Would you have supported Israel's creation in 1948?

[2952-0-0]

It's pretty simple and obvious as liberals oppose nationalism.

Not true. In many circumstances the leftists are associated with nationalism: ANC in South Africa, Gandhi in India, Sinn Fein in Ireland, Parti Quebecois in Quebec, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure. The majority of Israeli Jews are descendants of immigrants from Arab countries. Many of those Jews were forced out of their homes and had nowhere to go but the new state. So I'm not sure about that claim.

Given that there was a slight majority of Jews in the state carved out by the UN, I'd say yeah I would have supported it as a haven for Jews, but not necessarily as a Jewish state, as it was still 45% Arab at that point.

Most of the coastal and fertile land of the British territory was carved into the new Israel, while the mountainous, less fertile, and less accessible areas were carved into the new Arab state. Even from that moment the allocation of land was unfair, let alone the current "archipelago" in the West Bank. From this point onward there are, unfortunately, no good options forward:

a) wait until the Arab population becomes the majority of Israel and its occupied territories, by which time the concept of a Jewish homeland is defeated
b) create a two-tiered citizenship system giving the Arab population fewer rights, making the charges of Apartheid run true and inviting crippling sanctions which cause a massive brain drain, crippling the viability of the country
c) ethnically cleanse the region of Arabs, causing the above sanctions and brain drain to occur and potentially invite NATO intervention on the lines of Bosnia/Kosovo

Or:
d) two state solution on the 1967 boundaries, with a Hong Kong-style arrangement for Jerusalem, but the last Israeli PM serious about this was shot
e) turn into a single state of half-Arab, half-Jew; at best this will be beset with Belgian-style terminal squabbling; at worst this could become racked by civil strife like Lebanon

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yes, Israel was a demographically unsustainable country from the start.

[Sbane]

My only points here are these:

1. Some people seem to think that the Jews took over a Palestinian state, which is not true.
2. Some people seem to think that Jews should not have been allowed to move to Palestine because it was Palestinian land. Coming from anyone other than the KKK this seems a bit odd and hypocritical to me.
3. Based on this (and the rest of the history of that time) I have trouble finding the moral principle on which to base opposition to the Israeli state. Pragmatically, I get it. You might think it was a bad outcome for the Jews and for the world as a whole. But I don't see where an average liberal could be outraged at what was done.

1) The Jews took over a colony of Britain in which the population was mostly Palestinian, although there was a significant minority of Jews.
2) I don't know who is advocating Jews shouldn't be allowed to move wherever they feel like, including Israel. The problem is with the establishment of a Jewish state. If there was a large minority of Jews living in a Palestinian state (sort of how the arrangement was before 1948 anyways), nobody would have a problem with it. And before you scream anti-semitism, it is impossible to know how Palestinians would have felt about Jews without the history of the last 60 years.
3) Yes, taking into account Europe's history of anti-semitism, it did seem like a good move to move the Jews out of Europe. And an "average liberal" may in theory be in favor of a Jewish homeland, especially just a few years after a holocaust has been conducted against them, but that same liberal would also be absolutely appalled by the way the Israelis have handled themselves from 1948 onwards.

[Gustaf]

I know you're not a great believer in logic so I doubt this will get anywhere

You're an idiot, and not only for prefacing your reply like this.

but all right...if the claim to land is not based on a state then what, exactly it is based on?

Inhabitance, which the influx of european Jews doesn't represent. What makes Romania, Romanian land? The presence of a large population of Romanians. Russia- Russians, the people that inhabit the land, etc. Legislation doesn't make it so, neither does a mass migration.

The Jews were presenting a claim to the land too, what makes that claim less valid than the Palestinian one?

What is this claim based on other than the notion that it "was" their land?

The rest of your post is not really arguing anything relevant so I will leave it be.

Why are you even on a forum if you can't argue? Pathetic.

Eh...you can't argue, which is precisely why I'm reluctant to attempt to debate you, since you may at any moment simply contradict your original position.

In 1948 there were plenty of Jews living in the area, inhabiting it. What made their claim less valid than the Palestinian one?

[Gustaf]

My only points here are these:

1. Some people seem to think that the Jews took over a Palestinian state, which is not true.
2. Some people seem to think that Jews should not have been allowed to move to Palestine because it was Palestinian land. Coming from anyone other than the KKK this seems a bit odd and hypocritical to me.
3. Based on this (and the rest of the history of that time) I have trouble finding the moral principle on which to base opposition to the Israeli state. Pragmatically, I get it. You might think it was a bad outcome for the Jews and for the world as a whole. But I don't see where an average liberal could be outraged at what was done.

1) The Jews took over a colony of Britain in which the population was mostly Palestinian, although there was a significant minority of Jews.
2) I don't know who is advocating Jews shouldn't be allowed to move wherever they feel like, including Israel. The problem is with the establishment of a Jewish state. If there was a large minority of Jews living in a Palestinian state (sort of how the arrangement was before 1948 anyways), nobody would have a problem with it. And before you scream anti-semitism, it is impossible to know how Palestinians would have felt about Jews without the history of the last 60 years.
3) Yes, taking into account Europe's history of anti-semitism, it did seem like a good move to move the Jews out of Europe. And an "average liberal" may in theory be in favor of a Jewish homeland, especially just a few years after a holocaust has been conducted against them, but that same liberal would also be absolutely appalled by the way the Israelis have handled themselves from 1948 onwards.

1. Yes, that was my point.
2. I haven't screamed anti-semitism at anyone, as far as I know. I don't think you are correct in your claim though. For one thing, the Palestinian side refused partition (partly because the terms were not very good to them) in the 30s. I believe anti-semitism in the Arab world pre-dates the creation of the Israeli state even though it is correct that it does not have the long history it has in Europe.

I think, taking 1 and 2 together, you're sort of missing my point. The land was under British control to begin with, so it was neither Palestinian nor Jewish. Jews moved there so that it was partly Jewish, partly Palestinian. It was then divided between the two. One can argue that Jews should not have been allowed to move there in the first place or that they as recent migrants should not have had the same rights as the people who had lived there longer, but I find either approach to be inconsistent with standard left-liberal views on immigration.

3. The actions of the particular Israeli state in the last 60 years isn't really an argument against  having it though. At least not for the way I think about these things.

[Torie]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

[RosettaStoned]

HELL NO.

[Lincoln Republican]

Absolutely, positively, most certainly, without a doubt, no question about it!

The land belongs to the Israelis.

[The Mikado]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

[Gustaf]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

What do you mean? That is exactly what happened because of the war. The partitioned state would presumably have been independent of Jordan and Egypt.

[Lunar]

No, of course not. It's too bad the British sold out so easily to terrorists.

Jews in 1948 were terrorists?  

Obviously incidents like this were justified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struma_(ship)



On the real world, in 1948, Jews needed a haven where they could be safe from Pogroms and Holocausts.

[Lunar]

    I am opposed to the planning of "ethnic states" on principle, so no.

Um, this was a people whom suffered years of slaughter and persecution, yet no country which accepted them without severe persecution [like the United States] would accept en masse.  How could they NOT push for a separate homeland?   They were deprived of their right to safety for centuries in the countries which they resided, surely you can see that?

[Lunar]

Just to set the record straight:

1. There was no Palestinian state in 1948 (nor ever) so nothing was taken from anyone.
2. There was a lot of Jews in the area even before WWII, so they didn't get there because the state was created nor because of the Holocaust.

I always find it strange that the left in general is vehemently pro-immigration and considers it horribly racist to, say, argue that a large immigration of Mexicans into the US or of Arabs to Europe constitutes a threat to Western society, but yet, at the same time, thinks that Jews should not have been allowed to migrate into Israel during the 20s and 30s and that, even though this migration was legal and allowed by the authorities it was somehow deeply unethical.

Given what happened in 1937, 1948 and onwards it is pretty clear that another holocaust of Jews was the only realistic alternative to creating the state of Israel.

^^^^


Why can't people take things into context?  Both the leftists who think Israel should never have existed and those who believe Israel is within its rights to attack any vessel it pleases for any reason?


This isn't moderate heroism, but rather a plea for sanity.  

[Lunar]

It's pretty simple and obvious as liberals oppose nationalism. And nationalism was the only reason Jews were moving to Palestine.

That and having a place to live where you wouldn't live in fear of slaughter.  Countries like America certainly weren't offering them blanket refugee status.

[Lunar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struma_(ship)

Actually, I think this incident underscores the entire debate, and provides badly needed context.

[The Mikado]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

What do you mean? That is exactly what happened because of the war. The partitioned state would presumably have been independent of Jordan and Egypt.

What I mean is that, like what actually happened, the lack of Palestinian political organization and presence might have led, even in a peaceful situation, to the other Arab nations taking the Palestinians under their wing, so to speak.  The difference would be that Israel didn't seize those territories in the Six Day War 20 years later.

I find it very hard to imagine, what with the lack of serious, organized Palestinian (as opposed to Arab) advocacy in 1948, that the state promised to them would've happened, war or not.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, of course not. It's too bad the British sold out so easily to terrorists.

Jews in 1948 were terrorists?  

Obviously incidents like this were justified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struma_(ship)



On the real world, in 1948, Jews needed a haven where they could be safe from Pogroms and Holocausts.

Not all Jews in 1948 were terrorists. Those fighting to create Israel were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

It's a shame how Europe has had so many pogroms and Holocausts post-1948. Obviously Israel is a far safer and more peaceful place for Jews than Europe.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And once again you are confusing the Zionist movement with a fringe fascist clique. Ignorance or intellectual dishonesty ?

[k-onmmunist]

No, of course not. It's too bad the British sold out so easily to terrorists.

Jews in 1948 were terrorists?  

Obviously incidents like this were justified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struma_(ship)



On the real world, in 1948, Jews needed a haven where they could be safe from Pogroms and Holocausts.

Not all Jews in 1948 were terrorists. Those fighting to create Israel were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

It's a shame how Europe has had so many pogroms and Holocausts post-1948. Obviously Israel is a far safer and more peaceful place for Jews than Europe.

It really wasn't worth me taking you off ignore for about 5 minutes.

[Gustaf]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

What do you mean? That is exactly what happened because of the war. The partitioned state would presumably have been independent of Jordan and Egypt.

What I mean is that, like what actually happened, the lack of Palestinian political organization and presence might have led, even in a peaceful situation, to the other Arab nations taking the Palestinians under their wing, so to speak.  The difference would be that Israel didn't seize those territories in the Six Day War 20 years later.

I find it very hard to imagine, what with the lack of serious, organized Palestinian (as opposed to Arab) advocacy in 1948, that the state promised to them would've happened, war or not.

I guess...but the original partition was suggested in 1937 (IIRC) and it seems possible that Egypt and Jordan would not have moved in then. It was clearly made a lot easier by the fact that a war was going on.

[Sbane]

     I am opposed to the planning of "ethnic states" on principle, so no.

Um, this was a people whom suffered years of slaughter and persecution, yet no country which accepted them without severe persecution [like the United States] would accept en masse.  How could they NOT push for a separate homeland?   They were deprived of their right to safety for centuries in the countries which they resided, surely you can see that?

So just because America didn't want them and Europe wanted to get rid of them, it was cool to just give them some land which already had people living on it? It all comes back to power of course. America was a powerful country and thus could control who came into their country or tried to form national entities within their country. Britain controlled some land they had no business controlling so they could just give it to the Jews, without facing any of the consequences. Why didn't they just give them some land within Britain? Why didn't America give them some land? Perhaps somewhere in the deep south? I wonder if Muslims/Arabs would still be considered the most anti-semitic group today. lol

[2952-0-0]

The Romany Gypsy were also persecuted in Europe for centuries and were also earmarked for extermination by the Nazis. Were there any proposals to carve up a portion of Rajasthan (also controlled by the British at the time) and declare it a homeland for the Romany?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Once again, basic chronology people. Please.

[afleitch]

Once again, basic chronology people. Please.

Agreed.

[Sbane]

Once again, basic chronology people. Please.

What? Since there were already Jews living in Palestine, and many were moving there, a zionist homeland there was inevitable? I don't care if the Jewish people moved there in mass, but I do have a problem with setting up a Jewish homeland by taking away the indigenous people's lands.