominated by gang of robbers.
The Zionist proclaimed that the land of Israel was “a land without people for a people without a land”. This was (IMO) not so far from the truth.



So it is admitted that the land did have a people. The fact that it was not advanced or well populated does not give anyone else the right to move in. Explain how this is legitimate.



The Zionists started immigrating to the land in the 1890s. The immigration took form of waves. Such waves were the “second Aliya” (1904-1914), “third Aliya” (1919-1923), “fourth Aliya” (1924-1930) and “fifth Aliya” (1934-1939). The Zionists purchased open land from the Arab owners (with the aid of wealthy Jews like the barons Rothschild and Montefiory). They established the first neighborhoods outside the walls of Jerusalem. They fouded in 1909 a new city on the sand dunes north of Jaffa (Tel aviv). They established agricultural settlements and started developing the land.

At the time of the founding of the independent state of Israel in 1948, 600,000 Jews lived in the country. 550,000of them came to Israel in the last 50 years.


Strength in numbers gives no legitmate right to land.





They found a place to live without evicting a single Arab. (the Arab displacements are results of the Israeli-Arab wars of 1948 and 1967 – all of which occurred after the establishment of the state of Israel)

They may not have evicted an Arab from his land I cannot comment on this but they were not welcome in the country. They were not welcomed to the country by the existing local people.

My question still stands. Can the Israeli occupation to lands beyond what the UN gave them be justified on any grounds other than the "spoils of victory"

I would love to hear an answer to this based on fair international law or even fair moral grounds.

[Vic]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Frankly why is any of this relevant to whether the Jewish immigrants could simply take the land. The fact is that there were Arabs living there who did not want the Jewish immigrants. They were attempting to excercise the same protection to their borders which all countries do these days including Israel. That is the right to admit only those who they want. [more of the same stuff]
Hi, droberts, what are your information sources?


My question still stands. Can the Israeli occupation to lands beyond what the UN gave them be justified on any grounds other than the "spoils of victory"
I would love to hear an answer to this based on fair international law or even fair moral grounds.
The answer is simple. I guess there are not many experts in "international law" around here, which is pretty underdeveloped as it stands today. I don't know a single case of a state being dismembered - other than by war - just because its existence doesn't suit its neighbors. If you accept that the state in question exists, then it has the right to defend itself. If you are suggesting to end - directly or by proxy, such as imposing militarily indefensible borders with predictable consequences - the state's existence, then you should at least offer alternatives to its inhabitants, immigration in your country with immediate full citizenship rights for all of them, for example. If you aren't prepared to bear the consequences of your demands, shut up.

[droberts1958]

The answer is simple.


Nothing in the middle east is simple.




If you accept that the state in question exists, then it has the right to defend itself.


I certainly accept and support Israel's existance. Also the right for any country to defend itself. I do have a problem however with countries pre-empting attack and hitting first. To have supported the right to pre-emptively attack during the cold war would have had the US and Russia attacking each other first to eliminate the possiblity it may be attacked first. In 1967 Israel was not attacked first.


If you are suggesting to end - directly or by proxy, such as imposing militarily indefensible borders with predictable consequences - the state's existence, then you should at least offer alternatives to its inhabitants, immigration in your country with immediate full citizenship rights for all of them, for example. If you aren't prepared to bear the consequences of your demands, shut up


If you are living in peace with your neighbours why are the 1967 or for that matter the true 1948 borders indefensible, and why do these borders necessarily mean that Israel cannot exist in the future. The peace plan proposed by Saudia Arabia would have Israel at peace with all its neighbours. Your assumption is very self serving because its conclusion is that it must keep the territories to maintain its own existance. To take this much further your could say that Israel must take over Jordan Syria Lebanon Egypt hey why not the whole Middle East so that it is not surrounded by enemies and can maintain its own peace. What the heck since we have the middle east lets go for world domination. To take your assumption to this length is ridiculous but then again so is your first assumption that the ONLY way to preserve yourself is to expand your borders. Quite the opposite. While your argument might have had validity those times have changed.

I find it remarkable that you flippantly say that I should be happy to accept people from Israel many of whom were not born there when no doubt you are prepared to refuse the return of all the Arab refugees who were born in Israel but who fled because of concerns for their own safety.

If you are not prepared to take back all the Palestinian refugees then may I suggest you pull your head in.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958 Frankly why is any of this relevant to whether the Jewish immigrants could simply take the land. The fact is that there were Arabs living there who did not want the Jewish immigrants. They were attempting to excercise the same protection to their borders which all countries do these days including Israel. That is the right to admit only those who they want.
Actually, the establishment of the State of Israel was a negotiated arrangedment. The Brits, who at that time were the "owners" of the land awarded deeds based on the settlement and negotiated partition agreement.
The neighboring Arab countries decided to pre-emptively nullify the agreement by joining in battle to drive Israeli immigrants into the sea. Already a bit paranoid from their experience in WW2, the Zionist Movement was viewed as the only means of surviving. Can't say as I blame anyone in that generation or the ones following. The Arab world has been slow to make room for Israel. The PLO and its sisters cling to the "drive Israel into the sea" mentality.
Let's say your rich uncle saw the conditions of abuse you were living in and decided to help by giving you a shanty to live in. You had title deed to it, transferred from his hand to yours with all the proper signitures and seals. Your "cousin" (no blood relation) lived in the shanty next door.
What would you do if the day you moved in your cousin and his brothers decided to get you out of the neighborhood and used drive by shootings to try and get you? You fend off the attack and bloody their noses. You draw a line in the middle of their yard and tell them that you'll knock the stuffings out of them if they ever cross that line again.
A few years later, you have remodeled the house, landscaped the yard and even hired your cousin to help around the place. You are getting ready for a family holiday and all is well with your world. Your cousin and his brothers once again storm the house trying to take you out. You kick their anus up between their ears and send them packing. You draw the line further away from your house and warn them not to do it again or they won't know whether to eat or deficate from that hole in their head.
Are you getting the picture? This is the source of what Zionism is all about.
The lands lost to Israel are the spoils of war, and, until the current global approach to politics became prevelent, the vanquished just had to learn to live with their losses. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they had it, and more land than they now claim, though they were renting off their step brothers. You cannot knock the "Zionists" for self defense. What would you have done?

Originally posted by droberts1958 Emotional attachment unfortunately counts for nothing in international law.True, but Israel was awarded their land by the then current "owners", the Brits. That was a legal and binding agreement.

Originally posted by droberts1958 They may not have evicted an Arab from his land I cannot comment on this but they were not welcome in the country. They were not welcomed to the country by the existing local people. Then why did the people who owned the land make room for them? They had to buy what they got, it was not initially the spoils of war. Please take a logical argument here.

Originally posted by droberts1958 My question still stands. Can the Israeli occupation to lands beyond what the UN gave them be justified on any grounds other than the "spoils of victory" Is there any other reason necessary. They were not the aggressors. In the course of battle the Israeli's increased the "buffer zone" between themselves and their enemies. Unfortunately, the world continues to insist that they invite the very ones who seek Israel's demise be invited into her bosom. Would you want a cobra in your bed?

[elke]

From what I have read about the region's history the non Jews were in a substantial majority right up untill the time that the UN declared the state of Israel in existance and many Arabs for various reasons fled. This was the case for around 2,000 years and the strongest claim during this period was that the Jewish population had a "continuous presence".

Can someone explain to me how a "continuous presence" gives you a right to the land when you have been a minority for most of a couple of thousand years ?

From what I have read about Australia, Americas, Europe, Africa, - and no doubt, would have if Antarctica was actually livable - the indigenous populations were displaced by minority populations, after some pretty nasty wheelings and dealings. These new populations had no "continuous presence" in the areas in question, but nevertheless no one is seriously talking about removing them in favor of the indigenous populations (which are now a minority, thanks to the immigration of the "outsiders", murder, and various other reasons).

The title claims to the land of Israel that we have - to me - are as follows:

1. For 2000 years we were told to get the **** out of wherever it is we lived. If I had a penny for every time someone told me to do that, I'd be rich by now.
2. Approximately 60 years ago, the other shoe finally fell, and we realized that the genteel philosophy and niceties of the Western civilization are not adequate to protect us from mass murder. We need something more effective - like a state, where we could have a real army that would be able to protect us.
3. Land deeds, paid for not only by money from the "rich Jews", but also from my grand- and great-grandparents (among many, many others), who could very ill afford it, being poor tradesmen.
4. There are many other emotional, philosophical, and pragmatic reasons, some of which it's difficult to articulate. However, ponder this: if the Palestinians have a "right of return", when most of them were born elsewhere, how can you deny ours?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by elke
[The title claims to the land of Israel that we have - to me - are as follows:
1. For 2000 years we were told to get the **** out of wherever it is we lived. If I had a penny for every time someone told me to do that, I'd be rich by now.
2. Approximately 60 years ago, the other shoe finally fell, and we realized that the genteel philosophy and niceties of the Western civilization are not adequate to protect us from mass murder. We need something more effective - like a state, where we could have a real army that would be able to protect us.
3. Land deeds, paid for not only by money from the "rich Jews", but also from my grand- and great-grandparents (among many, many others), who could very ill afford it, being poor tradesmen.
4. There are many other emotional, philosophical, and pragmatic reasons, some of which it's difficult to articulate. However, ponder this: if the Palestinians have a "right of return", when most of them were born elsewhere, how can you deny ours? This doesn't even begin to count the cost of the blood shed by those who have died to keep Israel teh only free democracy in the region! Why is it Israel counts for nothing in the eyes of the World?

[Vic]

Originally posted by JustPat
Is there any other reason necessary. They were not the aggressors. In the course of battle the Israeli's increased the "buffer zone" between themselves and their enemies. Unfortunately, the world continues to insist that they invite the very ones who seek Israel's demise be invited into her bosom. Would you want a cobra in your bed?
LOL
Reminds me of something I've read recently:

To the lefties on their solidarity tours of Palestine, I ask: Would your brothers in struggle seem as righteous if they were in your backyard full time? Because when you empower them with a state, grant them legitimacy without asking them to take responsibility for the atrocities they perpetuate, they will end up in your backyard. They have many strongly-held views, not just about Israel, but about the Western world that bred your tolerance and pluralism.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12859

[sharonbn]

droberts1958,

As you can see, except for a brief period of 7th-10th cent., the land of Israel was never ruled by the indigenous population. Furthermore, Palestinian nationalism was invented by Yasser Arafat after the 1967 war. Until that time, the Palestinians saw themselves as part of the surrounding Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan and Syria).

Frankly why is any of this relevant to whether the Jewish immigrants could simply take the land. The fact is that there were Arabs living there who did not want the Jewish immigrants. They were attempting to excercise the same protection to their borders which all countries do these days including Israel. That is the right to admit only those who they want.

With the brief history of the land of Israel, I was trying to make two points:

1. Unlike other countries, the history of Israel is characterised by foreign rulers. this means that the indigenous population was never the ruler (=owner) of the country.
so who claims right to the coutry? the owner or whoever lives there?
who claims right to a rented apartment? the owner or whoever lives there?

2. History did not "begin" in the 19th cent. What you call "indigenous population" are Arab tribes, originated in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, who conquered the land in the 7th cent., killing the then "indigenous population" of Jews, Christians, Sumaritans, etc. and settled in the land.
In fact, the oldest existing nation that has a recorded history of living in the land is the Jews, not the Arabs.

Oh, BTW, please exaplin to me the legitimacy of the continous occupation of Australia by the Anglo-Saxons (if I'm not mistaken, Australia is still part of the British commonwealth and the British queen is the Australian monarch). their occupation of the land is no more than 50 years longer than that of the Jews in Israel.
Unlike the Jewish people, Anglo-Saxon have no emotional attachments to the land none-whatsoever and their only claim is "spoils of victory".

Also, the legitimacy of the American occupation of California (again, 150 years old - same as Jewish "occupation").

Also, the legitimacy of the Chinese occupation of Tibet (since the 1950s)

etc. etc.

[elke]

IMHO, tolerance and pluralism are only possible for individuals - and nations - comfortable with themselves psychologically and spiritually. In other words, they have to feel safe from annihilation.

What needs to be understood by the "anti-Israel" camp, is that at this point in time, there is little reason for Israel to believe that their partners' leadership is not out to get her - completely - wiped out. Words are cheap, and they are coming from both directions.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by droberts1958
From what I have read about the region's history the non Jews were in a substantial majority right up untill the time that the UN declared the state of Israel in existance and many Arabs for various reasons fled. This was the case for around 2,000 years and the strongest claim during this period was that the Jewish population had a "continuous presence".

Can someone explain to me how a "continuous presence" gives you a right to the land when you have been a minority for most of a couple of thousand years ?

Is there another justification for Israel's historical claims to present day Israel, Jerusalem or the West Bank/Gaza.

I am interested to learn what the Jewish perspective on this is.

Thankyou.

Various groups slaughtered the Jews like cattle in that part of the region. Some escaped whilst others managed to remain there.

So if I understand your question correctly your argument is if all the Jews had been murdered then they would have no claim to the land.

But that wasn't the case was it?

Therefore the ones that remained were the keepers of the land. At what point in history would you make a division of land?

I.e.: 1 Jew =1acre
1 Arab=1acre

I don't see why so many Jews versus so many Arabs should be an issue in any event because I'm certain that you would agree that there isn't and equal division of wealth or land in any society.

The Torah, the rest of the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament are excellent books in my opinion to determine who lived where and when. As a matter of fact many biblical places has been located based on information in those manuscripts.
Archeologists or historians have/is studying issues like that all the time.

My opinion is that time should not be of the essence when returning from exile. There are precedents for that because governments have paid war reparations/or other payments going back a couple of generations where the original party was/is deceased.

As a matter of fact I was just talking to someone the other day that had a farm returned in Latvia it had been seized by the Russians in the 1940's. Indians in Canada and the US have land claims going back 100's of years and they are still being settled today.

What exactly is your point? Do you feel that Arabs don't have enough land?

But here's a question:

Do Jews have claims to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc????????

I think that they do.

[Vic]

Originally posted by droberts1958
I certainly accept and support Israel's existance. Also the right for any country to defend itself. I do have a problem however with countries pre-empting attack and hitting first. To have supported the right to pre-emptively attack during the cold war would have had the US and Russia attacking each other first to eliminate the possiblity it may be attacked first. In 1967 Israel was not attacked first.

A poor comparison. Neither the US nor the Soviet Union ever tried to attack each other directly, maybe with the sole exception of the Cuba crisis. In 1967 there was no diplomatic opening for Israel, which in part was due to the lack of international support and the armies of the neighboring states were poised to attack immediately.
[/quote]


If you are living in peace with your neighbours why are the 1967 or for that matter the true 1948 borders indefensible, and why do these borders necessarily mean that Israel cannot exist in the future. The peace plan proposed by Saudia Arabia would have Israel at peace with all its neighbours. Your assumption is very self serving because its conclusion is that it must keep the territories to maintain its own existance. To take this much further your could say that Israel must take over Jordan Syria Lebanon Egypt hey why not the whole Middle East so that it is not surrounded by enemies and can maintain its own peace. What the heck since we have the middle east lets go for world domination. To take your assumption to this length is ridiculous but then again so is your first assumption that the ONLY way to preserve yourself is to expand your borders. Quite the opposite. While your argument might have had validity those times have changed.
What Saudi Arabia proposed is a formal act that can be retracted at any time in exchange for Israel creating facts on the ground which would include putting itself at a considerable disadvantage in the military sense.

There is so far no serious indication that this "peace plan" is more than a ploy and that Israel's neighbors, maybe Jordan excepted, do really want peace.

I find it remarkable that you flippantly say that I should be happy to accept people from Israel many of whom were not born there when no doubt you are prepared to refuse the return of all the Arab refugees who were born in Israel but who fled because of concerns for their own safety.

If you are not prepared to take back all the Palestinian refugees then may I suggest you pull your head in.
To continue in your tone - I find it remarkable that you use the second person. I'm not Israeli myself and I definetely do not speak for it. I suggest that anyone who puts forward the kind of demands you support has to be prepared to bear responsibility for the consequences.

There are plenty enough alternatives for the so-called Palestinian refugees, many of whom were actually born in the countries of their current residence (btw. I find your way of putting it - "the return of all the Arab refugees who were born in Israel but who fled because of concerns for their own safety" quite interesting), which Israel's peace-loving neighbors have been refusing them for generations with UN's blessing, and none for a large proportion of Israelis.

[droberts1958]

I have read in this discussion many reasons why a Jewish Israel should be on the land it is on. As far as the 1948 borders are concerned and I would extend them to the 1967 borders there is only one which has an ounce of validity. That is that the land was awarded to it by the UN which was given the job of adjudicating the split by the British.

As far as valid claim to the land after 1967 including Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem is concerned there is only one argument which has any logic to it. That is simply "the spoils of victory" argument.

I do not accept this logic and to explain why use a comparison with the common children’s game of musical chairs. History is like this kids game. Right up to the 1700's or even the 1800’s and later the spoils of victory argument was 100 percent valid. If a country wanted something it simply took it and bad luck to any one else. Over time in different areas different rulers came and stayed or went. Colonizers came and stayed or went. All was OK

It is not clear when the music stopped playing but what is clear that for civilised countries which respect freedoms and democracy the music is definately not playing now. By this I mean it is no longer acceptable to take over another country just because you want it. The borders as they now exist with the people who now live within should be able to govern themselves without the risk of invasion.

I believe that the music stopped playing very finally as late as 1948. This was after WW2 when the UN was formed to try and resolve international disputes. The philosophy "to the victor the spoils" was not an effective incentive for peace as it provided an incentive for war. The UN in adjudicating the split was purporting to give some greater order than a game of musical chairs where the strongest simply took what they wanted. Israel in accepting the UN's decision was saying that it accepted the UN as the adjudicator and that it accepted that the music allowing free for all invasions was no longer playing. The seat (area) that you had when the music stopped playing was what you had to be happy with.

Given this I do not understand how Israel can accept the UN’s decision to give it part of the land of Israel but in the longer term reject the same adjudicator’s decision to order it out of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. If it rejects the UN’s authority to make these decisions on leaving the occupied territories, it is denying the authority of the organization, which gives Israel its only valid claim to any of its territory.

For the record.

1 I believe in the right of Israel to exist in the confines of its pre-1967 borders.
2 I believe in the right of a country to defend itself including taking pre-emptive action when hostile attack is imminent and irrevocable.
3 I believe in the right of a country to temporarily occupy its neighbours but only to maintain its own security and peace within the region and never as a final annexation.
4 I believe that Israel must work on the assumption that peace is possible on the pre 1967 borders and work towards it with a steady plan accepted by all the Arab powers. The time frame should be in the range of 5 to 10 years depending on how the peace progresses and the extent to which the Palestinian authority can control its extremist elements.
5 I believe that all Jewish settlements in Gaza / West Bank should not only have their expansion halted but should be withdrawn in total immediately.
6 I believe that the old city of Jerusalem must become an international city like the Vatican perhaps with Swiss guards like the Vatican.
7 I believe that the Palestinian refugees should not be able to return to Israel but can return to the West Bank / Gaza.
8 I believe that Palestine (Gaza/West Bank) should eventually be a fully functioning state without having to answer to Israel for anything and is treated as an equal.

Finally I believe that many less Israeli lives will be lost in the next 100 years by pursuing peace along these lines than by perpetuating a hostility like the Likud party seems determined to maintain.

[Mediocrates]

Because "Land for Peace" is a statement that stands on its own without further explanation. All 3 words count.

Land - ok let's haggle, the excuse of give me everything instantly right now or I'll kill you is not the way the world works.

for - an exchange of something for something else - a process is implied not a final paradise.

Peace - this is the word that the left always stumbles over. It means the cessation of killing. It does not mean the hope of a cessation of killing nor does it mean a wrist slap should said killings continue nor does it mean that there are NO reprecussions at all save the obligatory PLO representative screaming about the damn Jews on the cable news shows.


Point 7 is a no-op. Point 7 is a nice way of saying "gee I hope those people just disappear from the earth and shut up already". It really is.

The world isn't fair or nice or truly equitable. That's what lawyers and armies are for. But if anyone from the PLO wants to deal they should stop the passive agressive do nothing wait out success or failure attitude that's landed them in **** for a half century. If your national leader screwed your whole country and everyone in it straight into the ground time after time after time after time in order to preserve his cult of personality I'm pretty sure you'd want to pick up a gun and go Lee Harvey on him yourself.

[Pathfinder]

Originally posted by droberts1958


Given this I do not understand how Israel can accept the UN’s decision to give it part of the land of Israel but in the longer term reject the same adjudicator’s decision to order it out of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. If it rejects the UN’s authority to make these decisions on leaving the occupied territories, it is denying the authority of the organization, which gives Israel its only valid claim to any of its territory.

For the record.

1 I believe in the right of Israel to exist in the confines of its pre-1967 borders.
2 I believe in the right of a country to defend itself including taking pre-emptive action when hostile attack is imminent and irrevocable.
3 I believe in the right of a country to temporarily occupy its neighbours but only to maintain its own security and peace within the region and never as a final annexation.


I agree with most of your analysis about the evolution of civilized nations away from blatant land grabs. Self defense, however for nations or individuals is an unarguable right and always will be. That is the framework of Israel's actions. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors that initiated every one of the conflicts she has faced in her short modern history. The Arabs gave up their play-nice cards long ago. She now has the right and duty to protect her children by whatever means necessary. You can argue her methods all you want , but not her motives.

Your point 2 is the operative principle and applies to Israel every day until all her neighbors completely renounce terrorism and work to root it out.

The UN has no inherent right to confer or deny the ligitimacy of soverign nations. It only helps or hinder the natural process of consensus building among nations. All to often UN actions more resemble mob rule than civilized consensus building. Isreal owes it no fealty and indeed no love, since nearly all UN resolutions/actions on the ME have been anti-Israel.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Pathfinder

Your point 2 is the operative principle and applies to Israel every day until all her neighbors completely renounce terrorism and work to root it out.

All to often UN actions more resemble mob rule than civilized consensus building. Isreal owes it no fealty and indeed no love, since nearly all UN resolutions/actions on the ME have been anti-Israel.

Israel doesn't need to prove anything to the UN itself. After all, the UN is just a paper signed by 160 countries. The question is not; what's the position of the UN, but what's the opinion of the 'world'. The UN can't represent the 'world' or the international community, because it's dominated by US, UK, France, PRC and RF who are full time members of the security council. Without reforming the UN, it really is not a credible organisation. But I want to add something to your comments on the UN being anti-Israel. Now I think you're a bit unfair. The UN only wanted to send investigation teams into the Jenin refugee camp. Even after Israel refused, the UN did not condemn Israel. We'll never know IF a massacre took place anyway. :confused:

[Mike Kilo (4X)]

Originally posted by Gatorade


The West Bank - one could claim that since Jordan attacked Israel that Israel has rights to these land because they won the land and Israel wasn't the aggressor. Israel actually sent a letter to Jordan no to get into the war, but they did anyway.



Well, according to the international convention winning territories in war is not a justification for holding them and annexing them. so that solves that question.

still the presence of jews in this country is documented and supported by evidence - Jews have a history in this country. despite efforts by many others to question this past, it is corroborated with facts. if you look beyond that - most of the land was bought by settlers in the beginning of the previous century and the state of Israel was established on the grounds of the famous UN resolution - according to the peel comitee recommendation.

the first message wanted to know the jewish POV on this. I suggest you read Israel independence scroll. it is divided to 3 parts (like most things in Israel) the first part contains most of the explanations as to the grounds on which Israel was established.

here is the text quoted from (http://learn.jtsa.edu/yomhaatzmaut/decloind.shtml - just a site I found with it in english)

Israel's Declaration of Independance


Issued at Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 (5th of Iyar, 5708)
The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom.

Impelled by this historic association, Jews strove throughout the centuries to go back to the land of their fathers and regain their statehood. In recent decades they returned in masses. They reclaimed the wilderness, revived their language, built cities and villages and established a vigorous and ever-growing community with its own economic and cultural life. They sought peace yet were ever prepared to defend themselves. They brought the blessing of progress to all inhabitants of the country.

In the year 1897 the First Zionist Congress, inspired by Theodor Herzl's vision of the Jewish State, proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national revival in their own country.

This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and re-affirmed by the Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home.

The Nazi holocaust, which engulfed millions of Jews in Europe, proved anew the urgency of the re-establishment of the Jewish state, which would solve the problem of Jewish homelessness by opening the gates to all Jews and lifting the Jewish people to equality in in the family of nations.

The survivors of the European catastrophe, as well as Jews from other lands, proclaiming their right to a life of dignity, freedom and labor, and undeterred by hazards, hardships and obstacles, have tried unceasingly to enter Palestine.

In the Second World War the Jewish people in Palestine made a full contribution in the struggle of the freedom-loving nations against the Nazi evil. The sacrifices of their soldiers and the efforts of their workers gained them title to rank with the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.

This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY, WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, met together in solemn assembly today, the day of the termination of the British mandate for Palestine, by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations,

HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.

WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight, this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948, and until the setting up of the duly elected bodies of the State in accordance with a Constitution, to be drawn up by a Constituent Assembly not later than the first day of October, 1948, the present National Council shall act as the provisional administration, shall constitute the Provisional Government of the State of Israel.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew Prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the Resolution of the Assembly of November 29, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the Economic Union over the whole of Palestine.

We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building of its State and to admit Israel into the family of nations.

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representation in its bodies and institutions - provisional or permanent.

We offer peace and unity to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all.

Our call goes out the the Jewish people all over the world to rally to our side in the task of immigration and development and to stand by us in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of generations - the redemption of Israel.

With trust in Almighty God, we set our hand to this Declaration, at this Session of the Provisional State Council, in the city of Tel Aviv, on this Sabbath eve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth day of May, 1948.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Morpheus
The UN only wanted to send investigation teams into the Jenin refugee camp. Even after Israel refused, the UN did not condemn Israel. We'll never know IF a massacre took place anyway. :confused: To say we will never know is to deny the reports of the International Press, including

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1965000/1965471.stm
The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/218vnicq.asp
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/04/jenin.combat/index.html
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53016,00.html

While WAFA reports 500+ deaths, these numbers have been certified to be a gross inflation of the truth --- aka: a lie.

Human Rights Watch has now certified that there was no massacre in Jenin in a 50 page report released this month.
Quoting, "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp."
Source: http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502.pdf

While some of the aspects of the operation in Jenin have been called into question, a guerilla war is not always sterile in regard to collateral damage (civilian casualties). Ask those who fought in Viet Nam about how to tell who the enemy is. The strategy of the PA, Hamas, etc. breeds a shoot first mentality in soldiers. They are not being cold, callous, or cruel; they are being security minded and trying to act in the best interests of the mission. It can be a hard call. But it must be nice to know that the people most likely to agree with your enemy clear you of the charges of "massacre."

[Mediocrates]

I find its convenient to simply call it Palistan and treat it as any of the other newly dismembered snarling extremist anarchic proto-states who can't make up their minds whom they wish to kill. Palistan is little different from Georgia or Chechnya or Serbia and anyone else who uses a fake mythology from 7 centuries ago to justify whatever mayhem someone is paying them to commit today.

The Mafia used to be a revolutionary independence group too.