Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Israel asks Spain not to back Palestine at UN


BackFromTheDead

Recommended Posts

The question here is "Why"?

Israel on Thursday requested that Spain abstain from supporting the unilateral initiative of the Palestinian state in the UN for official recognition by the global overseer as an independent nation.

To be honest there is no doubt thatthe USA will attempt to veto the birth of an independendent nation anyway.

The question itself goes much deeper, why should any member of the Security Council be given such sweeping powers in a world where the permanent members have little influence, and even less respect. Should the whole system of veto be rescinded?

Link to editorial

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • questionmark

    18

  • Blackwhite

    12

  • Wyvernkeeper

    12

  • ExpandMyMind

    11

Can't let those Palestinians have a state of their own now can we? It'd make killing them a lot more difficult. Israel would like to commit an easy genocide of the Palestinian people, statehood would put a major block in their aspirations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking News:

I have just heard on the TV that Spain's current Govt, and Govt in waiting (pending November's General Election), have totally rejected Israel's request.

Looks like the USA will once again isolate itself from the rest of the world, and hopefully this will force a review of the UN Charter to remove any single nation from holding a veto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking News:

I have just heard on the TV that Spain's current Govt, and Govt in waiting (pending November's General Election), have totally rejected Israel's request.

Looks like the USA will once again isolate itself from the rest of the world, and hopefully this will force a review of the UN Charter to remove any single nation from holding a veto.

The US poodle (Britain) will follow...and naturally lil Guido (Germany's foreign minister) will....

Won't make them any friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US poodle (Britain) will follow...and naturally lil Guido (Germany's foreign minister) will....

Won't make them any friends.

Probably right Q! But I have heard some encouraging rumours that maybe the UK will go the opposite way, or abstain in the vote.

aside: how was the Olive crop this year?

Edited by BackFromTheDead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with that one. Spain have been one of the most outspoken and critical nations in the World when it comes to the Occupied Territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Israel, the only democracy in that area. The Jews - almost all of whom are descended from the Jews who once lived in that region before Islam was founded - were there first.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Israel, the only democracy in that area. The Jews - almost all of whom are descended from the Jews who once lived in that region before Islam was founded - were there first.

Move your butt out of Britain and back to the Slaw steppe, the Celts were there first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Move your butt out of Britain and back to the Slaw steppe, the Celts were there first.

No. Why should we?

I think you'll also find that the Jews never left what is now Israel. They've always been there (well, since the time of Joshua), unlike the Anglo-Saxons in Britain.

Not only that but Jews, unlike other religions, are actually one ethnic group and almost all of them can trace their ancestry back to the land which is now Israel.

20th Century Jews kicking out Muslims in Muslim-only land is a complete and utter myth. The Jews were there before the Muslims and have NEVER left the area since Judaism was founded.

I'm with the Israelis on this one and hope my government is, too.

A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large Jewish communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.

Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Why should we?

I think you'll also find that the Jews never left what is now Israel. They've always been there, unlike the Anglo-Saxons in Britain.

Quite wrong, in the first century all of Galilee and Judah had no more Jews left as the Romans banned them. In fact it took until about 360 A.D. when Emperor Julian ordered the Temple reconstructed to undemine Christianity there was not a single Jew there. It failed, the area kept on being Christian (mostly Aramaic, Coptic and Syrian Orthodox) until the 6th century when they were displaced by Muslims and with the Muslims Jews returned, albeit in small numbers, to Holy Land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Israel, the only democracy in that area. The Jews - almost all of whom are descended from the Jews who once lived in that region before Islam was founded - were there first.

No they were not. Also, Palestinians are not only moslems. Moslems do not consider themself as a nation unlike Jews.

Maybe we all should leave the place we live in now because there was always someone else before us?

I support both, a state of Israel and a Palestinian state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Israel, the only democracy in that area. The Jews - almost all of whom are descended from the Jews who once lived in that region before Islam was founded - were there first.

Eh, Turkey? Pakistan? And *cough* Iraq along with *cough*-*cough* Afghanistan...

The Jews, as far as I'm aware, spent more time in Babylon (Iraq), are you suggesting the also have a right to those lands? And they were from Egypt before Palestine also, so they now also have a right to Egypt, right?

The logic that people try to employ regarding this topic is way past flawed. "The Scottish - almost all of whom are descended from the people who once lived in Ireland..." Yey, let's all claim our rights to Ireland!

"The <insert old British colony here>, almost all of whom are descended from..."

Not only that but Jews, unlike other religions, are actually one ethnic group and almost all of them can trace their ancestry back to the land which is now Israel.

Not quite right:

Biologist Robert Pollack stated in 2003 that one cannot determine the biological "Jewishness" of an individual because "there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews".

http://www.forward.com/articles/9406/

Not quite wrong either mind you...

Edited by expandmymind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite wrong either mind you...

Sorry to say, but the race of the Jews is an invention of NS biologists. It has never and will never exist. From the beginning of traceable history the Jews have always been a heteroracial conglomerate kept together by a single faith (well, lets say by a multitude of sects) based on Torah and Talmud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to say, but the race of the Jews is an invention of NS biologists. It has never and will never exist. From the beginning of traceable history the Jews have always been a heteroracial conglomerate kept together by a single faith (well, lets say by a multitude of sects) based on Torah and Talmud.

Well see, this is the thing, most races became races through tens of thousands of years (if not more) of interbreeding, but Judiasm has only been around for a few thousand. Maybe after 10, 20 or 30 thousand years of interbreeding they could be defined as such? But after only a few? I'm not sure to be honest.

Edited by expandmymind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that but Jews, unlike other religions, are actually one ethnic group and almost all of them can trace their ancestry back to the land which is now Israel.

What a complete load of BS!!

Anyone can become a Jew, you simply convert (why? is another question of course), If I were to convert to the cult of Judaism does that make me an Ethnic Jew with genetics and ancestry to match??? :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well see, this is the thing, most races became races through tens of thousands of years (if not more) of interbreeding, but Judiasm has only been around for a few thousand. Maybe after 10, 20 or 30 thousand years of interbreeding they could be defined as such? But after only a few? I'm not sure to be honest.

Not unless they themselves would be open to a little more interracial relationships. It is as likely that a European Jew marries an African Jew as an American White marrying an American Black (yes happens but far from the rule)

edit: Typo

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Israel, the only democracy in that area. The Jews - almost all of whom are descended from the Jews who once lived in that region before Islam was founded - were there first.

I agree!

And I like your only fools and horses avatar!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree!

And I like your only fools and horses avatar!

:rolleyes:

With which part?

And why the rolling eyes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite wrong, in the first century all of Galilee and Judah had no more Jews left as the Romans banned them. In fact it took until about 360 A.D. when Emperor Julian ordered the Temple reconstructed to undemine Christianity there was not a single Jew there. It failed, the area kept on being Christian (mostly Aramaic, Coptic and Syrian Orthodox) until the 6th century when they were displaced by Muslims and with the Muslims Jews returned, albeit in small numbers, to Holy Land.

What a load of spurious conjecture.... This is a common meme thrown out by people in an attempt to delegitimise Jewish claims to Israel. I have heard the same argument used by people who wish to suggest that Israel would be better off governed by a restored modern Pan-Arab Caliphate, (not that I am suggesting that you are saying this.) However, a little research would have shown you that Jews were only forbidden to enter Jerusalem (and even so were able to return each year on Tisha'ba'av.) Jewish communities remained in the region throughout Roman rule, there were many schools and academies which actually flourished following the destruction of the Temple. New ones emerged and filled the vacuum of the vanished Jerusalemite authorities. In fact, the entirety of Rabbinical Judaism (which is Judaism as we know it today originates in this period.) You might be interested to read about Johanan Ben Zakkai who founded the school of Jabneh fairly soon after the trouble with Rome. The link is provided below and includes just part of the history of continuing Jewish practice within Palestine in the centuries after the war with Rome.

'In the fertile ground of the Jabneh Academy the roots of the literature of tradition—Midrash and Mishnah, Talmud and Haggadah—were nourished and strengthened. There, too, the way was paved for a systematic treatment of Halakah and exegesis. In Jabneh were held the decisive debates upon the canonicity of certain Biblical books; there the prayer-liturgy received its permanent form; and there, probably, was edited the Targum on the Pentateuch, which became the foundation for the later Targum called after Onkelos. It was Jabneh that inspired and sanctioned the new Greek version of the Bible—that of Akylas (Aquila). The events that preceded and followed the great civil revolution under Bar Kokba (from the year 117 to about 140) resulted in the decay and death of the school at Jabneh. According to tradition (R. H. 31b), the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh to Usha, from Usha back to Jabneh, and a second time from Jabneh to Usha. This final settlement in Usha indicates the ultimate spiritual supremacy of Galilee over Judea, the latter having become depopulated by the war of Hadrian. Usha remained for a long time the seat of the academy; its importance being due to the pupils of Akiba, one of whom, Judah ben Ilai, had his home in Usha. Here was undertaken the great work of the restoration of Palestinian Judaism after its disintegration under Hadrian. The study of the Law flourished anew; and Simon, a son of Gamaliel, was invested with the rank that had been his father's in Jabneh. With him the rank of patriarch became hereditary in the house of Hillel, and the seat of the academy was made identical with that of the patriarch' http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=711&letter=A&search=Academy%20of%20Jabneh

This is part of a review of a book by Schlomo Sand, who believes a similiar idea to yourself.

'Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70. Yet while the destruction of Jerusalem and Second Temple by the Romans did not create the Diaspora, it caused a momentous change in the Jews’ sense of themselves and their position in the world. For later generations it encapsulates the essential truth about the Jews being an exiled and persecuted people for much of their history.

Professor Sand accuses Zionist historians from the 19th century onward — the very same scholars on whose work he bases his case — of hiding the truth and creating a myth of shared roots to strengthen their nationalist agenda. He explains that he has uncovered no new information, but has “organized the knowledge differently.” In other words, he is doing precisely what he accuses the Zionists of — shaping the material to fit a narrative.

In that sense, Professor Sand is operating within a long established tradition. As “The Illustrated History of the Jewish People,” edited by Nicholas Lange (Harcourt, 1997), notes, “Every generation of Jewish historians has faced the same task: to retell and adapt the story to meet the needs of its own situation.” The same could be said of all nations and religions.

Perhaps that is why — on both sides of the argument — some myths stubbornly persist no matter how often they are debunked while other indubitable facts continually fail to gain traction.' http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/books/24jews.html?pagewanted=2

If it suits you to believe that the Jews have no historical lineage in Israel, then you won't believe the history/ archaeology etc, all of which is easy to access and study.

Sorry to say, but the race of the Jews is an invention of NS biologists. It has never and will never exist. From the beginning of traceable history the Jews have always been a heteroracial conglomerate kept together by a single faith (well, lets say by a multitude of sects) based on Torah and Talmud.

For the most part I agree with you, at least that Jews are a 'heteroracial conglomerate,' but this is no 'invention,' however it is more complex than you assert and Judaism does have a racial element and genetic mutations have been identified within Jewish populations. There are genetic characteristics that display themselves predominately in Jewish populations and as such contest your assertions, Tay-Sachs disease for instance, which is more common amongst ashkenazi Jews than the non Jewish population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Impact_on_Jewish_communities

Most Jews I know would probably say the grouping is more akin to a tribe than a race or just a religion. It is a shared culture that emerges from a group of people who have shared the same historical experiences, often married one another and often been isolated from surrounding populations by choice, stigma or prejudice. There is no better adhesive for a people than trauma, and the persecution of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years has bound them from different schools and traditions into a common people. (In fact, this is rather similiar to the resurgent Palestinian nationalism since the onset of the Israeli occupation.)

Unfortunately it has never been for Jews to decide whether they are a race/ religion/ culture or whatever. It has always been more of an obsession for non-Jews to classify and segregate. Hitler made grave efforts to discern who was and was not Jewish, according to him a Jew was somebody with a Jewish grandparent regardless of whether the person practiced the religion or not. Likewise after the revolt against the Romans, the authorities levied a tax on all Jews, (whether inside or outside the destroyed Judea.) It was the Romans who decided what Jewish affiliation was and initiated the link between diasporic Jews and those in Israel/Judea.

Similiarly, Israel is a direct product of the Holocaust and has defined a new interpretation of Jewish identity, based on a once left-wing Zionism and the pioneer spirit. It is entirely expected that a new form of criticism would emerge that would attempt to undermine the links between historical Jews, modern Jews and the land of Israel. But to those who attempt to say that Jew's are not Jew's for this or that reason, I would suggest again that it does not matter to Jews what non-Jews define us as and often just shows up the individuals ignorance about history.

I would also add (before I am accused) that I am not a defiant Israeli hell-bent on decimation of the Palestinian population. I support a two state solution and an end to the occupation and have written for UK Jewish publications in support of that cause. I just get fed up forever reading nonsense spouted on this forum by people who seem to think they have an expert opinion on Judaism and Jewish history and talk with apparent authority. They are almost as bad as those who know nothing but are quite ready to add their ill-informed two cents worth. (I hope nobody takes this personally, it happens a LOT on the internetz!!!.)

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of spurious conjecture.... This is a common meme thrown out by people in an attempt to delegitimise Jewish claims to Israel.

Just for the record, I've never questioned Jewish claims to Israel - in the context that the claims are often put forward. I just think it a bit silly that when we apply the same logic, African Americans also have a claim to whichever part of Africa they may want. South Americans to Spain, Italy, etc. Australians to Britain... See where this sort of logic leads us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I've never questioned Jewish claims to Israel - in the context that the claims are often put forward. I just think it a bit silly that when we apply the same logic, African Americans also have a claim to whichever part of Africa they may want. South Americans to Spain, Italy, etc. Australians to Britain... See where this sort of logic leads us?

It wasn't directed towards you Expand... I promise I wasn't having a go.

But I completely agree that it is about context. The specifics about the establishment of Israel in this regard mostly come down to the tragedy of the Holocaust. Bearing in mind that a third of world Jewry (at least) was killed by the Nazi's, Jews were faced with an existential crisis and it is understandable that there was a renewed push for Jewish self-determination by survivors in the following years. It was the final push in a movement that had been resurging since before the 1880's. I agree that African-Americans who went through a similiar trauma in the years of slavery had a bad deal afterwards and I see the problem with the logic that you point out. However, it remains that a people who had just lost 6-7 million of their number at the hands of Europeans made a decided effort to get the fudge out of Europe and I think that is understandable.

The relationship between Jews in the diaspora and Israel with regards to the right of return etc may be unique and I can see why it may appear slightly unsavory towards non-Jews but it cannot be stressed enough that this is the result of near-extermination. Such events make a people skittish and although it does not justify some Israeli policy and actions it does at least serve to provide a context in which they can be understood. So yeah, I agree with you - modelling decisions upon the same logic can be silly when specific context is not taken into account.

As somebody also of Welsh descent I would also support restoring some of the old lands of Lloegyr to the Cymraeg. Except that as England seems to be mostly full of Retail Parks, Mcdonald and Tories now, I imagine the Welsh probably wouldn't even want it back.

edit: Apologies for steering away from the op. If ppl wish to return to the original topic I'll try not to get in the way.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I could completely agree that the establishment of Israel was completely down to the Holocaust. It was definitely the highest contributing factor - the one that pushed the mass of immigration that was witnessed - but as you are no doubt aware (you mention it in the post above), modern day Zionism had been around for a lot longer than that, along with Jewish immigration to those lands. It had always been planned amongst Zionists.

Now I'm not in any way saying that I don't believe that a people persecuted for so long, not to mention so horribly, did not and do not deserve their own piece of land, their own home, I just personally don't think it had to be in Palestine - another's home. Jews were offered a place elsewhere in the World, a couple of places if I'm not mistaken, but I guess religion, the fact that Zionism had been steadily pushing for a country in the Promised Land for so long and the then recent trauma of WW2 took over the collective minds of those who flew to modern day Israel. Maybe not right or justified from viewpoint of the Arabs of Palestine, but definitely understandable to me.

It's just a shame that modern day Israel, in relation to the Occupied Territories, has turned out the way that it has.

Edit to say that I pretty much agree with all you have said in the post above by the way.

edit: Apologies for steering away from the op. If ppl wish to return to the original topic I'll try not to get in the way.

:lol: Ditto, from me.

Edited by expandmymind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of spurious conjecture.... This is a common meme thrown out by people in an attempt to delegitimise Jewish claims to Israel. I have heard the same argument used by people who wish to suggest that Israel would be better off governed by a restored modern Pan-Arab Caliphate, (not that I am suggesting that you are saying this.) However, a little research would have shown you that Jews were only forbidden to enter Jerusalem (and even so were able to return each year on Tisha'ba'av.) Jewish communities remained in the region throughout Roman rule, there were many schools and academies which actually flourished following the destruction of the Temple. New ones emerged and filled the vacuum of the vanished Jerusalemite authorities. In fact, the entirety of Rabbinical Judaism (which is Judaism as we know it today originates in this period.) You might be interested to read about Johanan Ben Zakkai who founded the school of Jabneh fairly soon after the trouble with Rome. The link is provided below and includes just part of the history of continuing Jewish practice within Palestine in the centuries after the war with Rome.

'In the fertile ground of the Jabneh Academy the roots of the literature of tradition—Midrash and Mishnah, Talmud and Haggadah—were nourished and strengthened. There, too, the way was paved for a systematic treatment of Halakah and exegesis. In Jabneh were held the decisive debates upon the canonicity of certain Biblical books; there the prayer-liturgy received its permanent form; and there, probably, was edited the Targum on the Pentateuch, which became the foundation for the later Targum called after Onkelos. It was Jabneh that inspired and sanctioned the new Greek version of the Bible—that of Akylas (Aquila). The events that preceded and followed the great civil revolution under Bar Kokba (from the year 117 to about 140) resulted in the decay and death of the school at Jabneh. According to tradition (R. H. 31b), the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh to Usha, from Usha back to Jabneh, and a second time from Jabneh to Usha. This final settlement in Usha indicates the ultimate spiritual supremacy of Galilee over Judea, the latter having become depopulated by the war of Hadrian. Usha remained for a long time the seat of the academy; its importance being due to the pupils of Akiba, one of whom, Judah ben Ilai, had his home in Usha. Here was undertaken the great work of the restoration of Palestinian Judaism after its disintegration under Hadrian. The study of the Law flourished anew; and Simon, a son of Gamaliel, was invested with the rank that had been his father's in Jabneh. With him the rank of patriarch became hereditary in the house of Hillel, and the seat of the academy was made identical with that of the patriarch' http://jewishencyclo...y%20of%20Jabneh

This is part of a review of a book by Schlomo Sand, who believes a similiar idea to yourself.

'Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70. Yet while the destruction of Jerusalem and Second Temple by the Romans did not create the Diaspora, it caused a momentous change in the Jews’ sense of themselves and their position in the world. For later generations it encapsulates the essential truth about the Jews being an exiled and persecuted people for much of their history.

Professor Sand accuses Zionist historians from the 19th century onward — the very same scholars on whose work he bases his case — of hiding the truth and creating a myth of shared roots to strengthen their nationalist agenda. He explains that he has uncovered no new information, but has “organized the knowledge differently.” In other words, he is doing precisely what he accuses the Zionists of — shaping the material to fit a narrative.

In that sense, Professor Sand is operating within a long established tradition. As “The Illustrated History of the Jewish People,” edited by Nicholas Lange (Harcourt, 1997), notes, “Every generation of Jewish historians has faced the same task: to retell and adapt the story to meet the needs of its own situation.” The same could be said of all nations and religions.

Perhaps that is why — on both sides of the argument — some myths stubbornly persist no matter how often they are debunked while other indubitable facts continually fail to gain traction.' http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=2

If it suits you to believe that the Jews have no historical lineage in Israel, then you won't believe the history/ archaeology etc, all of which is easy to access and study.

For the most part I agree with you, at least that Jews are a 'heteroracial conglomerate,' but this is no 'invention,' however it is more complex than you assert and Judaism does have a racial element and genetic mutations have been identified within Jewish populations. There are genetic characteristics that display themselves predominately in Jewish populations and as such contest your assertions, Tay-Sachs disease for instance, which is more common amongst ashkenazi Jews than the non Jewish population. http://en.wikipedia....ish_communities

Most Jews I know would probably say the grouping is more akin to a tribe than a race or just a religion. It is a shared culture that emerges from a group of people who have shared the same historical experiences, often married one another and often been isolated from surrounding populations by choice, stigma or prejudice. There is no better adhesive for a people than trauma, and the persecution of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years has bound them from different schools and traditions into a common people. (In fact, this is rather similiar to the resurgent Palestinian nationalism since the onset of the Israeli occupation.)

Unfortunately it has never been for Jews to decide whether they are a race/ religion/ culture or whatever. It has always been more of an obsession for non-Jews to classify and segregate. Hitler made grave efforts to discern who was and was not Jewish, according to him a Jew was somebody with a Jewish grandparent regardless of whether the person practiced the religion or not. Likewise after the revolt against the Romans, the authorities levied a tax on all Jews, (whether inside or outside the destroyed Judea.) It was the Romans who decided what Jewish affiliation was and initiated the link between diasporic Jews and those in Israel/Judea.

Similiarly, Israel is a direct product of the Holocaust and has defined a new interpretation of Jewish identity, based on a once left-wing Zionism and the pioneer spirit. It is entirely expected that a new form of criticism would emerge that would attempt to undermine the links between historical Jews, modern Jews and the land of Israel. But to those who attempt to say that Jew's are not Jew's for this or that reason, I would suggest again that it does not matter to Jews what non-Jews define us as and often just shows up the individuals ignorance about history.

I would also add (before I am accused) that I am not a defiant Israeli hell-bent on decimation of the Palestinian population. I support a two state solution and an end to the occupation and have written for UK Jewish publications in support of that cause. I just get fed up forever reading nonsense spouted on this forum by people who seem to think they have an expert opinion on Judaism and Jewish history and talk with apparent authority. They are almost as bad as those who know nothing but are quite ready to add their ill-informed two cents worth. (I hope nobody takes this personally, it happens a LOT on the internetz!!!.)

It wasn't directed towards you Expand... I promise I wasn't having a go.

But I completely agree that it is about context. The specifics about the establishment of Israel in this regard mostly come down to the tragedy of the Holocaust. Bearing in mind that a third of world Jewry (at least) was killed by the Nazi's, Jews were faced with an existential crisis and it is understandable that there was a renewed push for Jewish self-determination by survivors in the following years. It was the final push in a movement that had been resurging since before the 1880's. I agree that African-Americans who went through a similiar trauma in the years of slavery had a bad deal afterwards and I see the problem with the logic that you point out. However, it remains that a people who had just lost 6-7 million of their number at the hands of Europeans made a decided effort to get the fudge out of Europe and I think that is understandable.

The relationship between Jews in the diaspora and Israel with regards to the right of return etc may be unique and I can see why it may appear slightly unsavory towards non-Jews but it cannot be stressed enough that this is the result of near-extermination. Such events make a people skittish and although it does not justify some Israeli policy and actions it does at least serve to provide a context in which they can be understood. So yeah, I agree with you - modelling decisions upon the same logic can be silly when specific context is not taken into account.

As somebody also of Welsh descent I would also support restoring some of the old lands of Lloegyr to the Cymraeg. Except that as England seems to be mostly full of Retail Parks, Mcdonald and Tories now, I imagine the Welsh probably wouldn't even want it back.

edit: Apologies for steering away from the op. If ppl wish to return to the original topic I'll try not to get in the way.

Nobody want to deligitimize anybody, but it should be allowed to say that one plus one is two without being called a criminal. If Israel needs to twist history and archaeological findings to create a statehood legend that is fine with me, but that does not make it more factual. The historic fact and archaeological record is that we can only demonstrate the existence of Jews as a group in Israel for less than 500 years in the last 4000. That would mean that the Italians (as heirs of the Romans) have a bigger historic claim on Judah and Galilee than anybody else.

Now, the owner of what is now Israel was Great Britain and they ceded it to the Zionist to make a Jewish state. That is all the legitimation Israel needs. And that is not the point of discussion here.

And you are right in claiming auto determination for all people, but sadly, sadly, for the apologists of the present status quo in the area, all people includes the Palestinians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I could completely agree that the establishment of Israel was completely down to the Holocaust. It was definitely the highest contributing factor - the one that pushed the mass of immigration that was witnessed - but as you are no doubt aware (you mention it in the post above), modern day Zionism had been around for a lot longer than that, along with Jewish immigration to those lands. It had always been planned amongst Zionists.

Now I'm not in any way saying that I don't believe that a people persecuted for so long, not to mention so horribly, did not and do not deserve their own piece of land, their own home, I just personally don't think it had to be in Palestine - another's home. Jews were offered a place elsewhere in the World, a couple of places if I'm not mistaken, but I guess religion, the fact that Zionism had been steadily pushing for a country in the Promised Land for so long and the then recent trauma of WW2 took over the collective minds of those who flew to modern day Israel. Maybe not right or justified from viewpoint of the Arabs of Palestine, but definitely understandable to me.

It's just a shame that modern day Israel, in relation to the Occupied Territories, has turned out the way that it has.

Edit to say that I pretty much agree with all you have said in the post above by the way.

Cheers dude, but yeah that was what I was saying... Zionism had been a talking philosophy for a long time and quite a few groups had already emigrated to Palestine before the war, but the impetus for a new Jewish state was thrust sharply into focus by the dark light of the Holocaust. Personally I do not think it would have been possible for Israel to have established itself without that event and the guilt that Europe felt towards the Jews after the war.

There were other plans, I believe the most seriously considered one was a settlement in Uganda. I don't think that would have worked out any better considering what happened there in the 1970's with Idi Amin etc. The Nazi's also talked of trying to to settle Jews in Madagascar I believe and I'm sure there was talk in the Soviet Union of establishing some part of Russia/Eastern Europe as a Jewish enclave. I may be wrong there tho, not quite sure exactly where it was.

I'm sure I remember reading something, somewhere about a plan to settle Jews in northern Australia, which sounds great to me!! The beaches and bikinis beat north London any day.

There was also talk of an Alaska settlement, which has become the setting for quite a good detective-noir thriller by Michael Chabon, called 'The Yiddish Policemens Union,' it's not great, but worth a read.

But I'm not sure if any of those would have resulted in a better situation than Israel in Palestine. It is very difficult to speculate on alternative possibilities of how history might have turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody want to deligitimize anybody, but it should be allowed to say that one plus one is two without being called a criminal. If Israel needs to twist history and archaeological findings to create a statehood legend that is fine with me, but that does not make it more factual. The historic fact and archaeological record is that we can only demonstrate the existence of Jews as a group in Israel for less than 500 years in the last 4000. That would mean that the Italians (as heirs of the Romans) have a bigger historic claim on Judah and Galilee than anybody else.

Nobody called you a criminal.

Nobody is twisting anything, the Jewish population of post-Roman Palestine was decimated but nonetheless some still remained. But you need to check your sources. Israel does not need to twist facts as you can see them if you visit the region, Israel only needs to reassert histories as there is a sustained effort in some camps to remove any sense of Jewish connection with the Holy Land.

I am interested to know how you arrive at such a low figure considering that there was a Hebrew/Judaic presence in the region from around 1000bc and throughout the times previously discussed (ie 1200 years at the most conservative estimate.) The Kingdoms and Unities changed throughout time and there was not a continuous single kingdom, but the Jewish presence itself cannot be disputed. There has also been a documented population recorded since at least 900ad, so at the very least you have 2000 years of Jewish presence, but more likely over 3000 years.

I don't want you to think that I am arguing for the Jewish population at the expense of other inhabitants. Just because the land may be home to many Jews does not mean other communities cannot also dwell there. You may not realise but there is growing proportion of Israeli's who argue in favour of Palestinian statehood.

Anyway, your point is moot as the Italians do not stake a claim on that region. Re-read what Expand and I were discussing about the importance of context.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.