I vote yes. What do you think? For the purposes of this, disregard the current conflict in the region. Simply state whether or not you believe the nation as we know it today, has a right to exist.

yes

I've never understood the concept of Israel. Maybe someone could clear this up.

A third party walked in and gave a chunk of Palestine to the Israelis, and Palestine was supposed to not be upset. I know this is a fantastic amount of oversimplification, so maybe someone can fill in the details of my dodgy history education here?

Exactly, never should have been created in the first place. Why was land taken away from people in the Middle East for something Europeans did to Jews.

Nope you seem to have a pretty clear grasp of it.

Yes.

No.

I have a feeling this thread is going to piss me off.

possibly, but just try to refrain, that's what I am doing.

It shouldn't. I suspected roughly 1 out of 2 VJers would vote no and at this point we're close.

Okay, good. I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't grasp the reasoning behind this!

I have nothing against the Israelis, but I just fail to understand how a politician could look at the situation and say, "This is a good idea, nah, this won't create any civil unrest or tension at all!"

You're a strong woman.

a yes vote from me. i have a strong suspicion on who voted no.

Why? Do you have a problem with being wrong?

Yes, but couldn't it have been created somewhere else? Like possibly a part of Germany or something?

And it begins.

From what I understand, no, because the religious ties of the Israeli community are to that specific land. Or so it has been explained to me!

and muslims don't have religious ties to that specific area?
I can certainly understand that they have ties to that area however it was not Palestine's duty to give up that land. I can definately understand their anger towards Israel.

However let me make it clear that I do not support either side. I say let them kill each other then we'll figure out what to do with the ashes.

Of course they do; I was just answering your question as to why Israel couldn't have been created elsewhere.

I think i should also say i don't support either side, i answered "no" as an answer to the question in the absolute.

creation of israel after ww2

how the jews were run out of there

palestine claims to the region

Sure. After a fashion.

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said. "Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

asked and answered.

next question?

Get your homeland and get it at the place you most desire.

Israel does have the right to exist, but not at the expense of the Palestinian people, who have suffered far too long at the hands of the Zionist occupiers of THEIR land.....

maybe the current crisis will bring in Iran and Syria to the conflict, then lets see how the Israelis tackle them?

Israel has been getting away with muderous and terrorist activities for way too long now...

There was no "nation" of Palestine or "Palestinian people" when Israel was created,
or at least the people who lived there (about 500,000 at the time) didn't identify
themselves as such. Their relationship with the Jewish people and the State of Israel
has been fundamental in shaping that identity.

Interesting. So what were they prior to the creation of the State of Israel? Who did the land technically belong to, as in who had sovereign control of it?

While I voted yes, it doesn't really matter. Perhaps a different place should have been chosen for there to be a Jewish state, but what's done is done and Israel where it is isn't going away without a huge amount of bloodshed, mostly by the Palestinians and any other Muslims they bring into it. The only other option is two states in peace.

So, war without end? Or two state peace? Which will it be, extremists?

They should never have given Jerusalem entirely to the jews. That would IMO solve much of the problem.

British Mandate of Palestine -- which included today's territories of Israel, Gaza,
West Bank and Jordan (aka "Transjordan".)

In 1947, the British government decided to terminate the Mandate and passed the
responsibility over Palestine to the UN. Shortly afterwards, the UN General
Assembly passed a plan (UN Resolution 181) to partition Palestine into two states,
Jewish and Arab.

So the territory belonged to...Gaza, West Bank and Jordan? I'm confused. Before third parties came in and started mucking things up and giving land to people it didn't belong to, who owned the land?

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

According to the above,
"Before the end of World War I, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The British, under General Allenby during the Arab Revolt stirred up by the British intelligence officer T. E. Lawrence, defeated the Turkish forces in 1917 and occupied Palestine and Syria. The land was administered by the British for the remainder of the war."

and

"The United Kingdom was granted control of Palestine by the Versailles Peace Conference which established the League of Nations in 1919 and appointed Herbert Samuel, a former Postmaster General in the British cabinet, who was instrumental in drafting the Balfour Declaration, as its first High Commissioner in Palestine. During World War I the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British; and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917."

Ah. Thank you.

The British encouraged migration of Jews from Europe to part of the mandate they had contorl over. When it was time to leave, they took the part where Jews had settled and added some more and made it Israel.

So, shouldn't people really be mad at the British??? j/k

The British are at fault for lots of the worlds problems. They're the real bad guys.

Okay. So the British owned the land? Won by battle? Not the Palestinians? And they gave it to the Israelites?

If it was their land to deed as they wished...hm. Interesting.

There is a school of thought that land belongs to the people who live on it, not the people who won it by battle. If everyone agreed that winning land in battle made it yours and you were free to do with it as you wished, there would be no conflict, no war.

....belonged to Britain.

There was no state of Jordan at the time; the Mandate covered "Palestine" (the modern
territories of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) and "Transjordan" (all territory east of the
Jordan river. ) Transjordan was created by Britain as a semi-autonomous state (ruled by
the British-installed Prince Abdullah I), but both Palestine and Transjordan were administered
under a single British High Commissioner. When the mandate over Transjordan ended
in 1946 (or '47), it became an independent country (the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan).
In 1950 Transjordan annexed the West Bank and renamed itself to the Hashemite Kingdom
of Jordan, or simply Jordan. During the 1967 war against Israel (along with Egypt and Syria),
Jordan lost its control of the West Bank, and it's still considered "occupied" by Israel.

Yes, Israel does have right to exist, although its recent aggression into Lebanon is a severe overreaction.

If we follow that logic, then, couldn't Britain come back and claim the US colonies as theirs? After all, they stole it from the rightful inhabitants first...

one could also argue that america does not have the right to exist, since it was taken from the indians....

Precisely.

[font=Arial][font=Arial][font=Arial]

i vote yes..of course..

Depends on which side of the argument you're on. If you believe winning land in battle makes it yours, America has a right to exist. If you do not, America does not.

um... what does that say to the 12 million illegal immigrants here?