Israelis should seriously consider abandoning Israel

[Zevico]

It wouldn't solve a thing. Terrorism would continue; Islamic extremism would continue; nothing would change. Arab leaders whipped up support against the British as well pre 1948. Instead of attacking Israel, they would attack Britain 'in protest of the British occupation during XXX', or etc. In short, they would use any pretext possible to continue terrorism and the misleading and brainwashing of their people, as it is their only way of keeping power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
can you explain for me why the German-Polish frontier was moved to the Oder Niesse line - restoring Polish soveriegnty over lands that hadnt been ethnically polish or under polish rule for over 700 years?? Or is the magic cutoff somewhere longer than 700 years, but shorter than 1700 years?
ditto for east prussia.
and for "greek" macedonia??

The border was moved to compensate Poland for the Soviets bringing the border back to the Curzon line, and as a way to punish the Germans. Whatever "national" spin you which to place on it is your business.

I guess all the Pals have to do then is find a way to show they are decendent of Caananites , and then hey, they trump the Jews! By the way, the Jews never really held the coasts. Why not do a switch, the Jews get their "real bliblical homeland, the hills, and the palestinains get the coatal regions, to be Biblicly accurate?

[Bereta_Eder]

greek macedonia what?

greece never asked for the territory of all of macedonia and the amount of macedonia it has (80%) was captuted from the ottoman empire during the 2nd balkan wars with the basis of the large greek populations that were there not that macedonia was greek 2000 years ago

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

As I have stated before, the whole mandate system ran counter to the very aism the League supposedly stood for, first and foremost national self-determination.

land ownership is for individuals or organizations, not some nebulous "nation".

we're not discussing land ownership, but soveriengty. Which belongs to states. and self determination was established as a principle where the only people with a claim to sovereignty were those who lived on the land - for example in the former Austrian territories. Even there, self determination was frequently compromised so that peoples long denied sovereignty could live in security - thus the Sudetenlands were assigned to Czechoslovakia, rather than to Germany. It simply did not address a case like the Jews, where an entire people had been forcibly exiled, and no longer had sovereignty anywhere.

The first principle the league was about was resolving international conflict through law and international organization - national self determination was only one subordinate principle used to resolve certain conflicts - it did NOT trump all other claims. Whether it trumped this one, can only be determined by precedent - but there is no precedent in the Leagues history other than the claim of the Jews to Palestine. Which the League supported.

If you can cite ANY international legal opionion from the period that contradicts my opinion, please do so - not simply your own opinion of what the League was about.

[CerberusIV]

Let's be blunt - land belongs to whoever can hold on to it. Our current obsession with fixed national borders is a very recent phenomenon, mostly because no-one is willing to contemplate unravelling the european imposed boundaries in Africa or the divisions drawn up after WWII and perpetuated by the Cold War. States are created and destroyed or their boundaries changed by wars. There will be change in many parts of the world once there is a big enough war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


we're not discussing land ownership, but soveriengty. Which belongs to states. and self determination was established as a principle where the only people with a claim to sovereignty were those who lived on the land - for example in the former Austrian territories. Even there, self determination was frequently compromised so that peoples long denied sovereignty could live in security - thus the Sudetenlands were assigned to Czechoslovakia, rather than to Germany. It simply did not address a case like the Jews, where an entire people had been forcibly exiled, and no longer had sovereignty anywhere.

Actually, since the allies did not want to increase germany, German lands of austria were denied the ability to join up their fellow Germans in Germany. After all, you can;t have the loosing state all of a sudden get bigger, now can't you? As for the Jews; jews maintained within thier communities the sense that they were exiles, but that self-definition had nothing to do with any sort of legal reality (you can't be an exile from a non-existent entity. Specially since Israel did not exist since 700 bc. The last jewish kingdom was Judea, not Israel)

The first principle the league was about was resolving international conflict through law and international organization - national self determination was only one subordinate principle used to resolve certain conflicts - it did NOT trump all other claims. Whether it trumped this one, can only be determined by precedent - but there is no precedent in the Leagues history other than the claim of the Jews to Palestine. Which the League supported.

Actually, the league backed the zionist claim uner the very principle of self-determination, since this was the thrust of the zionist movement, to make the Jews like all other Europeans by giving them self-determination, which could only be done through giving them a state. Since the locals of palestine had no say whatsoever, well, too bad for them, no?

If you can cite ANY international legal opionion from the period that contradicts my opinion, please do so - not simply your own opinion of what the League was about.

What is your point? The Leagues mandate passed on the the UN, which in the end, divided the land into two states, one Jewish, one Arab. That is the current legal framework in which to work with.

So a bunch of Christian diplomats sitting in France backed the jewish claim to a piece of land inhabited by another people who were not at all represented at the meeting. What a great place to draw legitimacy from, no?

[Cruddy]

Thanks for the pointers LOTM - although I've still got a lot of reading to do before commenting again on Israel/Palestine.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



I guess all the Pals have to do then is find a way to show they are decendent of Caananites , and then hey, they trump the Jews! By the way, the Jews never really held the coasts. Why not do a switch, the Jews get their "real bliblical homeland, the hills, and the palestinains get the coatal regions, to be Biblicly accurate?

well first there is no evidence that there was ever a national canaanite state, in contrast to the case of Israel. Second its more than likely that the Jews are the actual descendents of the Canaanites, pace the bible. you will note that Hebrew and the language of the phoenicians is very close, and both are close to ugaritic.

Even if the pals did show they were descended from the canaanites, and had a claim on that basis is irrelevant to my argument. My argument DOES NOT say that the palestinian arabs have NO CLAIM - (you are confusing my argument with that of people to my right) I am merely stating that BOTH the Pal arabs AND the Israeli Jews have a claim - its not a matter of trumping anyone.


Re the coast
first you are incorrect - while in early biblical times (judges) the jews did not hold the coast, under the United mopnarchy they apparently did - with control fluctuating for the rest of the bibilical period. They definitely did hold it during the 2nd commonwealth - during roman times Ceserea, had a large Jewish population.

Second - you are again building a straw man - I am merely making the case that the jews are an indigenous people to the land, and so have a claim - i am not stating that all subsequent history should be ignored.

In particular the status quo of the late 19thc was that the historically jewish hill country was heavily populated by arabs - while the coast was thinly populated, due to malaria,etc. The Jews settled there and quickly established majorities there, and built a society there. It would be pragmatically stupid to uproot both Israeli and Palestinian societies in a land swap no one in the region wants.

It is true that there are some right wing zionists who make precisely the statement you make - that the Jewish claim to the hill country is even STRONGER than the claim to the coasts, and so Israel should not withdraw from the hill country - i however favor a more pragmatic approach to Zionism - given that there are TWO indigneous peoples it is important to satisfy Arab claims as well, and in a way that does least harm to the living, breathing society that the Jews have built in their land - and clearly the best way to do that is to withdraw from most of the hill country.

But the background principle as final settelement issues like borders, refugees etc are negotiated is that BOTH peoples have legitimate claims to the land.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, since the allies did not want to increase germany, German lands of austria were denied the ability to join up their fellow Germans in Germany. After all, you can;t have the loosing state all of a sudden get bigger, now can't you? As for the Jews; jews maintained within thier communities the sense that they were exiles, but that self-definition had nothing to do with any sort of legal reality (you can't be an exile from a non-existent entity. Specially since Israel did not exist since 700 bc. The last jewish kingdom was Judea, not Israel)

[

The jews were exiled from a land - obviously they were not exiled from their state - if their state had continued to exist, they wouldnt have been exiled. The reality on the ground was that their state had been destroyed by the romans, of whom the byzantines were the heirs, the byzanitnes lost the land to the ummayad caliphate. the land subsequently changed hands among numerous islamic states, till 1918. Its true there was no jewish state in that period - ditto there was no palestinian state 1948 - 1992. Does that mean the Palestinian sense of national existence had no legal reality??? And your quibble about the name Judea and Israel is meaningless - both were heirs of the united monarchy, and in jewish self definition Israel is applied to the collectivity.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the league backed the zionist claim uner the very principle of self-determination, since this was the thrust of the zionist movement, to make the Jews like all other Europeans by giving them self-determination, which could only be done through giving them a state. Since the locals of palestine had no say whatsoever, well, too bad for them, no?

just as say the local germans had no say in the handing of Sudetenland to Czecho, or numerous other disputed cases. When 2 people both had a claim the allies and then the league had to decide. In the case of palestine they did NOT statehood in the entire land to the Jews - they merely called for a homeland IN Palestine - implicity allowing either for a united, binational state that allowed for free Jewish immigration, or for partition. The arabs rejected both.

[Az]

oh god, who gives a flying **** about the canaanites.

[GePap]

Let me make the point short and concise:

It is wonderful that jews have this connection to a secific piece of real-estate: it has helped them achieve what no other people of their area or time has, survival. But relgious sentiment is not a source of modern law, and neither is the bible.

The Zionists aim was to normalize Jews, by making them like everyone else, and since what made everyone else 'normal' was having a nationa state, jews needed a nation state of their own. Since the very religious of them clung to the levant, well, lets aim for there. Fine sentiment, and they really lucked out getting the support of the imperialist powers post WW1 to make thier dreams come true. But i put as much stock on imperial claims to the ME as I do imperial claims anywhere else in the world. Now, if you care to defend the actions of European empires, that is your perogative. Feel free to do so.

If you remember, my answer to Diss's question was no. israel exists today. The legality of its existence and the reality of t existence are based on 100 years of history, and have very little to do with the ancient kingdoms of Judea or the even more ancient kingdom of Israel.

[lord of the mark]

"So a bunch of Christian diplomats sitting in France backed the jewish claim to a piece of land inhabited by another people who were not at all represented at the meeting. What a great place to draw legitimacy from, no?"


LOTMAS for representation - you are anachronistically thinking of a "Palestinian" people in 1919. at the time there was no clear distinction between the inhabitants of what would become mandatory palestine and arabs in the rest of the levant. arabs in the region WERE represent, in the person of prince Faisal - his principle concern at the time was NOT arguing against the Jewish claim, but arguing FOR an arab kingdom that would include Syria. Denied this he launched a revolt and asked the Zionists for support - when they failed to give it, arab nationalism in the region turned against them.


As for legitimacy - i beleve the legitimacy ultimately derives from the history of the jews and their relationship to their land. Which was ratified by the league.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As for legitimacy - i beleve the legitimacy ultimately derives from the history of the jews and their relationship to their land. Which was ratified by the league.

The history? They took over a piece of land, had a kingdom on it. every so often an empire would roll along, conquer them, then after a few centuries they set up some new variation, while the big boys were in flux. Finally, they pissed of the biggest of them all so much, that power decided :enough of this, lets end it, and they did. Yet all that time, the people believed that land was eternally theirs (even if their God seemed to have a rather tense relatiuon with them).

Wow, what an uplifiting history.

As for what the League did: if you see legitimacy there, then you are in trouble, given how most the of the Leagues handiwork came out.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Let me make the point short and concise:

It is wonderful that jews have this connection to a secific piece of real-estate: it has helped them achieve what no other people of their area or time has, survival. But relgious sentiment is not a source of modern law, and neither is the bible.

LOTM - it was more than religious sentiment - it was national sentiment and national existence - and it was rooted in their actual history, not just in the bible.


The Zionists aim was to normalize Jews, by making them like everyone else, and since what made everyone else 'normal' was having a nationa state, jews needed a nation state of their own. Since the very religious of them clung to the levant, well, lets aim for there.

LOTM -In fact even the secular ones considered that they had a valid claim to Palestine. Some considered Uganda only as an emergency measure. You are attempting to rewrite Zionist history.


Fine sentiment, and they really lucked out getting the support of the imperialist powers post WW1 to make thier dreams come true. But i put as much stock on imperial claims to the ME as I do imperial claims anywhere else in the world. Now, if you care to defend the actions of European empires, that is your perogative. Feel free to do so.

LOTM - in ttis case the european empires enforced justice. they may have created Poland for strategic reasons, but Poland still had a right to exist.


If you remember, my answer to Diss's question was no. israel exists today. The legality of its existence and the reality of t existence are based on 100 years of history, and have very little to do with the ancient kingdoms of Judea or the even more ancient kingdom of Israel.

Ergo you acknowledge Israel had a right to exist within the 1948 ceasefire lines, a right which has existed since 1948? And you acknowledge that the arab states and the palestinians refused to recognize that state from 1948 to 1967, and engaged in acts of violence, including terrorism against civilians to destroy that state?? and therefore that Israel has a right to claim adjustments to the 1948 lines in order to rectify the security situation, as WELL as to reject a right of return of refugees that would violate her own self-determination.

Im sorry, the impression i got was that you thought israel had no right to challenge the 1948 lines, despite their historical insecurity (abba eban called them the "auschwitz lines") because even giving israel the pre-67 territory represented adequate compromise on the Pals part - ie israel had no RIGHT to existence apart from the Pals willingness to compromise.


This is in fact the claim made by many pals, and seems to be the basis for arafats rejection of the Taba compromise - this is in fact a very important current issue.