Palestinians

[lehighguy]

I actually advocate Isreal withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza on the political grounds that it is foolish for Isreal to try and hold on to them.

However, I don't think they have any moral obligation nor do I intend to judge them as others would do.

[FishHooks]

Haha, you better take a deep breath and just sit down, these kind of things don't happen often, for anyone.

[nicky g]

My understanding was that the Jews purchased most of the land that was part of Isreal proper according the the 1940s partition during the Zionist movement in the early 20th century. As such, it was really thier land since they bought it."

About 7% of Mandate Palestine land was Jewish-owned at the time of partition. Regardless, it's a ridiculous criterion to use for establishing a state. All of the Congo was owned by King Leoplold of Belgium, did that meant he had the right to expel the entire population? Almost all Irish land was English-owned in the 19th century; did they have the right to sell it to the highest bidder and let whoever that might be do what they want with the country?

Gaining

[lehighguy]

If we assume that whoever is living there has the right to establish a state then I don't see why the Israeli side of the partition (which was mostly Jewish to my knowledge though I could be wrong) should have been organized into a Jewish state, since it was mostly Jewish.

Had the surrounding Arab states not invaded then perhaps the Palestinians living there could have been incorporated into that state peacefully, espcially considering the Jews accepted the UN partition.. However, the invasions made this all impossible.

[nicky g]

I don't really see what that has to do with my post, which was about the absurdity of using land-ownership to decide who has the right to found a country somewhere. However, in response to what you wrote, I seem to remember that about half the population of what would have been the "Jewish" state under partition was Jewish, and half was Palestinian. (This would have changed of course as it was designated for Jews to emigrate to). However most of those were very recent emigrants that the longstanding population of the place would not have allowed in had they not been under the thumb of an imperialist power. Furthermore, the partition borders of the state were drawn specifically to manufacture a state with the largest possible Jewish population. Any borders drawn along previous administrative or natural boundaires would have given rise to a massive Arab majority. You could draw maps in areas of England and find that areas with Pakistani majorities exist, it doesn't mean a Pakistani state should be established there.

[nicky g]

Also you keep stating that "Arab invasions" were to blame for the Palestinians losing their homes. I don't agree with your take on hisotry but even if unjustified "Arab aggression" preceded the expulsions, would that justify them? Since when has states embarking on wars justified the mass ethnic cleansing of their citizens (or in the Palestinian case, their ethnic brothers or whatever?) WOuld it have been legitimate for all Iraqis to be shipped off to refugee camps and Iraq turned over to some other group following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Noone seriosuly defends Israel's invasion of Egypt in 1956 any more (one usually left of the list of the regional wars we're told all resulted from "Arab aggression"); did it give Egypt the right to throw Israelis out of their homes?

[lehighguy]

While I wouldn't, if I was a resident of Kuwait, support throwing Iraqis in refugee camps I won't as an outsider choose to judge them if they did so. They are the parties involved, and it's up to them how they conduct themselves. The decisions they make are ones they have to live with.

If a country engages in an unprovoked attack on another (say Iraq vs Kuwait) then I see moral justification for disaproving of anothers action (Iraq). However, if someone attacks another and they attempt to get revenge, I can't really judge them for doing so. That is not to say I would neccessarily do the same in thier shoes, but I think as a third party I don't have to right to tell someone they can't have thier revenge.

[nicky g]

Well, I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't, if I was a resident of Kuwait, support throwing Iraqis in refugee camps I won't as an outsider choose to judge them if they did so. They are the parties involved, and it's up to them how they conduct themselves. The decisions they make are ones they have to live with.

If a country engages in an unprovoked attack on another (say Iraq vs Kuwait) then I see moral justification for disaproving of anothers action (Iraq). However, if someone attacks another and they attempt to get revenge, I can't really judge them for doing so. That is not to say I would neccessarily do the same in thier shoes, but I think as a third party I don't have to right to tell someone they can't have thier revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As US citizens we are more than 3rd parties. In the past 30+ our government has given more money to Israel than any other country, and most of that money has gone to their military.

[Gamblor]

Threads like this are what make me thankful to have Israel and even more thankful that it has taken the general policy direction it has.

In Israel, we don't have to worry about how other people perceive us, we don't have to behave meekly so some people get angry and elect a government that decides they want us dead again.

Here, we are free. Don't bother us, we won't bother you.