Israel - should the UN have established it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seraphim73 said:
Where did you read this? There is so much anti-semitsm I am skeptical of anything put out by the media.
Click to expand...
Jewish friend in college who grew up in Israel. Think about it for a second. Jews in Israel are people first and foremost. People being people, can you imagine the Jewish community NOT treating Arab Israelis somewhat unjustly?

Just look right here in America. Ask any young black man what it’s like for him to go for a walk in the evening in a predominantly white suburb. And the black community in America is hardly tossing rockets into white enclaves, are they?

People tend to tribalism and the injustice that goes with it. Israelis are no exception on either the good or evil side. That’s why it’s fair criticism to point out injustices there, but unjust to trump it up into something like Apartheid.
 
manualman said:
Jewish friend in college who grew up in Israel. Think about it for a second. Jews in Israel are people first and foremost. People being people, can you imagine the Jewish community NOT treating Arab Israelis somewhat unjustly?
Click to expand...
Anecdotal evidence
Just look right here in America. Ask any young black man what it’s like for him to go for a walk in the evening in a predominantly white suburb. And the black community in America is hardly tossing rockets into white enclaves, are they?
Click to expand...
Black people walk in my “white suburb” all the time. No one bats an eye at them.
 
We probably need to get back on topic. The OP asked whether the UN should have established Israel.

By the way the UN does not have the authority to establish anything. General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations. Israel established Israel within the boundaries put forth in Resolution 181 when they declared independence on May 14, 1948. Then they had to fight for it.
Ski
 
Sayed Kashua, a popular Israeli journalist for Haaretz (the leading Israeli paper), and an Arab Israeli, has in the past few weeks decided to leave Israel permanently. If you want to understand what it’s like to be an Arab living even among the “upper crust” of Israeli society, you should read some of his recent accounts of the discrimination he and his family have experienced simply because they are Arab.
 
There is the sad rule in operation for many millennia that the winner of a war is entitled to the spoils to do with as they please. The Bible doesn’t say that the Assyrians were unfair when they deported the 10 tribes out of their native land, or when the Babylonians did the same to Judah later on. The Holy Land was part of the Byzantine Empire until it was conquered by the Muslims over 1,000 years ago. For the Muslims this rule was axiomatic while it was spreading across Africa and Asia and they imposed their government (fair or unfair) on the native populations.

No country we know of hasn’t been involved in military action and boundaries have mostly been decided by warfare. Israel has won all its wars so it still exists. The rule Muslims supported in the beginning is now working against them. This is why we have interminable discussions about the nature of Israel’s behavior and right to exist. Why don’t the highly populated Arab countries form an allied army to fight against Israel, since they would outnumber Israel’s military by 20 or more to one? If they were victorious they would apply the ancient rule again, but there are doubts based on past experience that they would win.

The Church recognizes the validity of a “just war.” As such, warfare is likely the only basis for a recognized decision on the issues of Middle East and Israel’s right to exist.
 
The UN have the duty and right to have Israel to have their own State. They have been long God’s chosen people, which we find in the Bible, Old Testament. They have a right to exist as a people, having been dispersed (diaspora) they need to be a people of their own. We can see that what the Old Testament, has concealed is now being revealed in the New Testament and even now, All those prophecies and promises of God to them is now is now being revealed.
 
If you look at the world map around Israel you see to the West Northern and and Sub Saharan Africa from Morocco to Sudan and Somalia all dominated my Moslem nations. To the South and South East are Egypt, Sinai, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. To the East you find Jordan,Syria,Iraq,Iran all the way to Pakistan and Afghanistan. To the North are Turkey and the former Soviet Union Southern States that are all dominated by Islam. A total of 400,000,000 Islamic people. In the midst of all of this are 4.5 Million Israelis occupying a sliver of land 234x71 miles. One can understand their paranoia. The above poster is correct if all of Islam was of one mind they could make short work of Israel. The Jews lose one war it is over.
Ski
 
Hrvatski said:
If you look at the world map around Israel you see to the West Northern and and Sub Saharan Africa from Morocco to Sudan and Somalia all dominated my Moslem nations. To the South and South East are Egypt, Sinai, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. To the East you find Jordan,Syria,Iraq,Iran all the way to Pakistan and Afghanistan. To the North are Turkey and the former Soviet Union Southern States that are all dominated by Islam. A total of 400,000,000 Islamic people. In the midst of all of this are 4.5 Million Israelis occupying a sliver of land 234x71 miles. One can understand their paranoia. The above poster is correct if all of Islam was of one mind they could make short work of Israel. The Jews lose one war it is over.
Code: 
                             Ski
Click to expand...
I don’t think “they would make short work of Israel”. Israel has nukes and they would not hesitate to use them.
 
freeRadical said:
I don’t think “they would make short work of Israel”. Israel has nukes and they would not hesitate to use them.
Click to expand...
You are probably right. But I hope and pray that the “nuclear genie” never is let out of the bottle. For obvious reasons.
 
Not without a complete study by all concerned, which never happened. I doubt even the most common bedouin of those times actually knew the rug was being pulled from under him. This process I think would take a minimum of years with a possible outcome of the idea being rejected outright.

Authoritative nations who have (questionable?)claim to foreign lands may have a say in what it can do, but when it involves the subject people directly, in land use, land ownership, and boundary issues, it directly impacts the subjects. I’m thinking Palestine and England here. In this case England should have no absolute say in this matter, since people have established a homeland and inherited rights that come about by occupation through the years and sometime centuries. This while Israeli’s decided to go and explore and occupy new lands.

England has a history of considering human and moral issues with a certain detachment, implements reactionary measures and without much forethought as to consequences either. The irony is that when it came to doing it’s part in accepting homeless Jews after the war, it’s contribution was to accept only a mediocre number of families. This says it all. ie “Ok if it’s happening ‘over there’, but not here in merry 'ol England”.

The Israelis had a habit of moving off into various nations and settling in those nations has citizens, while the rest of the world occupied themselves with making a home within their nations. This was the Jewish choice and the consequences of wealth or failure was their risk. While any people choose to do this, their ancestors should expect to see the world changed and boundaries changed, and nations born or die while they’re gone.

Some years back there was an Israeli web site from a group who did not take the stance that Israel should have a homeland. They pressed the idea that God meant Israel to be a conceptual place and not a geographical location. It had quite a following.
 
The Catholic Church has opposed Zionism from the beginning. Pope Saint Pius X flatly rejected Theodore Herzl’s plea for support of Zionism in 1904. When Pope Paul VI visited Jerusalem in 1964, he refused to publicly utter the word “Israel” and even his thank-you note to then-President Zalman Shazar was mailed to Tel Aviv, lest he be accused of acknowledging Israel’s sovereignty in Jerusalem. The Vatican established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1993 during the rein of Pope Saint John Paul II. This was a recognition of Israel as a state but not as a “Jewish” state. The Vatican does not recognize the Israeli ambassador to represent the Jewish people. Christian Zionism is also considered a heresy in the Catholic Church. A Catholic cannot support Israel on Biblical reasons.

The Catechism teaches that the Catholic Church is the new Israel. The country created in 1948 has got nothing to do with Biblical prophesy except maybe in relation to the coming of the Antichrist…but that will be a different topic.
 
djames99 said:
Not without a complete study by all concerned, which never happened. I doubt even the most common bedouin of those times actually knew the rug was being pulled from under him. This process I think would take a minimum of years with a possible outcome of the idea being rejected outright.

Authoritative nations who have (questionable?)claim to foreign lands may have a say in what it can do, but when it involves the subject people directly, in land use, land ownership, and boundary issues, it directly impacts the subjects. I’m thinking Palestine and England here. In this case England should have no absolute say in this matter, since people have established a homeland and inherited rights that come about by occupation through the years and sometime centuries. This while Israeli’s decided to go and explore and occupy new lands.

England has a history of considering human and moral issues with a certain detachment, implements reactionary measures and without much forethought as to consequences either. The irony is that when it came to doing it’s part in accepting homeless Jews after the war, it’s contribution was to accept only a mediocre number of families. This says it all. ie “Ok if it’s happening ‘over there’, but not here in merry 'ol England”.

The Israelis had a habit of moving off into various nations and settling in those nations has citizens, while the rest of the world occupied themselves with making a home within their nations. This was the Jewish choice and the consequences of wealth or failure was their risk. While any people choose to do this, their ancestors should expect to see the world changed and boundaries changed, and nations born or die while they’re gone.

Some years back there was an Israeli web site from a group who did not take the stance that Israel should have a homeland. They pressed the idea that God meant Israel to be a conceptual place and not a geographical location. It had quite a following.
Click to expand...
Actually there were studies that were done. There were two prior too WW2. The Peel Commission of 1937 and the White Paper of 1939. They came to opposite conclusions. Post WW2 the UN sent a commission to Palestine prior to the General Assembly vote to conduct further study and it came up with basically the same result as the Peel Report. Neither side was happy.
Ski
 
Corhaesito said:
Religion has nothing to do with the creation of Israel, which happened out of whole cloth when the UN at the request of the British crafted the partition plan. Israel is a secular, modern, liberal state with abortion, divorce, and other ills of post-Christian Western society.

While the Jews agreed to the partition plan, the Arabs did not. Muslims AND Christians in Palestine objected to Zionism and the plan to erect a Jewish state where none had been before in many hundreds of years.

So if the OP is asking whether Christians wanted the UN to establish Israel, the answer is no, Christians in the Holy Land did not want Israel to be created.

Whether it should have been created when only one of the parties (the Jews) agreed to the partition of Palestine, is a separate question.
Click to expand...
And the fathers of Zionism were atheist Jews.

The Vatican also did not want Israel to be established. The Vatican refused to recognize Israel until 1993. And although the Vatican now has diplomatic relations with Israel, it does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The Catholic Church in the holy land are in solidarity with Palestinian Christians of other denominations and with their Muslim brothers in opposing the Israeli occupation of their land.

Most pro-Israel Catholics can be found in the US where the influence of Christian Zionism (which the Catholic Church considers to be a heresy) is strongest. It is sad that the heresy is creeping into some Catholic communities.
 
Arbutus said:
The Catholic Church in the holy land are in solidarity with Palestinian Christians of other denominations and with their Muslim brothers in opposing the Israeli occupation of their land.
Click to expand...
So you’re in solidarity with the people intentionally firing rockets at Jewish children? How about the suicide bombers who target innocent civilians on buses, in cafes and dance halls?
 
No one suggested we negotiate with Japan or Germany after WWII on equal terms. We won, they lost. In 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon attacked Israel, they lost. Israel sets the terms. And Israel has been very generous. After winning multiple defensive wars Israel has exchanged territory captured in those wars for peace.

The Palestinians have been offered a state on multiple occasions. They were even offered a state with Jerusalem as capital. They have responded to every offer with more terror, more targeting of Israeli civilians. They simply cannot accept a map of the Middle East with Israel on it. That is crystal clear from the record of history. Until that changes there will never be peace.

“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us…” - Golda Meir
 
Seraphim73 said:
No one suggested we negotiate with Japan or Germany after WWII on equal terms. We won, they lost. In 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon attacked Israel, they lost. Israel sets the terms. And Israel has been very generous. After winning multiple defensive wars Israel has exchanged territory captured in those wars for peace.

The Palestinians have been offered a state on multiple occasions. They were even offered a state with Jerusalem as capital. They have responded to every offer with more terror, more targeting of Israeli civilians. They simply cannot accept a map of the Middle East with Israel on it. That is crystal clear from the record of history. Until that changes there will never be peace.

“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us…” - Golda Meir
Click to expand...
Israel’s establishment was not achieved by it winning a war, for it did not exist at the time. Wars came later. It was bequeathed Statehood under unsatisfactory circumstances, because many felt sorry for the Persecuted Jews.

Most perplexing to me is the level of political support Israel finds in the US. I believe no US presidential candidate could be elected if their support was not clearly biased towards Israel. It would not be sufficient to take a neutral position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top