Originally posted by swesais
Can you explain,how Israel becom an legitim country??
OK, I'll bite on this one, even though I know exactly where it's going.
Rome gets out the Jews, Rome dies, the Ottomans inherit it with a few but not many jews left. Islam rises, more Jews leave.
Ottoman Empire backs the wrong horse in WWI, Britain and France pretty much divie up the mid east as we know it, with Britain controlling
"Palestine".
Please note the quotation marks- there was never a "Palestinian nation". Palestine was a latinization of Phillistine- they had a few cities on the
coast, never composing a nation state, and they were gone even before the Jews. Rome named the whole area after them just to snub the Jews after the
revolt.
Balfour promised the Jews a homeland after WWI but Britain didn't live up to the promise. During this time there were a few offers thrown around on
this matter- the Zionist Congress turned down an offer to establish a Jewish state around where Uganda now is- probably a mistake in retrospect, but
it's a little late now.
Jews, having a certain degree of influence in the media and certain banks, played ball with Britain in WWII and afterwards started moving into the
British mandate of "Palestine". Fighting between Arab and Zionist militias began, and at the same time both were fighting the British, who took
their sweet time leaving the mandate.
1947, the British draw up lines of division that more or less follow ethnic lines and make for a very unnatural border- Arabs get more than half of
the land, including a much larger version of the West Bank than currently exists.
Israel declares independence the moment Britain's control over the madate expires- shelling could be heard in the background as the declaration was
being made, because all of Israel's neighbors declared war on them immediately.
Jordan had originally agreed to let Israel alone, but had clued Israel in on covert plans to conquer Palestine. At the last minute, Jordan changed its
mind and decided it wanted the entire mandate.
With a little US intervention, the war went Israel's way. Israel was considerably larger than the original plan allowed for, and Jordan had conquered
what remained of the Palestinian area in the West Bank (the present-day size and definition).
The legality of this is pretty questionable. If I were arbitrating the conflict, I'd probably have to insist that the 1947 borders be restored, at
least where the West Bank is concerned, but in all fairness, Israel approved those borders and the Arabs wouldn't hear of it.
What remains of the West Bank didn't come into Israel possession until the Six Days War- Israel siezed it because before that War, Jordan was
preparing to allow Kuwaiti and possibly Iraqi troops use it as a staging area for an upcoming Arab offensive, therefore Israel didn't think they
could afford to have Arab land on their side of the Jordan river anymore.
This is without a doubt occupied territory and must at some point be returned by the peace process, if not the 1947 borders.
Anyway, Israel became a legitimate nation in 1947, and from 1948-1967 expanded semi-legitimately in wars which could at least be argued to have been
defensive in nature.
Morally speaking, it's a pretty murky issue.
Israel is the only independent nation to have a capital in that region in thousands of years- everything else that's ever been there was a possession
of a foreign conquerer.
Israel lost it the same way the "Palestinians" did pretty much, they just did so farther back in history (the same way being that they were driven
out by force).
Israel got it back pretty much the same way the "Palestinians" did (that is to say, an occupying power gave it to them).
Palestinians had their homes there: this is a common argument and not without merit. This might be decisive if it were still 1947. Unfortunately,
almost 60 years later, the exact same thing can now be said for the Israelis.
At this point, these people are going to have to learn to live with one another. They've each got certain aspects of legitimacy shaded by certain
misdeeds. They both live there. They both have been wronged.
HOPEFULLY they also both would like to send their kids to school and maybe even make some money and have a decent standard of living. If that's the
case, as I've been saying, somebody is going to have to decide to be the bigger man on a grass roots level and start holding the political bosses
accountable for achieving peace. As a practical matter, it would probably behoove the Palestinians to be the ones to do it, because 1. they've got
the most to lose if they don't. 2. they've got the most to gain if they do. It'd be just as well for the Israelis to make the first move, but as a
practical matter that's unlikely since the only way that can work is if the Palestinian people reciprocate (as opposed to the Palestinian government,
which is notoriously duplicitous and has ulterior political motives).
I hope that at least somewhat answers your question.
[edit on 30-6-2006 by The Vagabond]
