Why do you support Israel's right to exist?

[Citizen James]

I have phrased the question as a 'why' rather than a 'do' as support for Israel in the US is near universal (and rather common in the western world overall), however I think there are major differences in why that support is.

Some right wingers accuse the left of not supporting Israel as much (that is, not completely blindly) because we do sometimes criticize some of their policies.  I think part of that is based on how the nation is seen - as a modern democracy, or as a religious icon.  Whereas in the religious right Israels safety is considered only a temporary concern - based on their desire for armageddon and eventual widespread destruction.  Others (such as neocons) see it  as a stepping stone for increasing influence in the region not caring for whether it is fair or not (we have often allied with dictators for temporary gain.  For example, we opposed freedom and democracy in South Africa because the fearmongers kept insisting that a government by, of, and for the people was practically the definition of socialism)

I added a few other options, just to cover all the bases.

[phk]

Israel should be supported up as a Western counter to the Muslims.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

I don't especially support them, I'm neutral. Really.

I just allow myself to comment what I like/agree with and what I don't like/disagree with, what's happening there.

[Senator Ben]

The first three.

[Sibboleth]

I support Israel's "right to exist" for the same reason that I support the "right to exist" of any country. Yes, Israel has a few dodgy foundational issues. So do most countries. Now, supporting the policies of the current government would be a very different question and would get a very different sort of answer.

[Χahar]

Option 7, but the idea of a "right to exist" is really totally irrelevant.

[Communists For McCain]

Option 7, but the idea of a "right to exist" is really totally irrelevant.

Option 6, but same idea.

[dialectical fetishist]

Because it's their land.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Because it's their land.

[Χahar]

Because it's their land.

What does this even mean?

[ag]

I do, because two injustices do not a justice make.  One may disagree on whether creating Israel was an appropriate thing to do (I, personally, believe it was not), but by now there are some 5 million or more people for whom this is the only conceivable home. At this point, I think, Israel is a fact, and its existence does not need any justification beyond the one needed by any other nation state: it is there, and getting rid of it would be a personal disaster for many. 

At the same time, I firmly reject the idea of Israel as a Jewish state that has anything to do w/ myself. Israel is an Israeli state, the state of the Israeli people, which, in my view, has little, if anything, to do w/ those of us in the diaspora. I have no loyalty to it whatsoever, and I'd be offended if anyone suggested as much. Though I, personally, do not like a lot about Israel, I have to recognize the fact that it is sufficiently a liberal democracy - of course, only within its recognized borders - to provide its citizens with legitimate opportunities for influencing political process and the structure of the state. Thus, though I may dislike a lot of things about the Israeli state, my dislike is not much different from my dislike of Switzerland (another place some of my ancestors once called home - I do have crappy ancestral homelands, to think about it ) or South Korea.

Now,  though Israeli existence itself, at this point, needs no further justification, the same is not true for the status of the Occupied Territories (including, for that matter, East Jerusalem). These are not part of the Israeli liberal polity and the way Israel has been behaving itself there justifies international concern. The status quo there is unacceptable for the same reason Israel's right to exist is indisputable: continuation of it is creating multiple personal tragedies. Whether the status quo is replaced w/ two states or w/ a single bi-communal Israeli-Palestinian state (frankly, my preferred option), either outcome would be an acceptable improvement. The current situation should not continue.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Just doing otherwise is too much trouble.

[Snowguy716]

The Jewish people deserve a safe homeland.

[Senator Ben]

I think they should practise what they preach, Have a one state solution and intermarry with the Palestinians.

That isn't what they preach, troll.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

The Jewish people deserve a safe homeland.

You know, there were probably *much* safer places than Palestine circa 1947 to go. Large parts of South America are/were barely inhabited (Central Brazil; why not?), Western Australia?, South Island (New Zealand), Various Carribean or Pacific Islands....

Not that I would criticize those individual migrants from Europe or anything.

[ag]

I think they should practise what they preach, Have a one state solution and intermarry with the Palestinians.

This is, very clearly, not what almost anyone there preaches. I might say, this is unfortunately, but the fact is: this would be directly against whatever Zionist doctrine that is out there.

[Earth]

The Jewish people deserve a safe homeland.

Europe is less safe than Israel?

I don't support Israel, and it was a mistake to create a nation that treats it's natives as second class citizens, or worse yet, scum. This issue is completely beyond anything resembling 'rights'.

[Californian Tony]

Reasons 1 and 3. Every people has the right to have a country.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Other - they've been there long enough that a few generations have passed and removing them would be like removing the natives in any other location. Israel has some bad policies towards the Palestinians and probably shouldn't have been founded in that location in the first place, but at this point it would be rather dumb to just think that they should pack their bags and leave. It would be like saying everyone in America should pack up and leave so the Native Americans can have their land back - at this point it's just not gonna happen, and even if people were willing the logistical issues of doing so would be insane.

[Earth]

....It would be like saying everyone in America should pack up and leave so the Native Americans can have their land back - at this point it's just not gonna happen, and even if people were willing the logistical issues of doing so would be insane.

I don't think this is directed at what I said, but on the off chance it is, that's not what I meant. I'd never advocate for a 'pick up and leave' "solution" in this. People are there to stay, that's a given.

[Senator Kalwejt]

Because the Jewish people have a right to a safe homeland

Israel should be supported up as a Western counter to the Muslims.

Awful...

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

The Jewish people deserve a safe homeland.

Well, if we consider this only argument, then my advice to "the Jewish people" is to get off from there!! And fast!

This part of the world might be the less safe for them today...

Actually, beside the Zionist justifications, on which I wouldn't debate, I don't feel concerned by that, if we take the only argument of a safe home, then they could have stayed in Europe. The Holocaust, because of the awful (forgive my English, other words may be more appropriate to what it has been) thing it has been, made it. While it burned a lot of people, it burned with them all the anti-semite feelings that existed, (well or at least the huge part of them), and that's a luck we can say that "at least", it permitted this, it created a vaccine against anti-semitism in West, making that West may now be the safest place for Jew, more than ever. And maybe to the point that it becomes sometimes a bit too much when we see the growing paranoia here concerning the anti-Jews feelings.

Yes, since the end of the nazi regime, the only problem that people had with Jews it is about Zionism, it is no more against Jew, the big problem is Israel, no more the Jewish people, which wasn't the case before, before Jews had to face an actual anti-semitism. One more example of this is that, in the first part of the last century, the Arab leaders, seeing that they needed to modernize their lands, called some Jews, because they found they were smart and able to help them to modernize themselves, they even proposed some territories to these Jews then. Unluckily the deal didn't work, and unluckily I've forgotten the references about this historical episode, maybe others heard about it.

Actually, there is no more the actual anti-semitism of before today, there is just some anti-zionism, so this argument of the safe land may be the last to use. After, of course, the Zionist issue became so much passionated that it revived all the old fantasies, but these ones are no more the source of hatred they were before.

Note that here I'm not advocating against Israel, just stating about this argument.

And, no, I'm not really neutral. I think Israel can carry some big improvements in this region, but this to only one condition, that they stop to claim for a "Jewish" state. They wanna continue? May they enjoy their sorrow, and surely their destruction on the long term...

I'm not neutral, I plead for an only state, the creation of a new entity, with the both people, Arabs and Jews, overcoming their identity to create a new one. The f**k, that would be beautiful, and strong. It's them to see...

[N.i.K.]

Option 3, and none else. There were certainly better places to put them, however.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Option 3, and none else. There were certainly better places to put them, however.

No assumptions intended, but, hmm, here you speak a bit like if it was some cattle, which is not very welcome, especially when we refer to the post-Holocaust period...

[London Man]

Option 3, and none else. There were certainly better places to put them, however.

Name three.