Israel - should the UN have established it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
clintonm said:
I am not the most well-studied person on the planet but I believe that originally the idea for Israel came from Aurthor Balfour in 1922 with the idea of setting aside permanent lands for a Jewish state that would comprise an area currently much larger than the modern state of Israel.

The British Empire came into possession of the lands following World War I with the Mandate of Palestine and was formally granted the territories of Syria and the Trans-Jordan from the League of Nations. That was about 1920. The British had taken the land from the former Ottoman Empire and then with the support of a Zionist movement Balfour declared the promise of a Jewish homeland. During this time there was ever increasing Jewish immigration into the lands.

In 1947 The United Nations proposed a partition plan in Palestine, but that was rejected by the British and the Unitied Nations at large. This era saw escalating violence between the Arabs and the Jews as the British military forces withdrew. Finally in 1948 Israel announced its independance and declared itself a state. Initially, as Britain, France and the United States were not supportive of the Jewish state the Soviet Union offered aid and support in an attempt to gerner a socialist ally in the Middle East. However Israel rejected the Soviet Union and by 1970 the United States was their closest ally.

Personally, do I hold that the modern state of Israel in biblical in any sense? No, Jesus made the Church the new Israel. Do I think the creation of the state was done well? Nope. However, with all of that said I do realize that Israel is the only state in the region that respects religious liberty and individual liberty in any fashion. I also realize that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and ISIS are all very real and dangerous threats to not just the stability in the Middle East but globaly. Israel is the only nation in a position and with the will to resist those forces right now, and pragmatically that means something.
Click to expand...
It does seem unjust to confiscate lands that had been Arab occupied for many centuries. And while it may be Israel is now the State in the region with which we / Westerners have the most in common, we should ask the question to what extent the manner of establishing this State prompted the rise of its opponents in the region.
 
Rau said:
It does seem unjust to confiscate lands that had been Arab occupied for many centuries. And while it may be Israel is now the State in the region with which we / Westerners have the most in common, we should ask the question to what extent the manner of establishing this State prompted the rise of its opponents in the region.
Click to expand...
Areas that had been turk* occupied for many centuries. Palestine went from being a holding of the ottoman empire to being a British colony. Then some of it was given to the Jews, who already owned tons of land there, and some was given to the Palestinians. Palestine had not been a nation for thousands of years. It was an area that swapped hands many times and was VERY rarely not occupied by foreigners. Go onto youtube and watch “This Land is Mine”. It isn’t 100% accurate but it gives you a good idea of just how often this land swapped hands, and the vast majority of the owners were foreigners to Palestine. The Jews at certain points of history were one of the people living there who controlled the land independently instead of as part of a foreign empire.
 
To make a long story short:
  1. I do not have anything against Jews having their own country in the place they used to inhabit. I do not think it has anything to do with them being the Chosen People.
  2. That said, Israel’s attitude towards Palestine, as illustrated by recent events, is unacceptable.
  3. That said, I do not think it is correct to identify the actions of the State of Israel with the will of all Jews and adherents to Judaism. I think that many of them are upset because of their country’s politics, as well as we are.
God bless, V.
 
Valentinus said:
To make a long story short:
  1. I do not have anything against Jews having their own country in the place they used to inhabit. I do not think it has anything to do with them being the Chosen People.
  2. That said, Israel’s attitude towards Palestine, as illustrated by recent events, is unacceptable.
  3. That said, I do not think it is correct to identify the actions of the State of Israel with the will of all Jews and adherents to Judaism. I think that many of them are upset because of their country’s politics, as well as we are.
God bless, V.
Click to expand...
Israel left Gaza in 2005. That is a fact. Hamas kept firing at Israel even though Israel left. That is another fact.

Hamas is a terrorist group that has caused all these problems. They have been building underground tunnels to move troops and ammunition instead of trying to fix their country. They want Israel destroyed. When they were founded they stated that.
 
randomusername said:
Israel left Gaza in 2005. That is a fact. Hamas kept firing at Israel even though Israel left. That is another fact.

Hamas is a terrorist group that has caused all these problems. They have been building underground tunnels to move troops and ammunition instead of trying to fix their country. They want Israel destroyed. When they were founded they stated that.
Click to expand...
I agree. The question on my mind is whether there is justification to resent the establishment of Israel, and to want it gone. At a practical level of course, that is not a productive way to view the situation - it can’t and won’t happen, and would amount to a repeat of sins of the past. But I cannot imagine a US President ever standing up and saying - “establishing the new Israel was a mistake, but it is one we have to live with and make the best of”. Could a US presidential candidate who said that ever be elected?
 
TO WHOM DOES THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONG??

An Israeli Sense of Humor at United Nations set the record straight.

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly and made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel began: 'Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses.

When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, “What a good opportunity to have a bath!”

Moses removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.

When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished.

A Palestinian had stolen them!

The Palestinian representative at the UN jumped up furiously and shouted, “What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren’t there then.”

The Israeli representative smiled and said:

“And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech.”

🙂
 
I’m not a historian, but it is my impression that the UN basically confirmed what had already happened. Jews had always lived in Palestine, but had been moving into Palestine for a long time; sometimes faster, sometimes slower. The Turks, who owned the place for centuries, sometimes let them in, sometimes not. But they kept coming.

By the time of the UN declaration, about a third of the population was Jewish. There was constant conflict between them and the Arabs.

Britain gave up any hope of fixing things. In truth, it seems to me the UN did as well, declaring a state of Israel with truly crazy borders and left the people in Palestine to fight it out.

Which they did.
 
randomusername said:
Israel left Gaza in 2005. That is a fact. Hamas kept firing at Israel even though Israel left. That is another fact.

Hamas is a terrorist group that has caused all these problems. They have been building underground tunnels to move troops and ammunition instead of trying to fix their country. They want Israel destroyed. When they were founded they stated that.
Click to expand...
Good summary! 👍
 
The ignorance is appalling. Neither the UN nor Britain decided to create modern Israel from thin air. Modern Israel arose because modern Europe and to a lesser extent America became increasingly hostile to Jews - most obviously in Nazi Germany, but almost as bad in the USSR. If you were a Jew almost anywhere in Europe by 1940, you were screwed. Virtually all of them lost their homes, life savings and even their families. And after the war, there was virtually no help in retrieving anything. They lost everything material and were left with only ONE thing: their identity as Jews. Is it any surprise that they fled Europe and illegally immigrated to Palestine (their Holy Land) in massive droves? Hardly. They had nowhere else on Earth to go that made sense to all of them.

The early 20th century Jewish community in Palestine tried hard to accommodate the immigration mass peacefully, but the Palestinians treated these immigrants in ways that would appall the most hardened American anti-immigration protester. Worst among these was Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (and uncle of Yasser Arafat). His leadership of the Palestinians is almost exactly how you might imagine the American KKK of 1950 greeting boatloads of Africans trying to land on the shores of Georgia, but multiply it by a factor of two. He whipped up hatred and violence against Jews among the muslim Palestinians dumb enough to listen to him (and there were all too many) in the name of Allah. Husseini was actually an ally of Hitler during WWII and was expelled from Palestine by the Brits for it. Why they let that monster return afterwards is beyond me.

The Jews organized the immigrants into kibbutzes to shelter and feed them and provide for common defense, but the violence increased. In fairness, Jewish groups began to retaliate in as badly a manner as those of Hussein (Irgun and Stern Gang were such groups). As the date of the British withdrawal came close, surrounding Arab countries sent literally armies to the area to crush the Jews as soon as the British military withdrew. Those armies warned the Palestinian civilians where the combat zones were expected to be and invited them to evacuate and avoid the violence and they could return as soon as the Jews were exterminated. Surprisingly, the new state of Israel shocked the world by defeating the combined armies lined up against them with barely more than a fraction of the arms and equipment enjoyed by the Arab armies.

This is a crucial point. Up to this moment, no Palestinians had been forced off their land by the Jews in Palestine. Even at this moment, Palestinians who had not collaborated with the Arab armies by creating evacuated zones in which Jews could be exterminated with impunity STILL got to keep their land and were eligible for citizenship in Israel. Those who had left at the invitation of the ARAB armies were not allowed to return. Israel considered them hostiles. Perhaps that designation can be argued, but it’s patent nonsense to assert that Israel forcibly ejected Palestinians from their land in that first war. They left willingly because they chose the losing side in a WAR.

As with all wars, immoral actions have and always will occur. But what I always ask critics and never get a good answer to is “What SHOULD all those Jews left with nothing but their cultural and religious identity have done after WW2?” Gone back to Warsaw, Berlin and Paris? Yeah, right. They did what anybody who could would do. They banded together and looked after each other and protected each other from further threats. It’s hardly THEIR fault that practically the entire world had given them a raw deal. The initial guilt for Jewish people moving in droves to Palestine lies clearly in Europe. The follow up guilt for the strife that resulted from their mass migration lies 75% with the xenophobia of Haj Amin and the Palestinian people.

There’s a lesson there for us Americans and the mass immigration we’re experiencing. Integrate, don’t divide and foster hatred. National viability, peace and prosperity depends on it.
 
manualman said:
…There’s a lesson there for us Americans and the mass immigration we’re experiencing. Integrate, don’t divide and foster hatred. National viability, peace and prosperity depends on it.
Click to expand...
At some point a set of borders were drawn, and I assume these borders disenfranchised some other group who previously had (rightful) control of that land? Was it right to carve out a piece of land on which to form a new State? Do the prior owners of that land have any basis to be aggrieved?

Apologies for my ignorance of the history.
 
manualman said:
…But what I always ask critics and never get a good answer to is “What SHOULD all those Jews left with nothing but their cultural and religious identity have done after WW2?” Gone back to Warsaw, Berlin and Paris? Yeah, right. They did what anybody who could would do. They banded together and looked after each other and protected each other from further threats. It’s hardly THEIR fault that practically the entire world had given them a raw deal. The initial guilt for Jewish people moving in droves to Palestine lies clearly in Europe. The follow up guilt for the strife that resulted from their mass migration lies 75% with the xenophobia of Haj Amin and the Palestinian people.
Click to expand...
What were the options available to Jewish immigrants / refugees after the war? Not all went to Palestine. In more recent times, displaced peoples (eg. Vietnamese, also left with nothing but the clothes on their backs, their culture and their religion) have moved to numerous countries throughout the world when their home country was lost to them.
 
Ahmadinejad has said before that perhaps Israel should be in Germany. After all, it was Germany that tried to exterminate the Jews, so Germany should cede a piece of its land to house them as compensation.

Also, George Friedman of Stratfor, who wrote The Next 100 Years and The Next Decade, has written that the US and Israel should be allies, but no longer stand so close. Supporting Israel so closely has hindered US relations with the rest of the Middle East. Middle East stability is based on the balance between Iran, Israel, and the Arabs. Israel can mostly defend itself, and Washington should distance itself from Israel to avoid bogging itself down with Iran and the Arabs.

Why do you agree or disagree?
 
I tend to side with Israel.

Historically, for thousands of years, tribes and cultures in what we call the Mid-East have been waring and conquering each other. Enslaving one another and claiming lands…until another tribe or culture takes over. Europe is no different…historically. It is the nature of the beast.

How Israel became Israel and is inhabited by Jews is unimportant. They have it…Palestine wants it. Nothing new…Remember the Babylonians and the Philistines…same old story.

What is remarkable today, is Israel’s restraint. Since 1947 is has defended itself. It has never been an aggressor. I don’t like aggression.

Google “Israel peace talks” or “cease fires” and see how many of these useless “talks” have taken place. Read the details and you will see how the United States is played as a sucker by the “Mid-East tribes” and…yes that includes Israel also. It was extortion.

I every case the U.S. promised foreign aid to the country attacking Israel and Israel received both military aid a payoff. Why are we such fools?

The only way to settle this is to let the combatants “slug it out”. The winner dominates the loser and that is that…history repeats itself. The problem is that Israel always wins. Well that’s not a problem for Israel but Egypt. Syria, and Jordan got hurt and Palestine would be crushed.

Another consideration is that Israel is our ally. We have certain obligations. Those obligations could include our standing by as watchdog, keeping other superpowers out of the area while Israel destroys Palestine.

But wait…there is more. Nuclear threat!

We know what is going on in Iran with it’s race to develop nuclear weapons…not good.
It is not a secret or classified information…that Israel has nuclear capability.
We don’t really know what Iran will do once they reach nuclear capability…but Israel has the weapons and has been very responsible about it for the last twenty years.

Who would you rather see dominate the Mid-East with a nuclear arsenal?
 
Rau said:
A friend of mine remarked recently that there was an injustice done to Arab peoples last century when the (new) State of Israel was established. His argument is: The original Israel was lost many centuries ago and there is no basis in law to re-establish it.
Click to expand...
A brief summary of the Jews in the Land of Israel from the destruction of the Temple through the Ottoman Empire is a good read.

Yes there were no laws because there was no state, only a British Mandate. The British as a colonial power controls the territory after it was taken from the ottoman turks.
Rau said:
While Jewish people were horrendously maligned in the early to mid years of last century, it did not justify confiscating the (long established) land of others so that Jewish people could come together in their own State. Is this view much shared by others? Is there a sound counter-position?
Click to expand...
The British supports for the creation of a Jewish homeland, under the Balfour declaration. Arthur Balfour was part of the liberal government of Prime Minister David Lloyd George. They believed that European Jewry had suffered historical injustices, that the West was to blame, and that, therefore, the West had a responsibility to enable a Jewish homeland.

But…more than half (lengthwise) of that British Mandate promised for a Jewish Homeland was given to the Hashemite kingdom which we presently called Jordan after WW1, because of a deal made with the Hashemite King for fighting with the allies against germany.

After WW2, the other half was divided between the arabs and the Jews. A very small portion of this was given to the Jews and they accepted it. The arabs rejected the whole idea. When the Jews declared their independence, they were invaded by 5 powerful arab neighboring armies who in their part ask the local arabs, who rejected the idea, to leave (they actually left) so they can drive all the Jews to the sea.

So were is the injustice to the arabs there?
 
Rau said:
At some point a set of borders were drawn, and I assume these borders disenfranchised some other group who previously had (rightful) control of that land? Was it right to carve out a piece of land on which to form a new State? Do the prior owners of that land have any basis to be aggrieved?

Apologies for my ignorance of the history.
Click to expand...
As I understand it (amateur reader, not historian), the UN mandate established political boundaries but did not seize anybody’s land. The nation of Israel after the 1948 war seized vacant properties abandoned by those Palestinians that had sided with the Arab armies that tried to crush the new country of Israel. I’m sure plenty of innocents evacuated just from fear of the fighting, but good luck trying to tell them apart from the actual sympathizers.

Political boundaries get moved all the time. As a lesser example, I not that long ago got re-assigned to a different congressional district (and detest my current rep). The people who were assigned by the UN to the territory of Israel and stayed in their homes and did not collaborate with the Arab armies got to keep that land just like I did.
 
randomusername said:
Israel left Gaza in 2005. That is a fact. Hamas kept firing at Israel even though Israel left. That is another fact.

Hamas is a terrorist group that has caused all these problems. They have been building underground tunnels to move troops and ammunition instead of trying to fix their country. They want Israel destroyed. When they were founded they stated that.
Click to expand...
True, Israel left Gaza without conditions, unilaterally. But one school of thought believes that the reason why they did that was so to throw a bone to the international community, so they could say, “See, we withdrew.” And while everyone was praising Israel for their magnanimity, this proved enough of a distraction from their illegal building of settlements on the West Bank.

Moreover, by withdrawing unilaterally, it means they can also move back in unilaterally, too. In other words, if their withdrawal would have been done by treaty, it would have binding conditions on both sides. Instead, Israel said to the Gazans, “We’re leaving. Good luck.” Sink or swim.

They should have negotiated binding promises from the Gaza side.
 
It’s a little difficult to enter into bilateral agreements with groups that do not acknowledge your right to exist as a nation. Who also have in their charter (Hamas) language that expresses their intent to exterminate you as a people.
Ski
 
manualman said:
As I understand it (amateur reader, not historian), the UN mandate established political boundaries but did not seize anybody’s land. The nation of Israel after the 1948 war seized vacant properties abandoned by those Palestinians that had sided with the Arab armies that tried to crush the new country of Israel. I’m sure plenty of innocents evacuated just from fear of the fighting, but good luck trying to tell them apart from the actual sympathizers.

Political boundaries get moved all the time. As a lesser example, I not that long ago got re-assigned to a different congressional district (and detest my current rep). The people who were assigned by the UN to the territory of Israel and stayed in their homes and did not collaborate with the Arab armies got to keep that land just like I did.
Click to expand...
Awesome comments about this very difficult problem!👍
 
Does anyone want to address my questions in post 32?
  1. Shouldn’t Germany cede some of its land for the Jews to live in, since the Germans did wrong to the Jews?
  2. Considering paulrxp’s points in post 10, and the work of George Friedman I mentioned in post 32, is it then better for the US and Israel to continue to be allies, but not stand so close?
Plus this question:
3) Isn’t the continued US support for Israel based on Christian Zionism, which Catholics oppose?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130176

scripturecatholic.com/zionism.html
In summary, Zionism is an anti-Catholic movement that attempts to remove the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and the only authoritative voice for interpreting these prophecies. By turning Scripture into a wax nose for their own political and religious fantasies, Zionists make the Jews and Israel, and not the New Testament Church, the focus of God’s divine plan. Zionism is blatantly false and has no basis in Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top