The following is a primer on the legal rights of the Jewish people to all of the land of Israel.
___________________________________________________
Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.
Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.
Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.
We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.
Play nice!
website design was Built By David
I don’t get how anyone can deny Israel belongs to the Jews. It is a historical fact, they were there.
What Rodan said!
For all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: “It might have been!”
If only, if only, if only the Allies had imposed the League mandate immediately after WWII. As for the Arabs in Palestine, what standing did they have then? Were they not collaborators with the Nazis? (Look at what France did to “collaborators.”) And when the Arabs responded violently to the creation of Israel, could they not have been forcibly removed to other Arab lands, whose very independence could have been made conditional upon the acceptance of Palestinian immigrants?
Were not hundreds of thousands of Germans forcibly removed from Poland and other countries of Eastern Europe? Did not the Allies (shamefully) force whole armies of Russian defectors back into the arms of Stalin for the sake of “stability?” These things were not nice, to put it mildly, but they were considered the lesser of evils in desperate times.
Now the war is far too long past for the victors to force the spoils in its heated aftermath. The Arab population in the West Bank is too great and decades of propaganda have taken their obvious toll. Judea and Samaria are lost forever.
If only.
Anastasia,
As to the “Arabs of Palestine”, they were offered and received more than a fair outcome. They were given Trans-Jordan: a whole 77% of what was originally promised to the Jewish people.
Then like now, that isn’t enough as long as Israel still exists!
Wrath—- Time has proven you right. If all Israel had been given was one little city, the Arabs would have fought it tooth and nail until it was destroyed.
Well, you might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. The Allies should have given Israel Judea and Samaria. As you say, the Arabs still would have had 3/4 of the Palestinian mandate.
BTW, this is a very good, short “primer.” I suggested in the Voting Booth that it might be put somewhere—I obviously am confused as to where!— for reference.
Anastasia,
Yes we are working on fixing the links, and doing other work regarding the site. We will definitely attempt to add this primer to the links, etc. However, its just where which is going to be the problem. That is what we are trying to figure out.
Just trying to rearrange the sock drawer.
As to the topic. These are facts that everyone who supports Israel must keep in mind, and be sure to mention everytime the Arab/Israel conflict comes up. We are often asked to begin every conversation about the “conflict” from a false premise that Israel stole land, and the Phakestinians lost their homes, so now what do we do about it. This is why we continue to end up with people thinking the only resolution is for Israel to give the Phakestinians Judea, and Samaria to the Arabs even though they have been predominantly Jewish (as was “east” Jerusalem) throughout history.
A reasonable and fair resolution would be to have these Phakestinians be fully integrated into Jordanian society as full members.
er, Wrath of God, isn’t the claim that “G-d gave us this land” the same claim that Hamas makes for Palestine (except they replace “G-d” with “Allah”)?
Stick to the legal arguments, and leave G-d out of this one.
Gordon,
Actually no, that isn’t the same claim because they are wrong, and since the Koran is based on the Bible, and Torah, it too states that the land was given to the Jews.
There are 2 arguments to why Israel belongs to the Jewish people: one is legal (secular) and the other is Holy.
Gordon,
You can believe in nothing, and even voice that opinion here (as long as you are respectful) if you’d like.
I however, believe in G-d, and The Torah, and the eternal covenant H’S made with the Jewish people. Thus my understanding that G-d Himself gave all the land of Israel to the People of Israel trumps your U.N. any day.
The concept of a legal right, and a Holy right however are not at odds. They are both true, and they are both acceptable arguments.
Legal right, Holy right, FOUGHT AND WON right.
Take your pick, “Allah” doesn’t will it. Leave Israel to Israel.
Actually, I think there is a book-length treatment of this subject written by the same author. It is very nice work, and it absolutely shreds contrary arguments. (And I do not exaggerate here.)
Regarding the religious justification, and in response to the former Gordon, why is it that just because some other religion has an argument it should follow that we should consider that argument equal to our own? I mean, the Aztecs had a different religion too, and at its core, it required vast numbers of human sacrifices to keep the world from being destroyed. Shouldn’t we base our actions on what we believe to be right, whether based in religion or Nature or Tradition? If the belief systems cannot be reconciled, then our own should prevail. Counterarguments on this point mystify me. Now, when the our religion conflicts with our American law, that does become a problem.
There is a third argument, in addition to what we call “legal” and religious, and it gets to the purpose and nature of what is called “international law.” Such “law” is not like American law in the sense that it does not derive solely from Congress and it is not checked by the Executive or the Court. As I understand it, the original purpose of such “law” was to regulate the actions of nations such that national interests could be advanced without the need of constant war. Such “law” has been turned into something very different: a way of shackling the “hegemon” (and we know who THAT is). Well, if it is in the American INTEREST to see Eretz Israel Jewish and the Fakestinians ousted, that alone is justification enough.
Do you then say, “that means might makes right”? I would say, “darn tootin.’” This is the post-Wesphalia nation-state system in a nutshell. Why are we apologizing? Sometimes there are inevitable clashes of interest between states. Whose interests then should prevail if they cannot be reconciled? I mean, what was that war against the Axis powers if not a response to the same “autarkic” (the correct word and spelling) international system?
This whole “international law” thang has been, since WW2, completely misinterpreted to advance certain interests. It’s about time we interpret it correctly.
Islam And The West Accelerated Links…
LFG 2 with a necessary history of modern Israel….