So Israel, even in its original plan, has no right to exist according to you. But so too the original Arab country, which would have caused the deportation of Jews from its territory.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
USA Veto against Palestinians Again and again
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
And yet, we have people in this very thread, as well as the Israeli government, who would desire nothing more than a country where all Palestinian Arabs live as second class citizens under Jewish ethnic supremacy.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
In my view, no state has a right to exist in and of itself; they ought to exist conditionally based on the collective will of their inhabitants, and the absence of oppression. A state that oppresses people - especially one that oppresses people based on their religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality etc. - has no right to exist in my eyes.
EDIT: For the record, I believe the original UN plan would have been unworkable from the start - which is why it blew up almost immediately upon contact with reality. I don't think it would have caused any less misery than the ethnic cleansings of the 1948 War, if followed to the letter.
I'm okay with the current Israeli Arabs, Bedouins and Druze citizens, provided they continue to recognize the country as a Jewish one. I have never stated otherwise. Historically, there have always been non-Jews in Jewish states. I am against giving full citizenship rights to a particular group who I know would love nothing more than to see me drown in the ocean, or die some other painful death. I am also against giving rights to a particular group who I know that may potentially overwhelm the country's Jewish population and cause its cessation as a Jewish country, whether through democracy or otherwise, being that that was the sole purpose for the founding of this particular state.
In conclusion, sometimes you agree with the UN and sometimes you don't. Great, at least we're similar in that respect.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
That's a rather bizarre takeaway from this discussion, but I'm not the boss of you.
Do you disagree with the UN decision of 1947?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I think it was a terrible idea implemented even worse, but I also don't know if there was a better alternative, given the circumstances at the time and the intellectual environment the people who drew up the partition plan lived in. I would have loved for people to have found a solution for Jews and Arabs to live peacefully in a single state, but I'm not sure if that was in the cards even back in 1947.
Not asking whether you liked it or not. Do you disagree with it?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I don't understand what you are trying to get at, sorry. Could you perhaps rephrase your question?
I'm trying to get a simple, straight answer to what I believe is a yes/no question. I'll try to pose it in a different way:
According to you, was the UN wrong to decide to establish a Jewish state in particular areas of what used to be British Palestine (those defined in the 1947 partition plan)?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I already answered that question, you just didn't like my answer because it didn't satisfy your desire to narrow down a complex issue to a simplistic "yes" or "no" response.
I'm sorry that I couldn't satisfy your burning need to catch me in some kind of rhetorical trap, but perhaps we can continue this discussion once you stop asking questions in bad faith.
It was merely a side question. I realized I don't actually know what your view of Israel is. I'm sorry to say that I still don't know what your view of Israel is, given that you're dodging.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I've explained my position at length.
I see no need to elaborate any further than that.
(edit: added link)
I saw that you wrote that it was unworkable - but if you would have been alive at the time, would you have said: "legit", or "not legit"?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
What is that supposed to mean? Are these questions just a roundabout way of asking me again and again whether I think Israel has a "right to exist" - a question I believe I have already answered quite exhaustively at this point?
EDIT:
I called the partition plan "unworkable" for two major reasons:
- Neither side was satisfied with what they got, believed they were being screwed over, to put it colloquially, and there was nobody in place that could have prevented the inevitable violence from breaking out
- The plan called for massive deportations, which was bound to cause resentment and dissatisfaction even in the best of circumstances (because people tend to not like being forced to leave their homes, no matter the reason) and is also something that I personally oppose on moral principle
No, we got past that. I want to know if you agree with the original 1947 UN decision.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
What do you mean by that? I have honestly no idea what kind of response you are trying to get out of me, or what you are even asking here!
What does it mean for you to "agree" to that partition plan? Or to "disagree", for that matter?
I can't see how I could "agree" or "disagree" to an agreement that
- I wasn't a party of,
- doesn't concern me directly,
- was decided in the past without my input,
- and is not in force today.
I know you were not party to it. I'm trying a hypothetical. If you were even just a bystander and read in the newspaper of the UN's decision at the time, would you have said: That is a legitimate decision, or would you have said: that is wrong?
As actual racism state yes don't have right to exist.
If become Jewish state. all citizens had same rights. Whatever race and religion.
I would support it.