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.