yes, but, if we take the most recent position as the most important -- which is precisely what we do with the rest of the world -- then i think 1500 hard years really does count for something. "legal" according to who? the british authorities with their BS (imperialist) 'mandate'? maybe 'legal', surely not morally justifiable. what you say is true in that the jews were a very hard working people and they made excellent use of very limited resources. the problem was that their swarming numbers started becoming a real concern to the arabs. if you think that the whole episode -- from settlers to nationhood -- happened peacefully while the arabs stood around smiling and waving then you couldn't be more wrong. in fact, i think it would be pretty fair to say that israel was created by the very terrorism that it is now endeavouring to stamp out. (well, that's an exaggeration, but i hope you get my point.) it's tempting to think that it's a long, convoluted (2000 year) history, what with all the (religious) connections between the jews and that region of the world. but, if you discount the religious factor -- and why not? we have done so with every single other displaced people -- then i think it is a lot simpler: there was a group of people that followed a certain religion that lived in a certain place. they were conquered, the followers dispersed over the whole world (some did stay) and another group of people moved in and settled there for the subsequant 1500 years. i know this is an emotional issue, but seriously, where the hell do the jews get off just barging in with some ridiculous 2000 year old claim that god gave them that land and therefore, dammit, we have a right to it? i think if ever the world conspired to create an illegal state it was modern day israel. now, sooner or later, enough time will pass (some might say it already has) that the existence of israel, and the events that lead to its creation will just be considered another mundane fact of history. (much like the angles' and jutes' expulsion of the celts (if recall correctly) doesn't really arouse any emotion from anybody). and that's the way history goes. having said that, i agree that trying to 'turn back the clock' on history is futile. i agree that if the palestinians, and arabs in general, continue to insist on the destruction of the state of israel, then not only will they never have peace, but they continue to destroy any chance they have of ever being able to improve the quality of their lives (and shouldn't that be the most important thing?). well, i wouldn't go so far as to say it has "everything" do with US support for israel; i think you'd find a lot of the (hardcore) arabs still opposed to the US on other principles. ps - i'm really not 'anti-israel' at all. just stating things how i see them. i really do my level best to stay objective. (for example, i'm from (FYR ) macedonia, but i'll readily admit that it is a 20th century creation; that there is no historical basis neither for a slavic macedonian state (unless you call it bulgaria) nor for a slavic macedonian national identity.)
I don't want to engage any more in the rights and wrongs of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, only that I wish it could be resolved quickly and peacefully. Just when I read the first entry of this thread I responded in a hot-headed manner. I agree with daniel_m, it was the British that okay'd it for the creation of Israel. It was also the British that decided it would be a good idea to slap nationstate borders around three warring factions and leave them to sort themselves out in their newly named, Iraq. I blame the British.
KymarFye:`The resolutions with which Israel (like anyone else) has "failed to comply" are mainly those ludicrous General Assembly resolutions - like the infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution of years back... you know, when the world's assembled dicatorships, satrapies, and failed states get together and "democratically" resolve that someone they don't like should do something that people they do like can get away with. As for UN Security Council resolutions, the US and others (though mainly the US) have prevented anything resembling the many Iraq resolutions (in terms of precision and enforceability, among other things) from having been passed against Israel.´ at least one of those General Assembly resolutions is not regarded as `ludicrous´by all Israelis: on November 29, 1947 `the world's assembled dicatorships, satrapies, and failed states´ got together and "democratically" resolved that Palestine was to be divided - resulting in the proclamation of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948
I disagree with guite a few things in your post of course but it is really meaningless to discuss it here. I read a lot of literature on Arab-Israeli conflict by both pro-Israel and pro-Arab historians. Obviously if they cannot agree on lots of details, we will never agree either. I do agree with your statement above though, hopefully both sides will eventually have to come to realization that they will have to live side by side and act accordingly.
Actually the British were very much opposed to creation of Israel and if memory serves me, they abstained during the vote. The British at the time were caught between the rock and the hard place and the Jews had just as many gripes with the British (or more) as the Arabs did. It is always easy to critisize in retrospect, but even in retrospect nobody knows exactly what they should have done then. They made their share of mistakes, but their task was to reconcile absolutely opposite, irreconcilable regional interests.
i wouldn't say the british were "very much opposed" to it, especially not in the early stages, when, if i recall correctly, they thought it was a great idea for jews to settle in palestine. in that latter years, though, you are correct that the jews had big grievances with the british.
"in fact, i think it would be pretty fair to say that israel was created by the very terrorism that it is now endeavouring to stamp out. (well, that's an exaggeration, but i hope you get my point.)" I wish people could better differentiate between <b>terrorism</b> and guerilla warfare. Terrorism is the targeting of <b>civilian non-governing non-combatants</b>. The early Zionists NEVER used terrorism, they used guerilla warfare. By this logic, you could say that the U.S.S. Cole bombing was not a terrorist attack- and I would agree with you- It wasn't. You ironically mentioned Macedonia... you won't have very long to worry about macedonia at all, as the 'poor oppressed Kosovar people' (=Bloodthirsty Albanian KLA thugs, a subsidiary of Al- Quaida) will turn your Macedonia into a filthy Islamic Sharia hellhole within the next decade or two.
Rearden, what about when the Basque (ETA) target Spanish soldiers, police and judges (who rule against them) for murders? Is that guerrilla warfare or terrorism? [background: their goal is separation from Spain]
I believe the Basque thugs engage in both terrorism and guerilla warfare. I'm not saying that hostile activity against Spanish soldiers/police/judges is acceptable behavior, I'm just saying that it isn't terrorism.
The argument which I was addressing attempted to put Israel's "defiance" of the UN on the same level as Iraq's. I consider this argument to be fallacious, and a side issue. Your post is irrelevant even to the side-issue. Since, however, the subject does relate somewhat to the main topic of this thread, I'll add that I believe more Israelis attribute both the founding and the continued existence of their state not to the UN and certainly not its resolutions, but to their own willingness to fight for their country. As it happens, many of the countries and "entities" which today accuse Israel of violating UN resolutions have repeatedly chosen to oppose, with force or arms, the rather exceptional resolution that you cite.