Israel and it's existence. (Disturbing Essay Episode #4)

Dear ATSers,

This "disturbing essay" falls under the category of facts I didn't know and which has forced me to modify my opinions. I had never paid much attention to the vigorous verbal battles here on ATS concerning this subject. I had taken the position that it didn't really matter, Israel was here and we had to deal with it. I thought the past was pretty much irrelevant except to provide ammunition for a "Well, you did it first" battle.

The author addresses Israel's right to exist, then deals with some related questions. I'll be happy if people take this as information, perhaps even the start of passionate discussion, but please, don't let this slip into a Mid-East war on ATS. Thanks.

If Israel has no right to exist, what is America's right to exist?

Both countries give the same answer: refugees and settlers from around the world came to our land and built up a nation over more than a century, making major sacrifices in blood and toil to establish a new nation based on shared ideas rather than long-time indigenous residence. If anything, Israel's claim to legitimacy is MUCH stronger than the US claim for three reasons:

1) No one claims that the Brits (and others) who settled North America were coming back to an ancestral homeland.

2) No international organization ever recognized their right to that homeland, as the League of Nations did for Israel in 1923 and the United Nations did in 1947.

3) No one can possibly claim that Israeli settlement caused a demographic disaster for the native population since the PALESTINIAN population of the country is more than 50 times greater than it was when Jewish return began in earnest in the 1880's.

1) If Palestine was the ancient homeland of an ancient people with their own strong sense of national identity, can anyone name, please, the most famous Palestinians produced in those centuries and millennia of history? Who was the most celebrated of all in the long line of Palestinian kings, or viceroys, or prime ministers? The inability to answer that question doesn't testify to a lack of ability or brilliance: it testifies to the synthetic, phony nature of "Palestinian" identity. There were no remarkable or brilliant kings of Palestine because there were no kings of Palestine at all—no Arab nation every existed in this area, only ill-defined pieces of various Islamic, Turkic, Byzantine and Roman empires over the course of 2,000 years. The only time any national identity existed centered on this particular piece of real estate, that national identity was Jewish: .. . No "Palestinian" Arab nationalism ever existed, as distinct from Pan-Arabism, until Yasser Arafat (born in Egypt, raised in Kuwait) invented it out of whole cloth after the June war of 1967.

townhall.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

I appreciate the effort, but chances are this will leave no more than a faint tick on the mindset of the people who read this.

It's true that Palestine - a political entity - never really existed. It's also true that Palestinians, an ethnicity, or nationality, never existed. These are incontrovertible facts. But, the "Palestinian" is a reality today. True, he may be no more ethnically unique from his fellow Arabs than the Canadian is from the American, but, still, don't Canadians want to be Canadians? And don't Americans want to be Americans?

Nation states make far more sense when their based upon actual linguistic, ethnic, cultural and religious differences. The Jews have always qualified in this sense: they are as unique as Arabs are unique, as Armenians are unique, as Turks are unique. But, being the political outcasts that they have been accustomed to being, we've become inured to this status quo situation - a sort of shifting baseline syndrome without the shifting part. Jews have been in this condition for so long, that some people feel confident to say: That's the Romans fault or the Christians fault, or the Muslims fault. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, the people who wrote up the the 1947 partition plan, took these arguments into account. Jews said: ancient evils can only be rectified by people living today. Just because the Romans and medieval Christians aren't around, that doesn't exculpate us from our responsibility. We have the power to correct an ancient blight - to restore this people to a state of dignity, which all other nations have had the fortune to enjoy. Most of the authors of the partition plan accepted this argument, to a degree. On the other hand, there was an existing people in Palestine. Islam had cemented itself - albeit, rather phlegmatically - in the holy land of Jews and Christians. They stuck their stick in the soil and called it "Dar Al Islam", an inviolable land belonging to Islam.

So, my position is this. Religion needs to be kept as far away as possible from this argument. We need a common starting point, and that baseline is humanism. We have two people making absolute claims to a single, miniscule plot of land. The Jews have a historical claim to it - in the long term, which can be justified archeologically, culturally, linguistically, and, for good measure, religiously. The Palestinians were the short term occupants of the land. Short term here means a few hundred years to a few months. In any case, the Palestinians, through clever politicizing (thanks to thinkers like Musa Alami, who petitioned his fellow Arabs to create a myth of a Palestinian nationality in order to make an effective counterclaim against the Zionists) have in fact created a Palestinian identity. I know this. I know Palestinians, they absolutely believe in the legitimacy of their national identity. It may be stubborn, borne from reaction rather than noble ideology (such as the American independence from Great Britain) but they believe it.

The only practicable solution, and still marginally moral, is to divide the land. But, the situation as we know if exceedingly complicated. Israel doubts the sincerity of the Arabs, and the Arabs seem to be biding their time to deal with Israel. Ideally, western culture and civilization will so permeate the Arab world that a utilitarian solution will seem to be the only rational one. The seething fundamentalist chauvinism of the Arabs will die down, and Israel, and it's Arab neighbors, will finally live in peace.

If Israel has no right to exist, what is America's right to exist?

I do not dispute that israel has a right to exist, I just wish they could try it by themselves.
While the USA was murdering a path across the North American continent, we did so with our own cash and weaponry, there were losses on both sides.
The israeli terrorists just uses US bombs and cash to clear their ever expanding borders.
Why can we not give equal cash and bombs to both sides or none at all?
I guess the real problem is, alot of Americans are brainwashed by a fairy story that says the israeli terrorist is Ze Master Race...

Nice propaganda piece OP...

reply to post by Astrocyte

Dear Astrocyte,

Very nice work, thanks for the thoughtful and thorough post.

As I might have mentioned, this thread was started because it was new to me and I thought it had useful information. I'm not sure I'm trying to convince anyone, but I'm beginning to feel confident that the "Israel has no right to exist" crowd hasn't proven it's case.

I suppose there is little or no chance of persuading some Arab countries or groups that Israel should be recognized? I understand that is something they have been trying for for decades. If migration of the Palestinians to the surrounding states is not acceptable, and all recent history indicates that no Arab country wants them, then the two state solution looks attractive.

But I wonder, is that a permanent solution? What prevents this situation recurring five or ten years from now? As you say, Israel doubts the sincerity of the Arabs. What piece of paper can overcome those doubts?

Perhaps we can wait for Western Civilization to penetrate the Arab culture, but that is being resisted staunchly. (Proving once again, "Sticks and Stones may break my bones . . .") When will nuclear weapons arrive? Before or after they're Westernized? And is even that sufficient? The Russians may be considered to be Westernized in many respects, that doesn't mean we're friends.

I really appreciate your optimism. I hope it happens that way.

With respect,
Charles1952

We can try and justify apartheid, war, cultural genocide and open aired prisons all we want. I suppose it makes some people feel better about their inability to change the circumstances in those people's lives.

I put the blame at the feet of the people who have kept it lucrative to have an ongoing political and military conflict within Israel/Palestine. Much like I blame those people who use my country as their personal, globalist playground, without regards to my wants or needs.

I don't care what kind of weird, double think logic any paper uses in it's attempt to make one's bloody hand seem cleaner than another's.

If we want these sort of atrocities and nonsense political stalemates to vanish, were gonna have to change the tone of the conversation quite dramatically.

~Tenth

reply to post by g146541

Dear g146541,

I think you're right to believe Israel has a right to exist, but aren't there powerful forces in the Middle-East which disagree with you?

I just wish they could try it by themselves.
While the USA was murdering a path across the North American continent, we did so with our own cash and weaponry, there were losses on both sides.

If I understood the article correctly, Israel won it's Independence war and the '67 war in the face of American blockades and unwillingness to help Israel. I suspect there were losses on both sides there, as well.

The israeli terrorists just uses US bombs and cash to clear their ever expanding borders.

And here I thought it was bulldozers.

Why can we not give equal cash and bombs to both sides or none at all?

I bet Obama is being asked the same thing about Syria right now. Besides, who's the other side? All of the Arab nations surrounding or near Israel? Is it Israel versus the entire Middle-East? That's a reason right there. But seriously, why? I don't know Washington's thinking, but I suspect America prefers Israel to survive, rather than be destroyed. The Arab nations have much larger populations and more resources. To defend against that requires technology.

I guess the real problem is, alot of Americans are brainwashed by a fairy story that says the israeli terrorist is Ze Master Race...

Aw, come on, was that really called for? Let's keep it clean.

Nice propaganda piece OP...

Because I'm looking for new and correct information, would you be so kind as to point out the factual errors in the essay? Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Here's a few Kvetches I have.

a) The use of the term apartheid has been shown to be not only inaccurate, but in effect, calumnious. It's simply sloppy thinking to use that term. Compare the conditions in South Africa to Israel, and how many intersections will you find? Please. This is a challenge. If you're so confident that their is justice in using this term, do the right thing, and establish for the rest of us how that is. Otherwise, you're simply trying to demonize Israel without good reason.

b) Ultimately, the only viable solution to this problem is a two state solution. When I use the word viable, there are two conditions involved: 1) that it be moral and fair 2) that it be sustainable.

If your solution involve kicking the 6 million plus Jews who live in Israel out - wowzers - you sure do have a twisted sense of morality. It wasn't right for the Zionists to buy land (which people insist they stole) and win land through armed conflict (which they didn't initiate) - which, granted, led to the expulsion of a few hundred thousand Palestinians from parts of Palestine. If this isn't right - dislocating people who've established themselves, than it is similarly indefensible to forcibly remove 6 million Jews who have not only been living in Israel for over 60 years, but have established a bustling, thriving and technologically advanced society - something Palestinians could definitely learn from.

Condition number two, that it be sustainable, is more complicated. In my mind, the main impediment to a state solution is Palestinian (and Arab) prevarication. Just last week members of the presidents council in Egypt acknowledge - matter of factly - that America and Israel were the Arabs sworn enemies. This is patently unacceptable, not merely to Israelis, but to westerners, and even easterners. Their logic is obviously rooted in their knuckleheaded religious fundamentalism. Thus, condition number 2 requires further secularization. Until the utilitarian alternative becomes feasible, a sustainable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be impossible.

The jews lived in Palestine and throughout the Arab world for thousands of years, problems arose only when the Ottoman Empire fell and Britian/France divided the Middle East, then Britiain begun creating tensions by planting division and bringing foreigners and agents in the region. Later Europe would throw her problems into Palestine by creating a home for the jews, except it (israel) had nothing to do with the jews, It was a European/Russian colony. Later nationalism would rise and the gullible Arabs would kick all the jews and send them to Israel/Palestine, now it is an Arab-Jewish problem.

Palestine could have supported all the Arabs and Jews living there, and it could have supported more as it could support more people now. But its too late in the game to fix it, the Brits planted the poison.

reply to post by charles1952

I suppose there is little or no chance of persuading some Arab countries or groups that Israel should be recognized?

There is a chance - it's just that the culture and political climate needs to change.

Take the west for example. We generally operate along utilitarian and humanistic principles. We want to do the right things with the little damage possible. As soon as the Arabs can start thinking this way - the bull$hit doctrine of Dar Al Islam/Dar Al Harb can be thrown into the trashbin of history where it belongs; God of course can (and in my opinion, should) stay, but the ridiculously unrealistic and dangerous ideas of manifest destiny need to be forgotten.

But I wonder, is that a permanent solution? What prevents this situation recurring five or ten years from now? As you say, Israel doubts the sincerity of the Arabs. What piece of paper can overcome those doubts?

Anyone with a brain understands cultural change underpins political change. Without an electorate that wants peace - there will never be peace. So long as chauvinistic notions like "we are Arabs!" and "We are Muslims!" supersedes "We are humans", the Arab world will continue to lag behind the west, and make the world an unstable place.

I've seen these changes myself. Arabs with truly humanistic tendencies seem sincere about their willingness to live peaceably with Israel - not just peaceably, but amicably, to actually strengthen ties between Arabs and Jews.

It is these cultish and tribalistic rumblings - emanating mostly from fundamentalist Muslims - who make Israel squeamish about actually moving out of the westbank and helping to establish a Palestinian state.

I can promise you, Israel will never be so stupid as to commit another Gush Katif. The Jews uprooted communities in Gaza only to have those same areas be used as launching pads for Hamas. The Israelis are FAR from stupid. They're probably multiple steps ahead of the Arabs in contingency plans. If the Arabs do this, we do that. If the status quo doesn't change, neither will we. This issue could very well stay the same 30 years from now. I wouldn't be surprised that Israel is waiting for a whole new generation of Arabs to arise before the Arab mentality shifts in a more westerly direction. When that happens, Israel will have reason to trust them. Because the Arab nervous system - conditioned by utilitarian, democratic and humanistic rhetoric - will have made the possibility of long term peace a sustainable solution.

reply to post by Astrocyte

Dear Astrocyte,

Am I correct in assuming that your reply which begins:

Here's a few Kvetches I have.

a) The use of the term apartheid has been shown to be not only inaccurate, but in effect, calumnious. It's simply sloppy thinking to use that term. Compare the conditions in South Africa to Israel, and how many intersections will you find? Please. This is a challenge. If you're so confident that their is justice in using this term, do the right thing, and establish for the rest of us how that is. Otherwise, you're simply trying to demonize Israel without good reason.

was meant for tothetenthpower, and not for me? I agree with your Kvetches and the conclusions you draw from them.

If we are to find an acceptable solution, it will not be built on loaded, accusatory terms. Neither will it be a vague hope in distant negotiations, conducted as a simple continuation of the sniping and attacks now the province of the military.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Astrocyte

Dear Astrocyte,

Thank you for your insights of the situation. You make a long lasting peace based on demographic change seem possible.

For that to happen I think we need an atmosphere of at least reasonable stability in the region. The US role should be to encourage and support that stability. I hope it does not seem disloyal to my country that I believe that our president has done nearly everything possible to destabilize the region. Even Bush was more respected on the Arab street than Obama is.

Forgive the superstitious outlook, but it seems that God and Satan have chosen that little corner of the world to have their free-for-all wrestling match in.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I hope it does not seem disloyal to my country that I believe that our president has done nearly everything possible to destabilize the region. Even Bush was more respected on the Arab street than Obama is.

I'd disagree.

Although Arabs will continue to believe that any President who maintains any relationship with Israel is two faced, there are some aspects of Obama's policy which may make long term sense.

It's true - diplomatically, the Obama administration has slighted Israel left, right and center. But look again: has there really been any effective change in the American/Israeli relationship? By my count, they still hold war games together, Israel still receives military aid packages, Mossad and the CIA still share information, Unit 8200 still works closely with the NSA. I'm not seeing much of a substantial break.

If anything, to be honest, it seems like the Obama administration is going for the semblance of change. At least, that's what appears to be the case from my point of view.

As for the long term sense. Let me clarify. The Obama administration took a chance: maybe changing HOW we TALK about Israel would improve relations with Arab countries. But it appears Arabs are a little smarter than that. Like most humans, they pay attention to action, policy, more than they do political rhetoric. I think the cat has been let out of the bag. The policy is not exactly perfect, but I don't see it as necessarily worse than that cultivated by the Bush administration.

Even then, there's always this looming fear that the Obama administration would be so stupid as to pull out from Israel, which, of course, would be paramount in it's stupidity. Also, keep in mind how much American INVESTMENT there is in Israel. IBM, Google, Microsoft - three major silicon valley corporations, have important divisions headquartered in Israel. Do you think Obama can just "forget" about what these corporate heads think? Not likely.

This policy is therefore all smoke and mirrors. The perception of a changed relationship is what they're aiming for, rather than actual change. Let me clarify further why business interests will always dictate politics. Israelis, UNLIKE Egyptians, and most other Arabs, are extremely self sufficient, creative and innovative people. Until Arabs can show themselves to be as tech savvy, forward thinking and progressive as Israelis, again, American relations wont change. As I argued earlier, culture underpins politics. It is far more lucrative for America to sustain a strong relationship with Israel than to just break ties to appease a rather backward thinking civilization.

reply to post by charles1952

If Israel has no right to exist, what is America's right to exist?

No nation has a right to exist they have a right to defend themselves but as far as existing then no.

1) No one claims that the Brits (and others) who settled North America were coming back to an ancestral homeland.

No one has the right to any land just because it belonged to their ancestors centuries ago. If everyone did this then no one would have a place to live.

2) No international organization ever recognized their right to that homeland, as the League of Nations did for Israel in 1923 and the United Nations did in 1947.

Yes they stole someone else's land because the Zionist were saying they needed a place for their religion. Which is ironic seeing how the founders were atheist.

3) No one can possibly claim that Israeli settlement caused a demographic disaster for the native population since the PALESTINIAN population of the country is more than 50 times greater than it was when Jewish return began in earnest in the 1880's.

Forcing the people the ones that they didn't kill that is off of land that have been in their families for centuries is not a demographic disaster? Yeah ok

1) If Palestine was the ancient homeland of an ancient people with their own strong sense of national identity, can anyone name, please, the most famous Palestinians produced in those centuries and millennia of history?

Ever hear of someone named Jesus you've heard of him skinny dude who hung out with his homies? He was born in what is current day Palestine.

Who was the most celebrated of all in the long line of Palestinian kings, or viceroys, or prime ministers?

Well there is one that comes to mind Herod the Great.

The only time any national identity existed centered on this particular piece of real estate,that national identity was Jewish: .. . No "Palestinian" Arab nationalism ever existed, as distinct from Pan-Arabism, until Yasser Arafat (born in Egypt, raised in Kuwait) invented it out of whole cloth after the June war of 1967.

Funny passports can be found from Palestine long before 1967. How is this possible if Palestine didn't exist then?

Originally posted by buster2010

Ever hear of someone named Jesus you've heard of him skinny dude who hung out with his homies? He was born in what is current day Palestine.

Jesus of Galilee

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Bethlehem

Jewish Palestine, under Roman Rule.


Now, if you would have called him a Philistine I would have really lost it ..........



Israel exists, regardless if there are those that don't want it to.

No one has the right to any land just because it belonged to their ancestors centuries ago. If everyone did this then no one would have a place to live.

Is that right"?

That does work both ways especially if one interjects some history into the conversation instead of neocon opinions..





The entire Isreal/Palenstine 'conflict' is about land/ and religion but not what most people think.

It is about the complete arab/muslim domination because 'their the only people who belong in the middle east'.

And that little dance has repeated for over 2000 years.

Blah.

reply to post by sonnny1


Did you know that Arafat was not even Palestinian?

Like most if not all Palestinian would be' champions' who don't even live there.

I don't respect anyone of them especially the fact they turn to former conquerors like Egypt, and Iran for military support and money.

They are all hyopcrites.

reply to post by neo96


This sums it up........

"There is irrefutable statistical proof which shows that from 1933 through 1942, 90 percent of all Arab land sale transactions to Jewish purchasers were made by owners of areas of less than 100 dunams. In one sub-district in the hill regions of Palestine, an estimated 30 percent of the land was transferred from Arab small property owners to Arab capitalists and then to Jewish buyers. So widespread was the alienation of land by Arab small property owners that, on the eve of the 1936 disturbances and general strike, the Palestine administration sought to arrest small sales."4

Did the Arabs Dispossess Palestinian Arabs?


Hypocrites indeed.

reply to post by sonnny1


Sorry Arafat was born in Cairo to Palestinain parents my bad.

So he was born in a country that conquerored Palestine.

Still hyocrites.

reply to post by Astrocyte

SORRY. POWER OUTAGE TOOK OUT MY BLOCK. I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED SOONER.

Dear Astrocyte,

Very good, I think I agree with your disagreement. Especially in certain areas.

But look again: has there really been any effective change in the American/Israeli relationship? By my count, they still hold war games together, Israel still receives military aid packages, Mossad and the CIA still share information, Unit 8200 still works closely with the NSA. I'm not seeing much of a substantial break.

Nor am I. What I do see is changes in rhetoric towards Israel, not material change. But how much does the change in rhetoric affect the people and policy makers of the Arab world? What effect has the episode of Obama's "Red line" had on American credibility and influence in the region? While I don't know, I suspect it renders us less of a factor in Arab calculations.

I think something similar happened due to our lack of support for Iran's revolution in 2009. It seemed we would support it, but when the time came, we let the opportunity pass. Afghanistan was declared by candidate Obama to be thr "good war," the one we should be fighting. Doesn't his withdrawl after failure, further reduce our influence?

In summary, I think I'm in full agreement with your statement:

The Obama administration took a chance: maybe changing HOW we TALK about Israel would improve relations with Arab countries. But it appears Arabs are a little smarter than that. Like most humans, they pay attention to action, policy, more than they do political rhetoric. I think the cat has been let out of the bag. The policy is not exactly perfect, but I don't see it as necessarily worse than that cultivated by the Bush administration.

I also agree with you that:

The perception of a changed relationship is what they're aiming for, rather than actual change.

But, certainly they must be aiming for that perception in the minds of the Arab states. Who else could it be aimed at?

My fear is based on that changed perception. I suspect that those countries may believe that dictatorial actions within their countries, and increased "attacks" on Israel, will become lest costly in their opinions.

reply to post by charles1952


The Jewish people ( People claiming to be tribe of Judah) who are laying claim to the land of Palestine as their and only their homeland have yet to fully appreciate the fact that if even their ancestral claim to tribal legitimacy is rue, they are STILL only ONE tribe of 12 tribes that were and are " the Israelites" and as such, they have *no* sole voice of authority among the Israelite people and no singular legitimate authority or authoritative right to LAY claim to any of the land area they currently occupy under their military and political hegemony. None at all...they do because they can, because they use fear, and "we" let them do it.

Whats more, dig and really research the history of the tribe of Judah and then you will see for yourself the difference between that tribe and the Jews calling themselves Israelis of today - a group that began only after the first diaspora, that came to monotheistic formation much later than these people want you to think, that were derived from a group of outcast people living in northern Cannan that were a polytheistic pagan community consisting of many nationalities and sub tribes when Abraham arrived from his journey through Met - himself only just having had a run in with the Yah people there and a 'holy' experience of their God head - Yahweh. These " first Jews" consisted of Canaanites, Hebrews and other splinter groups, many of whom had been expelled from their own tribes and denied communion with other tribes BY the tribe of Judah and other Israelite tribes long before Roman occupation turfed the lot out.
This rag tag group that has become " The Jews" we know today, was joined later by others of the tribe of Judah and other Israelite tribes who were able to escape their Babylonian exile.

Not everything is as it is written for you to digest, in fact very little is and the author of the essay is ignorant of many historical and current facts regarding The Jews settlement under the name of Israel ( Itself insulting) its occupation of the Semitic tribal lands ( by force and according to the Torah, against the will of God) Not to mention..he ignores that ALL life was created by God and so has a right to exist in peace under God and the rest is political egotistical bullsh*t that has cost millions of lives and is essentially a case of "he who runs the shell game best" wins.....

Its all a big con job dinner show..and people merrily plod along to the tune of those who scream or rant the loudest...so if you choose..continue! Good luck with that.






Rosha