If you could go back in time; would you authorize the existence of Israel.

[meanlittlechimp]

Thanks for participating. It's a private poll, so be honest.
You can crack jokes all you want in your posts (I like jokes); but try to answer the poll seriously.

[MacGuffin]

Wailing Wall, bitches!

Step aside, goat-herding, towel-heads!

[Ferrus]

It never deserved to exist, but its destruction now would be as much as a crime and the Nabka originally.

[Karl]

I would oppose it. If the Isrealis really wanted to be there, they should have gone on their own. Their state was created by the west and serve's the west's interests. If they had created and organized it on their own, it could have gone better.

[meanlittlechimp]

It never deserved to exist, but its destruction now would be as much as a crime and the Nabka originally.

Ok so you should have picked option 5. Please go back and select it. I really want to know the numbers (in this small sample size).

[stopharian]

They did go on their own. They did organize it on their own.

My opinion is that the policies of modern Israel are utter stupidity in the face of what they desire to achieve.

Does it have the right to exist? Few nations today do.

Im as much of a conspiracy theorist as anybody but I think that the events that led up to the formation of Israel crystallized long before the west saw a need for oil or to try and control geopolitical strategy in the area. Many of the factors that led us down this road began in the late 1800s and Jerusalem was already majority Jewish in the 1920s. By the time that Israel declared its independence something like a million Jews had already emigrated there.

As I remember the UN plan was for 2 separate nations with Jerusalem being a neutral international city. The Arabs rejected that plan at the time and have spent the remaining 50 years trying to achieve that very thing(or the decimation of the Jews).

Sure it sounds like a shitty plan for the Palestinians, but some sort of compromise had to be reached or what was to be done with the population of Jews, whom comprised like a third of the state?

Again I have doubts as to whether it was any plot by the west. Israel had no right to exist(by the conclusion of the old testament God had had them forcibly removed from much of the land). But I see no way that the present situation could have been avoided.

Certainly other factors played a part...antisemitism in most of the world, European guilt over the holocaust etc......hind sight is 20/20 but nobody is stepping up to fix the snafu.

[Chaselation]

Not that this jives with the Bible.... They had to roost somewhere but forcing one group out in favor of another based on religion is nauseating IMO. A homeland elsewhere would have caused the world much less grief.

[Works]

We should have just put them in Independence, MO. That's where the garden of even was.

[stopharian]

We should have just put them in Independence, MO. That's where the garden of even was.


Hear hear.......or put them in Utah and let them fight the Mormons for it.

[Karl]

Not that this jives with the Bible.... They had to roost somewhere but forcing one group out in favor of another based on religion is nauseating IMO. A homeland elsewhere would have caused the world much less grief.

But they're Jews! I mean they'd keep going to the "holy lands" even if another state was declared somewhere else.

[fripping]

no way, victimized nations always become victimizers later if the setting is right. it was really an idea lacking in foresight.

[Chaselation]

But they're Jews! I mean they'd keep going to the "holy lands" even if another state was declared somewhere else.

Perhaps but at their own peril. Rights to pay homage there could be granted/enforced as well. I'm stating this with an idealistic bent I have no delusions it would work in practice.

[Ferrus]

Well, we did plan to put them in Uganada. Didn't quite work out.

[mgb]

Phew, good thing you can't go back in time.

First, I'm pretty sure the region wasn't devoid of Jews for the last two thousand years, so co-ownership seemed to be happening.

Second, no one ever liked the Palestinians. Why do you think they still live in refugee camps in Lebanon 60 years later? That's the three generations, they've had time to integrate, but I don't think anyone really wants them to.

Third, it was 1948, the last decade wasn't a high point in Jewish history, how could anyone say no?

Honestly, some sort of co-habitation agreement should have been reached. It worked for thousands of years (I'm not saying well, maybe just better), there is no reason that couldn't have worked. People got greedy. Then they got angry. No one is really winning now and that is kind of unfortunate for everyone.

[rawr]

They fought for it through sophism and bureaucracy and continue to fight for it by being pretty damn crafty. I say they keep it.

[Ellipsis]

I don't get this: You do not want Jews to be hunted down and targeted and religiously profiled. You then create a state which not only is a symbol (in its name, flag and policies) of the Jewish community but has pissed off every state surrounding it. You also have concentrated all the Jews in one region (that is extremely unstable and ready to explode) whereas they used to be VERY spread out. Am I the only one thinking of a anti-Jewish conspiracy? or else it was a very big oversight by the UN. Maybe if the Jewish and Muslims in the area agreed to a government that was not religiously based things would be better but they can't get over it.

[mgb]

I don't get this: You do not want Jews to be hunted down and targeted and religiously profiled. You then create a state which not only is a symbol (in its name, flag and policies) of the Jewish community but has pissed off every state surrounding it. You also have concentrated all the Jews in one region (that is extremely unstable and ready to explode) whereas they used to be VERY spread out. Am I the only one thinking of a anti-Jewish conspiracy? or else it was a very big oversight by the UN. Maybe if the Jewish and Muslims in the area agreed to a government that was not religiously based things would be better but they can't get over it.

You forgot "armed them to the tits" in your description.

I don't think you get it though.

[Stoned_Rider]

If I could really go back in time, I wouldn't authorize the existence of Arabs outside the Arabian Peninsula... especially not in North Africa. Just an example. Anyway, we simply have to live with the countries that exist today, and that are recognized by the UN, even though only few of them (as others have pointed out) have had a right to exist all along.

The fact of the matter is: the Arabs have fucked "their brothers" over even more than Israel did, and history shall bear witness to this. Whatever happened to all slogans of "brotherhood & unity"... all the promises & reassurances they gave to the Arabs in Palestine right before launching what turned out to be the biggest embarrassment in modern Arab history (1967)? Slogans & poetry are the only things that Arabs are any good at. 40 years on, Palestinian refugees in Arab countries still live in camps under horrid conditions, and they are only legally recognized as "second-class" citizens. This is even in a place like Jordan, where about half the population is of "Palestinian" origin (therefore, 50% of the population are second-class citizens). In contrast, Arab-Israelis today enjoy much more rights and freedom than Arab citizens in any other Arab country. How fucking disgraceful is that?

And by the way, the term "Palestinian" was only coined up by neighbouring Arab regimes in order to avoid having to absorb & integrate the refugees (who, remember, are their supposed fucking "brothers"). While the term "Palestine" has always been used to describe the general geographical area, much like "Al-Sham" is used to describe the region containing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, there was never ever a state called "Palestine" in the first place, and there never existed a distinct group of people called "Palestinians". In fact, if they really wanted their own state, they had all the time in the world to create it for almost 20 years (1948-1967, when the West Bank & Gaza were ruled by Jordan & Egypt respectively) - why didn't they even mention the name "Palestine" back then? Why are they only calling for a state now, and trying to deceive the whole world that "Palestinians" as a group have always had a right to their state?

For the record, I'm not the biggest fan of Israel either - I just believe the Arabs are far worse.

PS Moved from Current Events & Issues.

[LongSilence]

The Middle East was going to have a fucked up century after WWII anyway. There are a fair few justified reasons for Israel existed. It wasn't just the West being persuaded to keep a 'guy' there in their corner to keep a check on things. Let's not forget that the USSR had it sights set on the region too so the West wasn't really just going to let that slide.

Fact is- there's not much the West can really do to sort out the situations in vast places like the Middle East and Africa. On a short term basis every action often screws things up as much as it 'fixes' them.

[slacker]

Israel in a sea of Muslims/Arabs is not a viable state in the long-run. A state like Israel needs to be founded inside a friendly nation (i.e. the US giving up a piece of land) or on an uninhabited island that is terraformed. The state was formed too early for its own good - if only they had waited for the colonization of space. Still, Israel could offer to exchange its present territory for Antarctica. With global warming, it's a winning bet. Or, one of the islands popping up over the Arctic Ocean.

[charred_heart]

While the term "Palestine" has always been used to describe the general geographical area, much like "Al-Sham" is used to describe the region containing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, there was never ever a state called "Palestine" in the first place, and there never existed a distinct group of people called "Palestinians". In fact, if they really wanted their own state, they had all the time in the world to create it for almost 20 years (1948-1967, when the West Bank & Gaza were ruled by Jordan & Egypt respectively) - why didn't they even mention the name "Palestine" back then? Why are they only calling for a state now, and trying to deceive the whole world that "Palestinians" as a group have always had a right to their state?

Wikipedia sez the Romans took over Judea and joined it with another of their provinces to form Syria Palaestina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

I can't verify that without research, but based on this source, the naming of Palestine didn't take place a few decades ago.

Also, muslim arabs wrested control of the land from Byzantine hands more than 600 years after it was taken from the Jews. You'd figure that they'd have forgotten about it after such a long period.
EDIT: that transformed Palestine from a Byzantine province to a province of the muslim empire. If Egypt and Syria, which were also former provinces of the muslim empire, are considered states then so should Palestine after the end of the muslim empire.

The fact that it was an occupied Roman province meant that the Jews of the era had the right to claim it as their land, but after 2000 years it becomes a moot point.

If things don't get settled in the middle east the world will drastically change in the future. A religious or ethnic group founding a nation through the expelling and suppression of the indeginous population has far reaching implications.
Any state or ethnic group can now justify invading a country or region they claim ethnic or religious rights to.
Conversely, any ethnic group within a country can justify independence through any means available if they can achieve it.

The only way I see how Israel won't be held up as a model for founding a successful colonial state in the future would be if they make concessions to the Palestinians by recognising they have rights to the land, and coming to some sort of a settlement with them. If the Palestinians accept a concession, they would in effect have accepted the loss of their land giving Israel full legitimacy.
As things stand now, Israel can't remain a state without employing force. Not exactly the best way to secure the future of a country.

[stopharian]

I thought that palestine was a cognate of philestine......the Palets and the philistines being different names for the same people.

Underneath everything they're still just pissed about Goliath and the 10,000 foreskins.

[thod]

Any state or ethnic group can now justify invading a country or region they claim ethnic or religious rights to.
Conversely, any ethnic group within a country can justify independence through any means available if they can achieve it.


Suits me since I am British.

Those Americans are occupying land that was a British colony. I demand they leave NYC and hand it back to the rightful owners. Not to mention the whole of India.

[euterpenc]

Where's the "yes, because if they weren't around I probably wouldn't have been born" option?

[SensEye]

Other options:

As a Canadian I'd offer up Baffin Island as the new Israel (back when it was founded or even now). Got to keep them out of the mid-east. The arabs and them will never get along.

Assuming they couldn't handle the cold Israel should have been placed in some desert like part of Australia. Back in those days nobody cared about aboriginals so they could have been much more readily shuffled over a few hundred kilometers. It would be just a little sliver: http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/australi.htm

[charred_heart]

Suits me since I am British.

Those Americans are occupying land that was a British colony. I demand they leave NYC and hand it back to the rightful owners. Not to mention the whole of India.get in line, the native Americans were there first.

you think that's far fetched? What if your country sucked ass and the neighbouring island (which your country used to rule) suddenly got rich from being the sole exporter of exotic blue bananas to the world? Occupation time!

[Ariel]

Other options:

As a Canadian I'd offer up Baffin Island as the new Israel (back when it was founded or even now). Got to keep them out of the mid-east. The arabs and them will never get along.

They got along relatively fine until the Zionists came along (especially compared to today's standards).

The west sacrificed the Palestinians' rights and lands to mollify their guilt over the Holocaust - not to mention the Zionist lobbyists and religious retards in the British Government at the time - they instigated the creation of Israel. The Palestinians were denied the universal right of 'self-determination' that was granted to every other nation after World War 2. Once grounded, the Israelis openly violated and disregarded the local laws and authorities, insisting on the system of segregation and arrogant exclusion that still exists today. They constantly and continually break their own agreements; they act, and kill, impulsively, and yet the world seems to excuse their brazen infractions of international law. The Israelis are greedy bastards (generally speaking), and the Palestinians have every right to fight back. Hard.


...boundaries and the development of ?land distribution? of what was Palestine under different ?Peace Plans? since Resolution 181 until today goes as follows:

? UN Partition Plan to the Palestinians: 47 percent of the 100 percent

? Oslo Agreement to the Palestinians: 22 percent of the 100 percent

? Former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak?s offer to the Palestinians: 80 percent of 22 percent

Under Sharon?s ?Peace Plan? to the Palestinians in 2000, as well as the ?Road Map? of 2002, the Palestinians were offered 42 percent of 80 percent of 22 percent of 100 percent of the land, calculated to be 7.4 percent of the initial 100 percent of land, on condition that:

1. Palestinians stop resistance to the occupation,
2. Refugees give up their right of return to their ancestral homes,
3. Palestinians agree to only elect officials acceptable to Bush and Sharon
4. Palestinians do not object to the ?wall? that Sharon is building,
5. Palestinians agree not to claim Jerusalem as their capital.

According to statistics from the Palestinian National Information Centre of the State Information Service, lands annexed and forcibly seized by the Israeli occupying forces since May 29, 2002 amounts to 165,951 dunums (165,951,000 square metres) of Palestinian land, mostly arable and very fertile, for the sake of constructing the apartheid wall. In addition, 61,857 dunums were bulldozed and 971,346 trees were uprooted in the Gaza Strip and West Bank...
Source: http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/1215right.htm

[Ariel]

I don't get this: You do not want Jews to be hunted down and targeted and religiously profiled. You then create a state which not only is a symbol (in its name, flag and policies) of the Jewish community but has pissed off every state surrounding it. You also have concentrated all the Jews in one region (that is extremely unstable and ready to explode) whereas they used to be VERY spread out. Am I the only one thinking of a anti-Jewish conspiracy? or else it was a very big oversight by the UN. Maybe if the Jewish and Muslims in the area agreed to a government that was not religiously based things would be better but they can't get over it.
I'm reading A Concise History of the Middle East by Arthur Goldschmidt. I am not 100% sure, but I remember the Brits proposing the establishment of a secular state for all parties involved. A majority of the native Arabs favored the plan. It was the Zionists who refused, if I remember correctly.

[Limey]

Sure, why not, in fact I'd like to put all religious zealots in this "holy land" and let the pink unicorn decide which one is best after the pondering of a magic crab.

Term "magic crab" may or may not be known from this point forward as AH-64A longbow apache.

[Ferrus]

Kurdistan however, should exist.

[charred_heart]

Kurdistan however, should exist.Civilization VII: In which country is my country?


I thought that palestine was a cognate of philestine......the Palets and the philistines being different names for the same people.

Underneath everything they're still just pissed about Goliath and the 10,000 foreskins.that's what I thought too. Religious Celebrity Deathmatch

[Karl]

Kurdistan however, should exist.

I once said in a class at school that I didn't blame Saddam Hussein for trying to take over Kuwait because it wasn't a real country. I don't think that was quite what I meant.

[Mastermind]

I voted other, because it shoul have been split in two states right from the begining, or some sort of federation. It would also need a good constitution granting the exactly same rigts to everyone, secularization of the political apparate and so on, but this is probably much easier to say now.

[Nighthawk]

Not that this jives with the Bible.... They had to roost somewhere but forcing one group out in favor of another based on religion is nauseating IMO. A homeland elsewhere would have caused the world much less grief.

Ironically, Hitler wanted to relocate them to Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan).

[kuranes]

Hear hear.......or put them in Utah and let them fight the Mormons for it.
North Dakota ?

[nittanylion302]

Yes, and it should have been a secular democracy from the beginning.

[msg_v2]

Yes, but only as a binational state, or something like that. That probably would have prevented some of the current problems. Religion, nationalism, and conflict is usually an ugly combination.

[dubbeltop]

If you could go back in time; would you authorize the existence of Israel.

No...too much policitical reasons behind it...I would compensate the Jewish people financially so they can buy their own piece of land to play on...