Religion and ethics  permalink

Why did Israel need to be created?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 26 of 26
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Monday, 20th June 2011

    We all know he reason why the Jews needed to be saved and we are all in agreement the Holocaust was evil but why did there need to be a new country created.

    Let's take an example. Sudanese refugees move to Nigeria because they are being persecuted and the U.N. decide they should have the oil fields because they had to move.

    Too far away from home. A bunch of French people are being persecuted at home so the U.N. gives them the oil fields in Scotland and the coal reserves in Wales and the steel and shipyards across the country.

    Are those situations fair?

    The Jews should have moved to Palestine and the Palestinians should have taken them in as a duty to protect fellow men but that doesn't give the Zionist (note the difference) people the right to magic a country that hadn't existed for years. That's be like me going I had a relative that lived in a mansion 300 years ago and telling the current owner to take a hike to the loft.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    You pretty much got it in one, Ross.

    Good post.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    The Sudanese and French people have a nation state with a government which is in a position of power to protect Sudanese and French people. In addition, if ever Sudanese and French people are persecuted and slaughtered because of their Sudanese of French identity then they have a refuge - Sudan or France. The argument is that the Jews would never have been free from the threat of persecution until they had establiished a Jewish state equiped to defend their right to exist and do something to protect Jewish people from anti semitism and pogroms.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    You will notice that I say "the argument is" rather than "I think". I do this because it's a complex issue and I hold conflicting views on it. To illustrate the argument I would point out that the Tibetans, Kurds or Basques don't have recourse to the UN, for example, and they can't come to legitimate agreements with other nations because they don't have an established nation state or government to represent their interests. This limits their options and exposes them to suppression.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    What I mean is that they don't have an equal voice at the UN. Of course their issues can be bought to the UN but they don't have the influence to guarantee a hearing.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    Lautaro

    The argument is shaky to me as I hope that the Palestinians would have been happy to be a shelter for the Jews and if they were then persecuted a protection for your fellow citizen would kick in. My argument to that is what about all the asylum seekers forced out of certain countries because of persecution, do they automatically get the right to create a new country if there are enough of them.

    I know what you mean about conflicted views. I feel neither side is right in the way they are currently behaving but I can't help thinking that Israel just magicked a country where there was none and to certain people that makes me anti-Israeli, I prefer to think pro-fairness.

    The persecution is why the Jews should have been taken in and protected but they forced people out of their homes to magic a country that hadn't existed for generations upon generations. Since religionists are so keen on well kent phrases "Two wrongs don't make a right".

    I'd say as citizens of Palestine which they would be if the had been asylum seekers like they should any maltreatment would be easily covered by UN charters.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Ross,

    The history of Jews is one of persecution and pogrom. The Holocaust was the very worst example of it and it motivated a hardcore of Jews to say enough is enough and we will no longer rely upon other people to shelter us. We will establish our own state and it will be somewhere where Jews can live free from persecution and pogrom. To these Jews, relying upon the Palestinians wasn’t an option.

    No one *gets* the right to create a new country: they have to fight for it. That’s what the Jews did. They launched a terrorist campaign against the British forcing them out, and they established a Jewish state. Refugees tend to be in flight from political instability or the collapse of the rule of law. Take Syria. Syrian refugees already have a country so why would they want to establish a new one? Their goal is to establish a new government which will treat them with respect within their country.

    I’m not conflicted by their current behaviours. I have no problem with the behaviour of the Palestinians as such: how else do you expect a people that have been treated in such a way to behave? I find the arguments for a Jewish state compelling but the impact that this has had, and continues to have, upon the Palestinians is what leads me to hold conflicting views.

    And what exactly has the UN been able to do to stop the suffering of the Palestinians? Nothing. So what makes you think they'd have been able to do anything to stop the suffering of groups of stateless Jews?

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    You make a very good point in your last paragraph. What gives the Zionists the right to do that there, there's plenty of open space in America since they're so keen on a Jewish state. Religions have no right to designate holy lands as it's going to affect someone. The Palestinian people are not there for religious reasons and fighting on religious grounds, they want their home back and they should have it.

    The Jews have been persecuted but that gives them no right whatsoever to become persecutors, it gives them the right to see their persecutors punished but not to punish people by magicking a country. It is a confliction, I have every sympathy with the Jewish people, but next to none for Zionists. Jews and Palestinians get on well in fact there are quite a few Palestinian Jews but Zionists are intent on ruining this.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    I find the arguments for a Jewish state compelling but the impact that this has had, and continues to have, upon the Palestinians is what leads me to hold conflicting views. 

    which argument do you find compelling exactly? because the goal posts have shifted somewhat with Israel since its foundation.

    i.e. are you aware of the Law of Return?

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    the state of Israel if essentially a state for the religion of Judaism, not for "jews" per se.


    On what grounds is this possibly right or even persuasive?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    Ayub_O,

    which argument do you find compelling exactly? 
    That the Holocuast proved that they could no longer rely upon other people to defend their right to exist and the only way they could protect themselves in an era of nation states was to create a Jewish nation state.

    i.e. are you aware of the Law of Return? 
    Yes.

    the state of Israel if essentially a state for the religion of Judaism, not for "jews" per se. 
    It was established by secularists as a state for the "Jewish nation", not for religious Jews.

    On what grounds is this possibly right or even persuasive? 
    On the grounds that the Holocaust proved that they could no longer rely upon other people to defend their right to exist and the only way they could protext themselves in an era of nation states was to create a Jewish nation state.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    It was established by secularists as a state for the "Jewish nation", not for religious Jews. 

    like I said, the goal posts have shifted, because while that was the original argument, the following amendments to the Law of Return make it obvious that is no longer the case, and hasn't been so for that last 40 years:

    4A. (a) The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.

    4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."  


    so, in short, according to this Law ethnic Jews who have converted out of Judaism have no right to return to Israel, but you or I, if we convert through a recognized synagogue, CAN "return" to Israel.

    do you know of any other nation which gives you the legal right to "return" to it based on your religion, and also bars those who have ancestral ties (both jew and arab) from having that same right due to their being from the "wrong" religion?


    As for your holocaust argument, the Law of Return makes it clear that no longer has any bearing on the issue, since if your mother died during the holocause but you converted out of Judaism, you can't return to Israel, you have to emigrate there like you would with any other country.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    Ayub_O,

    so, in short, according to this Law ethnic Jews who have converted out of Judaism have no right to return to Israel, but you or I, if we convert through a recognized synagogue, CAN "return" to Israel.  
    It's an interesting aside, but the exam question is "why did Israel need to be created?".

    *******

    As for your holocaust argument, the Law of Return makes it clear that no longer has any bearing on the issue, since if your mother died during the holocause but you converted out of Judaism, you can't return to Israel, you have to emigrate there like you would with any other country. 
    If it looked like there might be another Holocaust, Israel would be able to oppose it with its considerable might. If there was no Israel, Jews would be relying upon other people to assist them if it was convenient to those other people. That's my Holocaust argument. I would suggest you're not sure about it because a) you misunderstand it, and b) you're not predisposed in your world view to entertaining for even the briefest of moments the idea that there might be another argument to Israel's creation which speaks of self-preservation of Jewish people rather than the theft of land of the Palestinians.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Saturday, 25th June 2011


    If it looked like there might be another Holocaust, Israel would be able to oppose it with its considerable might. If there was no Israel, Jews would be relying upon other people to assist them if it was convenient to those other people. That's my Holocaust argument. I would suggest you're not sure about it because a) you misunderstand it, and b) you're not predisposed in your world view to entertaining for even the briefest of moments the idea that there might be another argument to Israel's creation which speaks of self-preservation of Jewish people rather than the theft of land of the Palestinians. 


    If your argument was true then that makes the existance of the Jewish Defence League rather odd.

    2ndly, how can one take that argument seriously, if they fail to take care of the *current* Holocaust victims, just because they have left judaism?

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    On the grounds that the Holocaust proved that they could no longer rely upon other people to defend their right to exist and the only way they could protext themselves in an era of nation states was to create a Jewish nation state. 

    So the Jews could not rely on other people. There was no war then, what about the creation of Isreal was that not done by other people, okay then what about the maintenance of Israel in spite of the countless human rights abuses and the contraventions of human rights.

    The Jews if they wanted a nation state should have gone to America (like a lot did) and America should have given them the land rather than creating a country where people already lived.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Ayub_O,

    If your argument was true then that makes the existance of the Jewish Defence League rather odd. 
    Not really. I mean, what exactly are the Jewish Defence League going to do the next time some awful dictator somewhere starts slaughtering Jews because they're Jews? Put a brick through his window?

    ******

    2ndly, how can one take that argument seriously, if they fail to take care of the *current* Holocaust victims, just because they have left judaism? 
    The exam question is "Why did Israel need to be created?".

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I'm with Ayub here. If Jews don't look after those that were victims of the holocaust it kind of invalidates the main reason for the creation of Israel.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Ross Quinn,

    So the Jews could not rely on other people. There was no war then 
    We joined the war because Germany invaded Poland. Russia "joined" the war when it was invaded. America "joined" when it was attacked. Jews aside, no-one joined the war because of anti-Semitism or the Holocuast.

    You should revisit those history books.

    ******

    what about the creation of Isreal was that not done by other people 
    After the withdrawal of Ottoman authority, "Palestine" was a British protectorate. The Jews forced the British out by means of terrorism.

    okay then what about the maintenance of Israel in spite of the countless human rights abuses and the contraventions of human rights. 
    That supports my argument. The Jews wouldn't have had anything to maintain if they hadn't have created a nation state. No-one would have taken them seriously, because, as the Kurds, the in the first place, and they'd also have been dependent upon other people to raise a voice for them.

    ******

    The Jews if they wanted a nation state should have gone to America (like a lot did) and America should have given them the land rather than creating a country where people already lived. 
    Perhaps, but it's pointless arguing that now that Israel exists, don't you think?

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    That should read -

    "That supports my argument. The Jews wouldn't have had anything to maintain if they hadn't created a nation state. No-one takes a group seriously if they can't lobby as a nation. They'd have been dependent upon other people to raise a voice for them and post Holocaust they felt they couldn't trust other people."

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I am as disgusted by the late intervention by anyone. However the liberation of the Jews from the Holocaust was a reason and was what the Nuremburg trials were tried on.

    --------------------------

    So the fact the Palestinians lived there is of no consequence to anyone? As I have said the Jews should have moved there as equal neighbours not invaders.

    -------------------------

    Not dependent, as equal neighbours they could have raised a voice as a persecuted neighbour like those currently doing so in the Sudan as it disintegrates from one country to two. However if the Zionists had peacefully settled in that area rather than an invasion I doubt there would have been the issues there are now.

    ---------------------------

    I agree totally pointless on a global scale but as a theoretical discussion (I know kind of late considering it's the last day but I'm a relative newcomer too).

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I am as disgusted by the late intervention by anyone. However the liberation of the Jews from the Holocaust was a reason and was what the Nuremburg trials were tried on. 
    The liberation of Jews was not a reason for any nation’s involvement in the Second World War. The bottom line is that, when the great nations are all concerned with issues like the future shape of Europe, or the balance of power (and their spheres of influence), issues like the place of minority groups in neighbouring countries takes a back seat.

    The Nuremburg trials were too late to stop the Holocaust, which, in a sense, supports the argument for Israel. (I.e. what’s the point of having good intentions after the fact?) Also, it was used as a means of creating a good vs. bad narrative for the Second World War, and it actually glosses over the fact that anti-Semitism was widespread, including in Russia and to a lesser extent in Britain.

    *****

    So the fact the Palestinians lived there is of no consequence to anyone? 
    Of course it is. That’s where the tension that I’ve spoken about comes from.

    *****

    As I have said the Jews should have moved there as equal neighbours not invaders. 
    They moved there as survivors, not invaders. Some of them were moved as survivors to “camps” in Cyprus, where they were guarded by some of the same British soldiers who freed them. The post-Holocaust feeling amongst many of these Jews was that they’d narrowly escaped extinction and that they had to secure themselves a homeland where they would be safe.

    ******

    Not dependent, as equal neighbours they could have raised a voice as a persecuted neighbour like those currently doing so in the Sudan as it disintegrates from one country to two. However if the Zionists had peacefully settled in that area rather than an invasion I doubt there would have been the issues there are now. 
    Sudan is not Israel. I think you seriously understate (or misunderstand) what it must have felt to be a Jewish Holocaust survivor.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    LB, out of curiosity, would you also back the African-American seperationist movement?

    Because it's pretty much the same case

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Of course it must be harrowing to have survived such horrors but this does not entitle them to create a new country where others lived. The people who survived the horrors of Srbecnica are not allowed to relocate to Italy and claim a piece of land as theirs. How could it be said to be 'just' for a persecuted race to be allowed to take out their anger on innocent people.

    Horrible things happen and it is up to us (as humans) to stop them but so long as people treat religion as though it is anything other than a personal construct that people politicise to get their evil ways.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I back their right to call for it, and I would accept that it was a legitimate aim if it was supported by a significant number of Arican-Americans. However, I would prefer it if no new nation states were formed and if people worked together to try to resolve their differences cooperatively. My arguments here are about UNDERSTANDING why Israel came into being..

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Ayub_O (U14872501) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I back their right to call for it, and I would accept that it was a legitimate aim if it was supported by a significant number of Arican-Americans. However, I would prefer it if no new nation states were formed and if people worked together to try to resolve their differences cooperatively. My arguments here are about UNDERSTANDING why Israel came into being.. 

    fair play,

    so you would prefer a one state solution then? that happens to be my own preference, and given your reasoning so far I'm guessing it would be for you too?

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Ayub_O,

    Actually, yes, that is my preference. A one state solution which incorporates both communities, with limited central authority, would be the ideal.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Lautaro Bolano (U12264729) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Ross,

    I'm not talking about entitlement, I'm talking about the arguments as to why Israel exists.

    Prior to the breakdown of Yugoslavia, the Bosnian people hadn't been dispersed across the globe, stateless, and subject to persecution for hundreds of years. So, you're not comparing like with like. The outcome of the breakdown of Yugolavia is that Bosnia now exists and is able to look out for their interests. So your example is not relevant even if the conclusions - a state for Jews and a state for Bosnians - were, in a sense, similar.

    Report message26

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.