Modern State of Israel

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Out of another conversation, this topic came up: the modern state of Israel.

Personally, I think every culture is valuable to all of humanity and that all cultures have, essentially, the right to live as they see fit. I'm a pretty serious supporter of Tibetan independence, for example.

But at the same time, I can't help but feel torn about the modern state of Israel. Probably doesn't help that my knowledge of the history is limited. I do not argue that Israel should not exist, or that it necessarily should exist - hence being torn on the issue.

I do have some concerns. Maybe some of you who better understand the circumstances can help with these. First, I am concerned for the welfare of the Palestinian people - I understand there has been serious concerns raised about the human rights situation in areas occupied by Israel. Second, I worry about the fundamentalist element in Israel and the drive to war - just like I worry about the fundamentalism in American and predominantly Muslim nations and their drive to war.

We're talking about Jews and Muslims - people who, for the most part of their history, coexisted marvelously. What happened?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,041 • Replies: 13

No top replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I do not see the problem in Israel as something that was formed by the Jewish people but rather a mistake performed by the United Nations and those who felt they had more of an excuse to solicit, in the respect of both the positition of Palestine and the wish of the people there of.

Palestine was and still is, a land of no clear possesion. Does Islam have a claim to it that any should feel obliged to acknowledge. If there is then we should also allow the rights of Christianity and Judaism.

Do nations that at one time conquered that place have right to it. If so then all who have conquered it should have a say.

When we take a vote on such an issue do we exclude those who live there or about there from partaking. If so then you have a State of Israel.

The first state of sorts that was formed in Palestine in reguard to a Jewish quarter, so to speak, was a residual effect in gratitude to Jewish funds that were accepted to help in the war against the Kaiser during the first world war, at the declaration of the Versaille Treaty. Palestine was under the rule of new conquerers. Following World War Two, a second treaty was devised to allow for the settlement of displaced Jewish people, into Palestine. From this, the State of Israel emerged from itself and took what was once Palestine.

Following WWII, many nations fought off the opression of colonial rule, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Egypt and so on. Palestine was a territory that the United Nations placed into an adjunctment of Europe. Whether to rid themselves of their scourge or place the displaced in what the bible says is their homeland.

I say scourge not in disrespect to Jewish people but to reflect the sentiment that all European nations held in reguard there of since they themselves became nations. At the foot of every church and nation of Europe is the skin of Jewish settlement. While the hand may be open in times of need, England during the war against the French and the Spanish, much of what helped modernise Europe came from systems that were developed by a Jewish quarter only to find themselves discarded once patriotism took fever.

I am saddened mostly by the fact that The United States of America wear the brunt of repriasal from the Middle East, them aside from the Jewish people in Palestine, when it is Europe that should suffer the fate.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

I have the problem right here. The British had made deals with the Jews and the Palestinians concerning (approximately) the same land. Here are the official documents. Please note who the balfour declaration is made out to by the way.

The Balfour Declaration wrote:

The Balfour Declaration

[CENTER]Foreign Office

November 2nd, 1917[/CENTER]

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

The Sykes-Picot Agreement wrote:

[CENTER]The Sykes-Picot Agreement[/CENTER]

It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments:

That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the sheriff of Mecca.

That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the tigres and Euphrates in area (a) for area (b). His majesty's government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third power without the previous consent of the French government.

That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.

That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b).

For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.

It shall be agreed that the French government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of His Majesty's government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French government regarding the red area.

The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.

The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two powers.
It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.

I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, His Majesty's government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your excellency's government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your excellency as soon as exchanged. I would also venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of Turkey in Asia, as formulated in Article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the allies.

His Majesty's government further consider that the Japanese government should be informed of the arrangements now concluded.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

Nice one Arjen. As you can tell it is only part of the problem but a very big part.

I do apologise to those whom I have offended with my discurtious remarks toward the whole of Europe. I full well know that it was not all of Europe but the list of non agressors in this matter is so small that I would hate to single you out for fear of reprisal.

I am sorry, you have already suffered that fate. SOLIDARITA.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

Urangatang, please remember that no matter what anyone has done, we are all human. All we can do if forgive and accept. That way everybody will gain the right to 'be'. By harboring such opinion as you do you only create the seperation which is grounds for future conflicts.

I hope you will take this to heart.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

Oh I do Arjen, I do take this to heart. It is about time that those who are responsible stood up for the counting and set the example that they expect the world to live by. There is no moving forward if the crux of the issue lies in the hallows of some bureaucratic vault of "at the time it was appropriate". Today the band aid solutions only stand to assure us that our ancestors have nothing to feel wrong about. It will not do.

To often wrongs are employed to justify and erase mistakes.

I cannot cast dispertion of doubt, to faith but I will argue against the perception, in concept of belief.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

The point I was making was that you cannot expect from others what you will not do yourself: forgiving, forgetting, accepting. You still feel that a wrongdoer should make amends ("those who are responsible stood up for the counting and set the example that they expect the world to live by"). However, you are not in a position to state what is right or wrong, nor to ask anything from another. That is why I said to accept and forgive.

I hope you understand my point.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

It is easy for us to accept and forgive Arjen, as we are not within the boundaries of conflict. This applies across the board. The United States to its Native Inhabitants and all the rest of the Americas for that matter. The Belgians for its influencial effects in Africa, the English, the French, the this, the that, the list is endless. We are the ones after the forgiveness but you wouldn't know it, as we haven't asked. It is not my place to forgive our mistakes. It is not my place to simply accept the mistakes of our past and in saying this, it is neither mine to expect acceptance or forgiveness.

You are reading me correctly just in all the wrong ways. I am English, I am French, I am Italian and I live in a land that has a history of subservient natives. Unless I ask for forgiveness how can I simply accept. I am no different than an Israelli in Palestine however, I do not fight for my rights as they are the rights of others bestowed upon me. I do not deny the rights of others for this is not my place to object and this is the only way I can feel forgiveness unless I stand upon a soapbox until all have heard me.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

Urangatang, I am going to say what I mean and then drop it. You obviously have a lot invested in this.

The thing of it is that as long as there is one group who is dominant over the other a lot of unhealthy things surface for both groups. Just like Nietzsche argues in his master slave morality. It is also true that any master is a slave to the slaves as well, seeing as it requires certain acts to keep them in check.

So, the only thing that can work is equality, because that way one can simply 'exist' instead of being forced into certain acts; even if the slavery or mastery is accepted willingly. Trying to ask for forgiveness cannot have a positive effect on any matter because the blanace (equality) is disrupted by it. All one can do is learn from past mistakes, accept, and forgive. That way one can experience that equality (balance) within oneself. From there at least one disrupting factor (and thereby one enslaving factor) is eliminated from the equation.

I'll leave it at this.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

A lot of turmoil could have been averted had the state of Israel been placed in Hungary like it was originally suggested. I don't think there will ever be peace in the Middle East due to the tenuous relationship between Israel and many countries. Israel has been a huge supporter of terrorism over the years and it is no surprise that countries would prefer Israel to not exist. Israel's relationship with the U.S. also does not help the Israeli cause in the Middle East.

2 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I think you make good points Thaetetus. I think the reason why it was placed where it was placed is the person to whom the Balfour Declaration was made out to: Lord Rothchild. Perhaps you should google this name. It is not the kind of person who worries about terrorism, exploitation or war. It is the kind of person who uses such means to enrich himself.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus, I strongly disagree. All one has to do is simply remove the State of Israel. It is not a State that is Nationhood but a State of Mind. It has been allowed to build as though it was a nation, acquiring property that has been allowed so as to alleviate the stress that people of Jewish faith have demanded of companies that owe a retribution to the families that helped develop wartime efforts, under duress.

Ask yourself the question, who suffers everytime that the Jews of Palestine make a demand of the world that caused the suffering that was the haulocaust. You wont find Germany, France, England or companies of their citizens paying anything out. Neither do they step beyond simple words at the table when in comes to determine whether they are being unfair in their treatment to the people of Palestine.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

Theaetetus, I strongly disagree. All one has to do is simply remove the State of Israel. It is not a State that is Nationhood but a State of Mind. It has been allowed to build as though it was a nation, acquiring property that has been allowed so as to alleviate the stress that people of Jewish faith have demanded of companies that owe a retribution to the families that helped develop wartime efforts, under duress.

Ask yourself the question, who suffers everytime that the Jews of Palestine make a demand of the world that caused the suffering that was the haulocaust. You wont find Germany, France, England or companies of their citizens paying anything out. Neither do they step beyond simple words at the table when in comes to determine whether they are being unfair in their treatment to the people of Palestine.

With that logic we may as well get rid of both Canada and the United States because they have no right to exist in the same way you say Israel does not. See where you fail?

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Is it worth mentioning that Zionism began as an anti-spiritual experiment?

Prior to the Kookist movement, which became horribly oversimplified when his son came to political prominence, Zionism was a socialist and Marxist movement, which generally rejected the spiritual aspect of Zionism which now dominates the discussion... at least in the USA.

0 Replies

Modern State of Israel

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know