Israel!, the only bastion of sanity in the Middle East

[Marat]

I think there's a huge difference between those who seek to undermine arguments by comparing some trivial, inessential aspect in what an opponent advocates to an equally trivial, inessential aspect of Nazism, and those who draw attention to substantive and informative similarities of some position with the substance of Nazism.

 

What I was saying here about the Nazi Rassensbemerkungsamt falls into the latter category, since it touches on the very essence of the problems confronting a state which seeks to define itself by some announced racial/ethnic/relgious character, such as 'the Jewish State.' Since all racial, ethnic, and religious characteristics people may have are variable, able to be arrayed along a continuum, and thus debatable as to their proper category, these substantive definitions of what the state has to be will always be contentious, and as such they provide a poor foundation for justifying the exclusion of some people and the inclusion of others. It is safer to prefer the more determinate grounds relied upon by the traditional, Western, secular state, which are usually birth in the state, birth to a father or mother having legal citizenship in the state, naturalization by compliance with established, non-discriminatory legal forms, etc.

[mooeypoo]

I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

 

This is a subject that's extremely emotional, and hence I will have a lot of trouble keeping myself rational, as I am trying to do here (and you are too). These type of arguments are already easily going to the emotional rather than the rational (specially with the emotionally-leaning claims that we see on television, many of which are simply inaccurate on *both* sides).

 

The introduction of this particular point will, at least in my case, push things too far, whether you think they're relevant or not.

 

It might be a flaw in my character, but that's irrelevant. I simply admit to you that if the debate will contain this type of points and involve any sort of comparison with the Nazi regime, be it justified in your opinion or not, I will have a very hard time arguing with you rationally. It simply touches a nerve. I admit it. The rational thing to do in MY case at this point is to step away.

 

So if this is where this debate is going, I humbly step out of this discussion.

 

~mooey

[Marat]

Well, I don't think that the comparison with the Nazis' Rassensbemerkungsamt is essential to the discussion, since it is only cited to show how difficult it is to base any legal distinctions on bright-line divisions about race, ethnicity, and religion. The Nazis encountered two groups of persons in the Ukraine, one of which were ethnically not Jewish but religiously Jewish, while the other were the inverse. Classifying them as one or the other was as difficult as any empirical division of people into absolute categories has to be, given that the features people have are always either on a continuum or mixtures of opposing features.

 

An alternative model to illustrate the same problem is the famous American legal case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, in which a person 1/8th black, and thus legally black in his home state of Louisiana, attempted to sit in the 'Whites Only' section of a train under the jurisdiction of federal law, since it travelled on an interstate railway line. He was allowed to sit there since he looked white, but then he informed the conductor that he was in fact black, and was then forcibly removed, thus creating the test case which his presence there had been designed to raise, which was whether transportation under the supervision of federal laws could respect categories of racial discrimination.

 

Empirical reality is always a bundle of conflicting predicates on a coninuum, but the law likes neat categories, so when the two encounter each other, there are bound to be problems. So if you want Israel to be a 'Jewish state,' you have to match the concept of the essence of Jewishness to the empirical ambiguities of real persons' identities, which are often only partially Jewish, and problems have to arise.

[jackson33]

Isn't this the same issue being preached here in the US today by both left and right wing advocates? At present a majority of Americans still seem to want a secular but overall religious outlook on things. The other side is quietly praying that right wing "decadence" will eventually bring about a state of total anarchy? Then, it's "game on".

 

PS: Made several trips to Karls home town of Treir when I was stationed in both Heidelberg and Mannheim. Our guys there always seemed to want their eggs, bacon, flour and milk. (on occasion, even a chicken or steak). [/Quote]

 

rigney; First, I believe this "secularism" aspect in Governance is overplayed, in that any Government should be and usually is, a reflection of the people's sentiment. Further more, remaining my opinion, Israel was and is a Jewish State, whether or not the people are Conservative or Traditionally oriented in their religious belief's or values.

 

The US, from it's foundation as a self Governing Republic (1776), has been a Christian Nation, from then to now, based on freedom of religion, to practice or preach. While the concept of secularism exist in Governing, the people that do that Governing are by far more Christian than anything else.

 

Keep in mind, Muslim and the Jewish folks believe they are born into a religious philosophy or that as they grow older, presumable wiser, some feel it's a right to change that religion. In my opinion, in the US or for practical argument sake, fundamentally Christian States, the western world if you prefer, are trying to change a Government, generally based on other than a religious philosophy, even when it appears to involve religion, gay marriage, polygamy, or certain awarding of benefits, for instance.

 

Then to summarize, NO I don't feel the Conservative/Liberal political conflicts you see in the US, equate to Israel or any Muslim/Sharia State.

 

 

On Marx; I'm always a little envious of folks that have visited the "Old World", having traveled North America many times over. Newfoundland while still a British Colony and Alaska before it was a State and Mexico many times during their troubling times. However, I'd probably have spent any free time in there library's, trying to get their perspective of history.

 

 

So if this is where this debate is going, I humbly step out of this discussion.[/Quote]

 

mooey; Respectfully, your probably the only one around here that knows both sides the Jewish situation and while I agree it's emotional for you to discuss, it's that emotion that offers us less emotional to understand the differences between traditional and conservative Judaism. As a Nation, the US is closely allied with Israel and it's important we try and get an understanding of just what's going on inside the Country.

 

My only experience here, was many years ago discussing the issue with an apparent Traditional Orthodox and his conviction was one of inherent right to the land, however gained and strict Jewish Doctrine being imposed.

[john5746]

The US, from it's foundation as a self Governing Republic (1776), has been a Christian Nation, from then to now, based on freedom of religion, to practice or preach. While the concept of secularism exist in Governing, the people that do that Governing are by far more Christian than anything else.

 

Keep in mind, Muslim and the Jewish folks believe they are born into a religious philosophy or that as they grow older, presumable wiser, some feel it's a right to change that religion. In my opinion, in the US or for practical argument sake, fundamentally Christian States, the western world if you prefer, are trying to change a Government, generally based on other than a religious philosophy, even when it appears to involve religion, gay marriage, polygamy, or certain awarding of benefits, for instance.

 

Then to summarize, NO I don't feel the Conservative/Liberal political conflicts you see in the US, equate to Israel or any Muslim/Sharia State.

 

You mean a Nation of Christians.

 

Yes, we do have separation of church/state, but some feel we shouldn't. Some feel that many of our problems are due to this separation.

 

 

I'll just add: I think everyone agrees that in regards to the Middle East there have been injustices by/to everyone. I'll admit I don't follow Israel that closely, but from what I do know, I would hope if the US were in a similar situation, its citizens and government would act as well as them. More likely, we would see mushroom clouds.

Edited April 28, 2011 by john5746

[jackson33]

You mean a Nation of Christians.[/Quote]

 

No John, under my scenario, the majority of Colonial Colonist, at least those elected in the 13 Colonies representing them, were in fact Christians. Since the number people saying they believe in a God today or a deity and Jesus, is around 70%, I believe it basically remains the same today, all then (Nation of Christians) are not...

 

Yes, we do have separation of church/state, but some feel we shouldn't. Some feel that many of our problems are due to this separation.[/Quote]

 

Yes, I understand this, however we also have a legal system basically supporting the Constitution and short of legislating, which too much has been done over the past 80 years. Neither those that feel the policy "shouldn't" exist or believe it's some "kind of problem", are going to have trouble changing both, at least on a National level.

 

I'll just add: I think everyone agrees that in regards to the Middle East there have been injustices by/to everyone. I'll admit I don't follow Israel that closely, but from what I do know, I would hope if the US were in a similar situation, its citizens and government would act as well as them. More likely, we would see mushroom clouds. [/Quote]

 

I don't disagree, but we're talking about a tiny Country, in the middle of almost total chaos (remember the thread "title"). Then any injustice on Israel's part has been in defense of their existence, whether pre-emptive or from real aggression, IMO. As for Nuclear Weapons, no doubt Israel has a few low powered bombs, they could deliver, but know they exist primarily from Western Countries approval and the use of them, might mean the end of that existence. I have no good opinions of the "Muslim Brotherhood" or the clerics that follow their policy, nor do I believe many Muslim Countries fear any International repercussions and it may just be possible, some (Iran) actually want some. If your thinking WW III, over Israel's right to exist, by other National interest, short of maybe Afghanistan combined with Iraq, it's not likely...then we're talking "Caliphate" and really off topic...

 

Noun: Caliphate

 

The era of Islam's ascendancy from the death of Mohammed until the 13th century; some Moslems still maintain that the Moslem world must always have a calif as head of the community

"their goal was to reestablish the Caliphate" [/Quote]

[rigney]

I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

 

This is a subject that's extremely emotional, and hence I will have a lot of trouble keeping myself rational, as I am trying to do here (and you are too). These type of arguments are already easily going to the emotional rather than the rational (specially with the emotionally-leaning claims that we see on television, many of which are simply inaccurate on *both* sides).

 

The introduction of this particular point will, at least in my case, push things too far, whether you think they're relevant or not.

 

It might be a flaw in my character, but that's irrelevant. I simply admit to you that if the debate will contain this type of points and involve any sort of comparison with the Nazi regime, be it justified in your opinion or not, I will have a very hard time arguing with you rationally. It simply touches a nerve. I admit it. The rational thing to do in MY case at this point is to step away.

 

So if this is where this debate is going, I humbly step out of this discussion.

 

~mooey

 

Personally, I wouldn't abstain from a negative vote if the article was unattractive for debate. But to say it doesn't fit your venue Mooey, is surprising to me. You, jackson, John and Marat have made the issue a sensible debate in every respect. Actually, I'm likely the only one who should stay out of it.

[padren]

I don't think we can simply assume that the UN has a monopoly on what is right in international law. While it is true that the UN can make new international law, by article 24 of the UN Charter the International Court of Justice retains a right to ensure that the actions of the UN, enforced through the Security Council, are consistent with the ultimate purposes of the UN Charter, so in theory international law should prevail as a standard of review over what the UN contingently happens to do. This being the case, then, the international law rules about prescription and adverse possession of territory, which I discussed above, should be regarded as superior to UN action, so its recognition of the state of Israel could be illegitimate at international law.

I don't think "The UN said it was fair so it has to be fair" is a sound argument either, but I don't think that's what mooey is saying. The real issue at the time was how to deal with an area of the world that was quite difficult to divide into neat nation-state boxes, and a huge range of problems can be traced back to all these borders (British Mandate for Palestine) beyond just the issue of Israel. Of course, there was a huge range of existing problems that were only going to get worse without doing something, and so the UN and the majority of the world did their best in the fairest way they could come up with.

 

The real question is, can you blame the Israeli people today (and those there at it's birth) for going forward and working with the UN to build the state?

 

The other questions are interesting, but don't really apply to the topic of Israel.

 

It is said that Israel allows people of other faiths to live there, but of course it does not recognize a right of return to Israel of the Palestinian people whose grandparents and parents, or who personally were expelled from Israel. If it were to recognize such a right, and were not to deny the vote to such new residents on religious or ethnic grounds, it would find its present identity as a 'Jewish state' voted down by the new majority of its population, and since it cannot tolerate that happening, its self-definition forces it to be religiously intolerant and/or racist. In contrast, a formal, secular state with no predetermined identity like the U.S., which is always open to any range of democratic redeterminations of its cultural character, as long as these occur by legal process, can admit anyone and everyone without discrimination, beyond the standard background discrimination all states apply, which is either native birth or descent from someone with citizenship, variously either the father, the mother, or both parents.

First of all, the "Law of Return" (the Israeli law) wasn't created in a vacuum - the lack of any safe haven in the world for Jewish people had just been made painfully clear again during WWII and it was a promise they felt they wanted to make to Jewish people the world over. There are far more people than just Jews who suffer a lack of a hospitable home states, but there is no nation in the world that could make that sort of a promise to everyone fitting that definition. The "Law of Return" also allows for converts to Judaism - people "Returning" that were never "there" before. It's simply a law guaranteeing sanctuary for a group of people that had been heavily persecuted, not a statement of "right" to be on that land because ancestors were there and forced out.

Before claiming that "If a law singles out Jews (even in a beneficial way), then it must be discriminatory" fails to account for the fact that the law exists because Jews were already being singled out. Not everyone feels that is an acceptable exception but it's the same one we use in the US to justify affirmative action. That in itself is a separate debate, but the distinction is important.

 

What's more, Israel does take in a lot of refuges from around the world that have faced persecution, so that philosophy (of safe haven) is clearly applied across the spectrum, not just to Jews.

 

Lastly, even if it was declared TOMORROW that "right of return" would apply to Palestinian people in the manner you was described (though that law really isn't about that) you have to take into account the security situation, which would be equally difficult if the entire Palestinian population was Jewish but Gaza Strip/West Bank continued to smuggle weapons, launch suicide attacks, missiles, and demand for the destruction of Israel. Even the existing Law of Return says that Jews can be refused if they pose a danger to the state, or have committed serious crimes.

 

I'm not saying I think the "Law of Return" is great or anything (I'm no expert on this topic by any means) but I don't think it really applies to the discussion about how to remedy the issues with Palestinians, nor indicates discrimination against them.

[Marat]

If the Palestinians were allowed to resettle within the present borders of Israel, I highly doubt that they would any longer have a motivation to be terrorists. What would the topic of their terrorism be? Hijacking airplanes for the fun of it?

 

Everyone seems to forget that Paraguay offered to sell an area of land to the Jews much larger than present-day Israel which they could use as their own autonomous country starting in 1948. Since no one would have objected to the Jews settling there, they could have had a truly Jewish state, since a state like Israel which has to be aggressive and militaristic because of its geographical position is profoundly inconsistent with the true nature of Judaism, which is a religion promoting peace. So the whole argument that the Jews needed a homeland to rescue them from a future (and thus non-existent) Holocaust, which would never have happened given the way World War II worked through and ultimately destroyed that version of anti-Semitism), doesn't offer any justification for the present state of Israel, which could have inoffensively been located in Paraguay. It was positioned in the Middle East because the Jews wanted not only a safe homeland but also one that coincided with the physical geography of their beliefs, but this itself has proven to be mistaken, since they could today have had safer access to their sacred areas as South American tourists in a friendly Palestinian than they now have as Israeli enemies of the local Arab population. The final argument against the 'safe homeland' thesis is the fact that even if one was needed, since the Palestinian people were in no way responsible for the misfortune of the Jews in World War II, there is no reason they should pay for security against the possibility of its repetition through having to be displaced from their own homeland.

[rigney]

#34 Today, 10:56 AM Marat

 

Quark If the Palestinians were allowed to resettle within the present borders of Israel, I highly doubt that they would any longer have a motivation to be terrorists. What would the topic of their terrorism be? Hijacking airplanes for the fun of it?

 

Everyone seems to forget that Paraguay offered to sell an area of land to the Jews much larger than present-day Israel which they could use as their own autonomous country starting in 1948.

 

Can you imagine offering an American Indian, North or South; a piece of land totally alien to their heritage, and expect them to accept it willingly? Both Americas, comprised of many Indian Nations were deprived of their cultures over the past 600 documented years, which will leave a "Trail of Tears" forever.

Edited April 30, 2011 by rigney

[mooeypoo]

If the Palestinians were allowed to resettle within the present borders of Israel, I highly doubt that they would any longer have a motivation to be terrorists. What would the topic of their terrorism be? Hijacking airplanes for the fun of it?

But the land was divided to *both* nations that lived there for thousands of years; that includes the Jews, too.

So, by your logic, wouldn't that make the Jews legible for "terrorism"?

 

 

You seem to be strongly stating how the palestinians were "robbed of their lands" (which, btw, I still have a few concentions against that, though I don't disagree in the generalization), but ignore the presence of the JEWS on that land. Why is it okay to move the Jews from their land and not move the Palestinians from their land?

For the record, I'm against BOTH of these. So.. am I more pro-equality than you?

 

 

That said, I repeat my earlier assertion: I am *for* a fully autonomous, free, democratic state for the Palestinians alongside the Jews. The two countries are different enough to not *want* to *share* a single country, so while I agree that the current borders are not sufficient for declaring either state, and should be CHANGED, I don't quite get what's so wrong with dividing the area into TWO countries.

 

Why do you feel they have to live together in the same country? Or am I misunderstanding you? Are you suggesting the Jews leave completely? Or perhaps the Palestinians leave completely?

 

Both nations want to share the land, but neither wants to share a STATE; they want to be independent - BOTH want that. So... why not give it to both? Work out a fair division of the land and make peace by making 2 states that can (in the scope of that peace) cooperate and work together to lift both up to good standing.

 

I... am not sure I see the problem you pose against this, or understand what you're trying to say as an alternate solution.

 

~mooey

 

It was positioned in the Middle East because the Jews wanted not only a safe homeland but also one that coincided with the physical geography of their beliefs, but this itself has proven to be mistaken, since they could today have had safer access to their sacred areas as South American tourists in a friendly Palestinian than they now have as Israeli enemies of the local Arab population. The final argument against the 'safe homeland' thesis is the fact that even if one was needed, since the Palestinian people were in no way responsible for the misfortune of the Jews in World War II, there is no reason they should pay for security against the possibility of its repetition through having to be displaced from their own homeland.

 

Also, Marat, I am not sure if you missed my earlier comment about this or accidentally ignored it, but this is not quite true. The talk about the State of Israel as a state for the Jews began much *BEFORE* the holocaust, so while the holocaust was the "last straw" that convinced the world to help the jews, it was by far not the reason for it.

 

And all these "future holocaust" argument is flawed as well. There was, and still is, violent antisemitism around the world that prevents jewish communities from living in other countries in peace. The land of Israel was designed to once and for all find a SAFE place for the jewish nation against persecution. It wasn't religious because non-religious jews were persecuted as well, and it wasn't just a random state -- the state of Israel has had for CENTURIES occupied Jewish settlements in it alongside Arabs. If you go back a few hundred years, btw (about 1), many of the *muslim* "icons" in the country are actually modern buildings made by the Ottoman empire as their oppression tool after they conquered. Does that make the Jews the conquered ones? Maybe. If you go back enough in history, everyone were conquered at some piont.

 

But you seem to keep ignoring the fact that there WERE JEWS in Israel for centuries, with jewish settlements. And the fact that making the land of Israel the official state to keep jews safe was talked-about and began much BEFORE the holocaust.

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And all these "future holocaust" argument is flawed as well. There was, and still is, violent antisemitism around the world that prevents jewish communities from living in other countries in peace. The land of Israel was designed to once and for all find a SAFE place for the jewish nation against persecution.

Just curious: Why couldn't the Jews move from the countries where they are persecuted to countries where they are not? There are many Western nations where discrimination is investigated and prosecuted by the government.

 

If you go back a few hundred years, btw (about 1), many of the *muslim* "icons" in the country are actually modern buildings made by the Ottoman empire as their oppression tool after they conquered.

It's not the icons that are important -- Jerusalem is relevant to Islam's history whether or not they put a monument there.

 

But you seem to keep ignoring the fact that there WERE JEWS in Israel for centuries, with jewish settlements.

There were also Palestinians. Marat is arguing that, regardless of history, they did not deserve to be displaced to solve the problems of another group.

[mooeypoo]

Just curious: Why couldn't the Jews move from the countries where they are persecuted to countries where they are not? There are many Western nations where discrimination is investigated and prosecuted by the government.

Show me a country that was happy to accept this many Jewish settlers?

 

Even the USA stopped Jews during the holocaust itself. No country (and I can't quite blame them) wants a big group of refugees to settle in their borders. Many countries agree to help, or are willing to provide temporary accommodations, but accept such a big group as permanent residence? Not really.

 

It's not the icons that are important -- Jerusalem is relevant to Islam's history whether or not they put a monument there.

Sure, I didn't say it wasn't. But it's also important to the Jews. My point is that it SEEMS to me that the argument goes more into the "Palestinians are entitled to X" while ignoring what, perhaps, maybe, the Jews are also entitled to by the same logic.

 

 

EDIT: Just btw, "icons are not important" for the people who built them, maybe, but for the Jews - that got to see *their* icons ruined and replaced by *ottoman* icons, I can assure you, it's important.

But these things were done throughout history more than once, and by more than just one group to the other. My point, however, is that the city is important - historically and religiously - for both nations. Many of my Israeli bretheren would oppose this, but many would also agree, that Jerusalem should be split in some ways to accomodate BOTH nations eventually.

 

This, however, is a huge point of contention among both nations. But... that's why peace talks are for.

 

There were also Palestinians. Marat is arguing that, regardless of history, they did not deserve to be displaced to solve the problems of another group.

Actually, as I said before, there were Arabs of all kinds; many of them received citizenship as Israelis by the way. The term "Palestinians" as a nation, and particularly as a nation that takes its rightful place in Israel in particular, began after Arafat came to power and grouped the Palestinians from all adjacent countries to claim their historical right.

 

I'm not claiming they have no right to be in the land (they do), I just think it's worth keeping in mind that the actual nationalization of the palestinians began around the 1970-80s, and not, say, when Israel was born (or before). We shouldn't ignore the fact that there ARE *many* kinds of Arabs that live in Israel as well (and lived there for centuries), and not just Palestinian Arabs. This is just a historical point I think is worth remembering.

 

It changes nothing about the fact they should get their own land, though. I am not sure I see the logic in doing that on the EXPENSE of the Jews, that's my piont. We keep saying the Jews should stop doing things on the expense of the Palestinians, but when coming down to the Jews, we don't mind proposing solutions that would come on their expense... how is that unbiased or fair or, in any means, rational?

 

~mooey

[jackson33]

Everyone seems to forget that Paraguay offered to sell an area of land to the Jews much larger than present-day Israel which they could use as their own autonomous country starting in 1948.[/Quote]

 

 

Marat, I've been trying my best to find, where this notion the Jew's could have averted the Holocaust or the need for the UN/Allies to establish a Jewish State, by relocating in Paraguay is coming from. If nothing else, please just tell me what to google?

 

Paraguay apparently did have a liberal immigration policy for years, but few migrated there and certainly they could have never offered more land than is now Israel. They have only 157K Sq/M to work with and are already landlocked, compared to Israel's current 8K.

 

 

There were some short-lived anti-Semitic decrees in 1936, and some anti-Semitic incidents prior to the establishment of the regime of General Alfredo Stroessner in 1954; however, after that, Jews were not disturbed. Paraguay voted in 1947 for the UN Resolution on the partition of Palestine and has always been friendly to Israel. The population, which lost two-thirds of its members in the war against an array of larger nations between 1865 and 1870, tends to empathize with Israel. An Israeli Embassy was established in 1968.[/Quote]

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Paraguay.html

 

 

There are many Western nations where discrimination is investigated and prosecuted by the government.[/Quote]

 

CR; Before WWII??? Even today in many European Countries, Middle Eastern or African Countries, enforcement of discrimination laws is ignored, IMO. In fact, those dozen's of Refugee Camps established by Europeans for the Jewish and others, escaping WWII fighting, was a reason the British an UN acted...

 

As racism in general persists, so does antisemitism, although institutional anti-semitism, common before the 1960s, has essentially disappeared. In the United States, most Jewish community relations agencies draw a distinction between antisemitism which is measured in terms of attitudes and behaviors and the security and status of American Jews which is measured by specific incidents.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States

[padren]

There were also Palestinians. Marat is arguing that, regardless of history, they did not deserve to be displaced to solve the problems of another group.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people were displaced in general as a result of the end of the British Mandate for Palestine?

 

It strikes me that when you look at the original amount of land that was cut up, that to focus on only the Palestinians who were displaced as a result of the creation of Israel isn't exactly painting a very complete picture. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there tons of settlements that found themselves on the wrong side of newly drawn lines? Jordan didn't officially exist as a nation until the end of the British Mandate. Both Iraq and Saudi Arabia also have borders within the former British Mandate - did all that go down without anyone being displaced?

 

Honestly, I do want to know more because I am quite curious and I am not well versed in those details. I could be wrong, but I can't help but to suspect there was a massive disgruntled game of musical chairs at the time, and to focus on only on where the some of the Israeli's "ended up sitting" is unfairly myopic.

[jackson33]

Ever since I wrote a column last October called "Myths of the Middle East," readers from around the world have asked me what is meant by the term "Palestinian."

 

The simple answer is that it means whatever Yasser Arafat wants it to mean. [/Quote]

 

 

Read more: What is a Palestinian? http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22564#ixzz1L3dboJM2

 

 

padren; Here is a link, that can better answer your questions than me. I'll only add, in your reading (two good articles), that an Organization known as the "Muslim Brotherhood" which maybe half or more of the Muslim Clergy are members or taking orders from, can move large group of people to accomplish an agenda. The question then being displaced or encroachment.

[Marat]

It is objected that settling the Jewish population in a state of its own anywhere but in modern Israel would do irreparable harm to their sense of identity and would be something they should not be required to accept, but this argument is bound to ring hollow to American ears, since in the U.S. almost everyone is a either a displaced person from another country or the descendant of such a person. And, as anyone can see, people have brought all their cultures to the U.S., where they often continue to celebrate them long after their displacement. The largest Jewish city in the world is not in Israel, but in New York, and if visit Hassidic communites in New York you would hardly say that they are suffering from the loss of their identity by their geographical displacement from where they originated. Massive resettlements happen all the time in world history, whether it is those resulting from the cujus regio, ejus religio formula, the displacement of the Germans of eastern Europe at the end of World War II, or the potential shift of the Jewish people to a safe state of their own carved out of Paraguay or realized in New York, and the success of these resettlements undermines any argument that the Jews have to be permitted to resettle exactly where they want -- even if it perpetually involves the rest of the world in terrorist threats, inflated oil prices because of the resulting political instability of the region, or the displacement of the Palestinian people.

 

The fact that the term, 'Palestinian people,' only came into general use after the collapse of the protective umbrella of the Ottoman Empire thematized the issue of national identity for the people who had previously just been Ottoman citizens, and after the Arabs of Palestine were dialectically defined into a distinct unit by the opposition of the new Israeli state, hardly delegitimizes it.

 

In the initial situation in the Eastern edge of the Mediterranean, to give it as neutral a designation as possible, both Arabs and Jews lived side-by-side in relative harmony, given that their common sovereign, the Ottoman Empire, deprived either of any possible claim of sovereignty or national identity. This neutrality was gradually undermined by several factors, such as Jewish immigration in the 1880s, Britain seizing that area from the defeated Ottomans after World War I and thus putting the national identity of the region into question, various contradictory declarations by the British government about the future of its mandate, political maneurers at the UN, Britain's withdrawal, etc. Since there were then two ethnically and religously distinct peoples living in that area, a clear majority of Arabs plus a distinct minority of Jews, the proper, tolerant, neutral solution would have been to form an ethnically and religiously undefined state in the former British mandate, consisting of Arabs and Jews living together. If this state was democratically governed, it would also have adopted a majority Arab-Moslem character, but since it was essentially created by British-UN action, minority protections could have been written into its founding charter, such as have been made more recently the preconditions for the recognition of the states of the former Yugoslavia as sovereign nations.

 

But this benign solution was not adopted. Instead, the Israelis insisted on having a total victory rather than a tolerant compromise, and proclaimed a Jewish state, and made matters even worse by refusing to recognize Ottoman land title so that Palestinians could be bulldozed off their traditional land holdings (legal by prescription if not title) and transformed into refugees. But of course this was necessary, since if the new state was to be democratic, it could not also be a Jewish state if it allowed the native Arab population to remain.

 

So, out of this initial injustice, we now have more than 60 years of international disruption which destabilizes the politics and economy of the world. This seems an unjust price to have to pay just so that Israel can undemocratically establish prior to any fair vote among the native population of the territory it claims as its state that that area must forevere have the character of a Jewish state.