Iran

[Trem]

The thing with Israel and the USA sitting in a tree.........is possibly due to the fact that Jews pretty much run America, or at least have a shitload of influence.

If we had a less pussy of a PM we would have no part in the whole thing. But Bush clearly gives good head to Tony.

 

[xane]

So.... that makes it perfectly OK to fully support the state of Israel whose foundation is based solely on the fact that THEY say they are God's chosen people, and that God gave them that land.

Seeing as this is all detailed in the Old Testament, and seeing as both the Bible and Koran are based on it, perhaps this might be considered a valid claim to followers of those religions.

Also, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919, seemed to indicate the Arab nations that were created in the aftermath of WW1 from the remains of the Ottoman Empire, were okay with a independent homeland for Jews in Palestine created alongside them.

And the League of Nations, and later the UN, of which the Arab nations are members and obliged to agree with, makes Israel a legally recognised entity.

So, _apart_ from the spiritual, moral and legal arguments, there really isn't a reason for Israel to exist, is there ?

 

[throdgrain]

Well played Xane to be honest lol

 

[old.user4556]

pld Xane

 

[Mofo8]

Seeing as this is all detailed in the Old Testament, and seeing as both the Bible and Koran are based on it, perhaps this might be considered a valid claim to followers of those religions.

Also, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919, seemed to indicate the Arab nations that were created in the aftermath of WW1 from the remains of the Ottoman Empire, were okay with a independent homeland for Jews in Palestine created alongside them.

And the League of Nations, and later the UN, of which the Arab nations are members and obliged to agree with, makes Israel a legally recognised entity.

So, _apart_ from the spiritual, moral and legal arguments, there really isn't a reason for Israel to exist, is there ?

My main point was my objections to Zionism, and I hoped to draw a comparison between Zionist Jews and their allies, the fundamentalist Christian right, and the Iranian premier, all of whom seem to attempt to use religion to justify their beliefs.

In an attempt to remain rational, let's leave religion out of this,

That leaves what you called the moral and legal arguements. Which one's the moral one? Both the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (have you read that Wiki page btw?) and the League of Nations bit both appear to be legal or political arguements (and both on shaky ground).

The only moral reason for setting up the state of Israel in Palestine that I can think of involves European guilt over events before and during the Second World War, which is exactly what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refered to recently.

The main reason the Zionists themselves used at the time all of these treaties and documents were being debated and signed, was a historic one. Not spiritual, moral or legal. Of course, most of their justification for a historical claim brings us unfortunately back to the Torah. Jews historically ruled in that area for around 400 years, from 1000BC until the Temple was destroyed. A good comparision is spotted online stated that this length of time was roughly the same as the Roman Empire's occupation of the British Isles. Would that lend any strength to a claim by citizens of the capital of Italy over the UK today? Of course not.

To come back to morals again: Much of my objection to the way Israel has conducted themselves is on moral grounds. I accept that they are now a nation, and have right to defend themselves, but their actions go way beyond that, and some of what they've subjected the people of Palestine to would not be unfamiliar to the German Einsatzgruppen: Bulldozing villages and homes, state sanctioned torture and assassination, snipers shooting children, the killing of unarmed international peace activists, a secret WMD program, kidnapping people on foreign soil, etc., etc. Of course, the USA now seems to be taking a liking to these types of tactics too now, and we're being dragged along with them.

 

[ECA]

Yeah the arabs had no problems whatsoever xane

In preparation for the meeting, the British had written to Faisal that "we know that the Arabs despise, condemn and hate the Jews", but that the Jewish race is "universal, all-powerful and cannot be put down". Under such circumstances, the secret British communication contended, Faisal was well advised to cultivate the Zionist movement as a powerful ally rather than to oppose it. In the event, Weizmann and Faisal established an informal agreement under which Faisal would support dense Jewish settlement in Palestine while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Faisal hoped to establish.

and

(The Palestinian Arabs themselves had rejected the Balfour Declaration outright because, according to Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., author of A Concise History of the Middle East (Westview Press, 1979), they made up over 90% of Palestine and refused to accept a homeland be created for another people. Furthermore, they resented not being consulted by the British about a Declaration that neglected the political rights of the non-Jewish majority in Palestine [1].)

and

The Faisal-Weizmann agreement survived only a few months. The outcome of the peace conference itself did not provide the vast Arab state that Faisal desired mainly because the British and French had struck their own secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence, and soon Faisal began to express doubts about cooperation with the Zionist movement. Within a year he was calling on Britain to grant the Arabs of Palestine their political rights as part of his Syrian Kingdom.

Yeah, they were "ok" with it

 

[xane]

The only moral reason for setting up the state of Israel in Palestine that I can think of involves European guilt over events before and during the Second World War, which is exactly what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refered to recently.

The existance of an independent Jewish homeland pre-dates WW1 and the existance of Israel in Palestine pre-dates WW2, so that argument falls flat on its face.

I'm talking about the morals of the Arab neighbours to Israel ? Nearly all of them owe their existance as independent states to the defeat of the Ottoman Caliphate by the British and her allies in WW1, and the agreements that established them as states were on the grounds that Israel would also be created, that is a moral duty.

They have no more right to exist than Israel does.

If the Arab nations had just accepted this, prior to WW2, and all the false moralistic arguments about Israeli behaviour ever since would have never occurred. Instead, right from the beginning, and after they'd agreed to it, once they'd got their own little kingdoms, they decided to oppose Israel, with violence if necessary.

Three times in recent history Arab nations have amassed armies intending to wipe Israel off the face of the map and "push the Jews into the sea", and all you can state as some moral equivilence is the bulldozing of the homes of people who try to kill them ?

 

[xane]

Yeah, they were "ok" with it

But they _were_ ok with it until it suited their ambitions to be otherwise, that is my point.

 

[SAS]

What is in the past is history, why can't the world just unite and move forward towards a brighter future?

(will never happen, but hey I thought I'd throw in my 2pence worth)

 

[Paradroid]

People need to be able to distinguish between a political movement, a state, and a relgion.

Linky

 

[TdC]

in an aside Paradroid, but that's a seriously strange website o0