Ray

Aranthus

I love a debate.

In this case I will sit back.

Here's another one for you:

What is Israel originally a part of (not historically or Biblical, but of recent past before it came into existence)?

Did Israel exists?

Can anyone superimpose a country on another?

It will be an interesting debate!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

zraver

1- the area was never Jew free so its not really imposing. Infact historical sources are very clear that without jewish imigration creating jobs the Arab imigration would not have occured in the 1880's.

2- America, Canada, Austrailia, India, Germany, France, England, Italy can you show me a nation that is not imposed over the top of some other local group? The only differance is we have history in action middle east instead of reading about it.

Aranthus

What do you you mean by "What is Israel originally a part of? Geographically? Politically? Religiously? Culturally? Also, it's contradictory to ask what Israel was "originally" a part of and then limit the answer to the recent past, especially when the "originality of Israel goes back several thousand years. The question should be what was Israel recently part of or part of immediately before the declaration of the state.

With that in mind:

Geographically: The area is part of the South West Asian portion of the Middle East. Israel lies on the Mediterranean litoral.

Politically: The area was part of the British Empire and before that, the Ottoman Empire.

Culturally: The area was mixed. The major cultural groups were Jews and Arabs. The proportions of each depend on what specific area you are talking about. Jews were a majority in the area that was recommended as the Jewish state (538K to 397K) Arabs were the majority in the Arab state (804K to 10K) Arabs were about a two to one majority in the entire area of Palestine west of the River Jordan, and were obviously in the majority in the entire Palestine Mandate (which includes Jordan).

Religiously: Also mixed. Mostly Muslims and Jews.

"Did Israel exists?" Again, it isn't clear what you mean here. Did Israel exist before it came into being? Does anything? That's a deep philosophical discussion that is quite a bit off the topic.

If you are asking whether there are any cultural or historical precedents for Israel, then the answer is obviously yes. In fact of the three indigenous independent states which have ever existed in that area, all of them have been Jewish, and two of them have been called Israel. The Jewish presence in that area has been continuous for over three thousand years, and the area is considered to be the homeland of the Jews. Finally, there was obviously a Jewish nation in Palestine at the time Israel became independent, and they were entitled to an independent national existence.

"Can anyone superimpose a country on another?" What do you mean by "country" A state? If so, then the question isn't relevant since the Palestinians didn't have a state at the time that Israel became independent (or at any other time). I suspect that what you are really getting at is whether one people can claim sovereignty over a piece of land to the exclusion of some other people's claim. The answer is yes. In fact, every state is the arrogation of sovereignty by one people to the exclusion of some other people.

All in all, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify what it is that you are trying to say.

wabpilot

Actually, the British administered Palestine pursuant to a mandate from the League of Nations. Whatever authority the UK had was not its imperial authority, but was derived from the Ottomans by way of the League of Nations. The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, was exercising Ottoman authority to partition Palestine and create Israel and Trans-Jordan. For the record, the United Kingdom opposed the UN plan to partition Palestine.

Ray

Aranthus

Fine.

Was there any area totally Jewish? 100%?

Wabpilot,

The League of Nations was composed of who?

Would I be wrong if I thought it was with colonial powers with their own agendas and not the opinion of the actual natives of the colonies they ruled over?

Kansas Bear

Sir,

Was it "colonial" when the League created Poland? Czechoslovakia? Yugoslavia?

ZFBoxcar

There is no place on earth that was ever 100% any group.

ZFBoxcar

It was the victors of WWI punishing the losers (Germany and Austria) and the traitor (USSR). It was also pushed for by Woodrow Wilson because he believed in self-determination for white people, so even if you use Wilson's justifications it is still white supremacy that drove it (and made him refuse to help non-white colonies after the war) which is tied together to colonialism. Don't get me wrong, creating those states was the right thing to do, but it was mainly to keep a string of Western dependent countries in between Germany and Russia to make sure they couldn't get up to any mischief together and as punishment like I said above.

Aranthus

You are much better read on the Ottomans than I am. Which of these books do you think is the best?

Aranthus

As a matter of International Law pretense, you're right. The reality, however, is that Great Britain ruled its part of the Middle East by right of conquest rubber stamped by the League of Nations. Since Great Britain ruled that roost, I don't think a League of Nations Mandate adds anything to the legitimacy of Great Britain's governance of Palestine.

Kansas Bear

"Ottoman Centuries" by Kinross is excellent. He's unbiased and not a "paid" historian like Mango or McCarthy.

Aranthus

My father's house in Kiryat Hayim was 100% Jewish. Seriously though, If you are talking about the areas recomended as the Jewish and Arab states, then neither area was 100% Jewish or Arab. Really, the question is irrelevant. There is no state that is 100% one nation or race. If the requirement for statehood is having 100% of the population in favor, or of the same ethnicity, then none of the states presently existing would qualify.

Your second question about the League of Nations strikes at the heart of some people's perception of how the world works. I love it. The League, as the UN after it, was composed of member governments, each acting in their self interest to the limits of their power. None of them had any allegiance to any other or to the world as a whole. Your question raises the issue of whether that organization had any moral or legal authority. I submit that it had none. In fact, I believe that the world has, and continues to, operate as if the League and the UN had never existed.

Where do we go from there?

Aranthus

Thanks. I'll look for it.

Ray

Yet, on Iraq, the moral pressure of the nations of the world has not given the legitimacy that Iraq war would have got had it been the League of Nations!

In fact, Ira's post sums up the League of Nations.

As far as Israel is concerned, it is a reality and it is an entity. Nothing can change the situation.

Therefore the armed hostility and terrorism will not work. Either the present situation will continue, or people will have to hammer out a solution wherein both states survive and prosper.

My issue is academic. I am seeking an answer. And still am.

I have seen the question being debated on many forums. Much of history, points and counter points. But it still remains in a limbo.

Stan187

I'm unsure about what you're trying to get at here. Is there any area anywhere that's 100% one ethinicity?

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea