![]() |
The Jews' right to Israel
I've always considered Jewish people to have an absolute right to the land constituting Israel. As far as I can tell the Bible and any other historical evidence places them in that land long before anybody else laid claim to it. For reasons that I have never fully understood the majority of the world claims that Israel has no right to this land.
This is the predominant attitude throughout most of Europe and other first world nations in the world. It seems that only America (and even we are strongly divided) supports the Jews and their right to inhabit their land. I've found an argument made by Senator Inhofe, awhile back, from Oklahoma explicitly and lucidly explaining why this land belongs to the Jews. I'd like to hear any objections that could be raised against what I feel is a very strong case. 1. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archaeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archaeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture - there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have. Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology. 2. The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land. The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land. One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem. The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places. That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, "man sent from God'' or "prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot. The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply. The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war. The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan - the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917. In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land. I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read "Huckleberry Finn'' and "Tom Sawyer.'' Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens - took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them. This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said: The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants. That was 1913. The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place.'' In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either. Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks. Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948. 3. The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture. 4. The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the Czars. These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land? They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody. 5. The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally. It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany - more than any other country in the world. 6. The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true. One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them. Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949 - that was the war for independence - the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria. You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars. Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1. There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks. We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed. I was so thrilled awhile ago when I heard a reporter pose a question to our (now former) Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said: Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation - that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves? Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something. But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue. It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel - which they won't be - but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied. 7. Now. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: The Lord said to Abram, "Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. ..... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.'' That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land,'' - the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. Conclusion: The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land. Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion. At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, "Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace." This process continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table. He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for. And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting? A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion. Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission to be there? It was no surprise. The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details. They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror. In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived. They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, "No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. ..... They want to destroy us." That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all. We have to get out of this mindset that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered. These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land. I yield the floor. |
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Let me begin by saying I was born in Jerusalem, and I now live there again after living half of my life in the United States.
Israel was such a different nation 8 years ago. The fear factor has changed greatly. Citizens don't want to show it publicly, but every person that takes a bus daily, fears every ride, for it could be their last. How can this be normal? This is possibly the most outrageous argument for one reason: There's nothing to argue about! Israel is the land of the Jews, the center of the world to some. It is a holy place, whether for Muslims, Jews, or Christians. However, Israel (as you've already stated) has been in possession of the Jewish people for over 3000 years. There is no room for compromise, it is our land. Some people may think that I'm obviously taking the Jewish side since I myself am an Israeli citizen, however, all I'm doing is thinking with a little bit of common sense and logic. Of course, there are people like Ahmadinejad who say the Holocaust never existed. How can one man be so obtuse? This is the kind of person that may start World War III, because of his unexplained and, mind you, silly thinking. Quote:
I really have nothing to add, as you provided all the points. I agree completely with you, and I think that the United States is doing its job, whether with George W. or not. |
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
It's your land because you took it by force. Victor writes history, Victor is right, Victor is just, Victor is holy.
|
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Quote:
|
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Quote:
At one point half the world belonged to England because we "took it by force", of course we have given most of it back now. I only read through m3rkabic's post quickly, but from what i can see most of the arguments stated are fair. Most importantly, if a group of people have been living somewhere for a long period of time, they should be allowed to stay there. |
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
the jews took that land by killing the philistines.
israel only belongs to the jews until the arabs kill them. that's assuming that no philistines survived the jewish onslaught, because if they did, they have a better claim to israel than the jews do. |
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Lived there before thing is just semantics, are those that hate Jews will listen to that reason? Not in a million years, you only say it to comfort your own ears. As I said, if you are the victor, you make the rules. It's very simple, no need for the rouge. :)
|
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Whoever inhabited the land originally should have the rights to it.
|
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Quote:
First of all, how far back are you going to go to find the "original" inhabitors. Surely you're aware that the Middle East holds some of the oldest civilizations. Also, that would mean one collective, defunct tribe has claim to all of America. That sound like a good idea? --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
Re: The Jews' right to Israel
Alright maybe not the original inhabitors but the oldest ones who's people still exist today. I'm guessing that would be the Jews.
|
Re: The Jews' right to Israel
lol, again, the native americans still exist today, albeit aren't really fit to run a country I suppose
I don't really like the argument that the Jews have rights to the land constituting Israel, what about the non-Jewish Israelis, as well as the important Islamic and Christian sites within Israel, assigning an entire nation to one religion isn't cool Although if were talking about Israelis versus Palestinians rights to the land that's a more acceptable argument in my opinion. Reason numbers 1, 2 and 3 I see so problem with, they sound pretty fair. However some of your other reasons I'm not so fond of. 4. The fact that Jews were persecuted doesn't really give them a right to their own country, where else do they go you ask? America, England, France, Germany, Russia, South Africa, Australia etc. But I guess this goes back to the whole giving one religion its own country thing. 5. Fair I suppose, your strong so you help your allies, although just because a country like Palestine isn't Americas ally doesn't mean it should ignore it. 6. Pfft, terrorism stuff, a bigged up problem (far less so in Israel I'm aware, but to America I'm talking about), politicians trying to instil us with fear. Ill admit terrorism is a threat, but that it is "very fluid, moving from one country to another" is not really true now is it. The war on terror was an excuse to get into Iraq and little more. Sorry but you sound typically indoctrinated with all the usual buzz phrases. 7. An argument to be sure, but in a conflict that is essentially between two very religious forces, one side saying "our God said we can have it!" can't really hold up My two cents... |
Re: The Jews' right to Israel
1. I don't agree at all with the idea that just because your ancestors lived on a certain piece of land that it belongs to you. I have no idea what my great great great great grandparents did, where they lived, etc, and its utterly perposterous to say that I have claim to something just because my great great great great grandfather did. Now, if my parents had claim to something, especially legally, that's 1 generation's difference, and I'd presume that I'd have lived on the land when I was a kid, etc., and now you might have an argument.
2. Well, this is a rather long-winded, un-cohesive point. You should've broken this one down, even if whoever the dude you're getting this from didn't. Firstly, your talk that this specific land has been conquered over and over does the opposite of support your argument. Clearly, 'Jews' have not held sway in Israel since the beginning of time or what have you, so even if I thought of your first argument as supporting you, the first part of your second argument essentially weakens your first point. I also put 'Jews' in quotations because a Jew is a person who follows a religion, and Israeli is someone from Israel, and the 2 don't necessarily coincide. You can have an Arabic Israeli, or a Christian Israeli, or someone who is Arabic, Christian and Israeli all in one. This brings up interesting point in my mind, in that no other 'religion' has demanded its own country. The middle section of this argument, when you go into Britain granting Jews land that wasn't Britain's to grant seems just as silly as it sounds. But whatever, that's what happened. The last portion of this argument, that only after Jews had started moving onto the land, did things begin to prosper, I'll grant you is a good argument. However, I'm not entirely accepting of your facts in that perhaps there would have been lots of prosperity in that region of the world regardless of who technically owned the land, in that it was immediately following the war, and everywhere was prospering. Jews could have moved there without needing to officially state a claim and making it Israel. I mean, Britain could've simply pointed out a good place to settle without making it official. Also countering your argument about the prosperity of the area before and after becoming Israel, is the fact that the place was obviously not desolate enough such that there would be no opposition to it. There was opposition, and I'm not talking about the opposition from countries and people who didn't live there. For the apparently few and unprosperous people who DID live there, they were kicked off their land. The place where they lived. What if tomorrow someone came, knocked on your door, and told you that you couldn't live there anymore because Britain said that someone else could live there? And then the newcomer had the audacity to say that it was their's all along because 3000 years ago, his ancestors lived there. However, to counter my counter-argument to you, and to go further into this discussion with a point that Guido made, it is now 60 years later, and unless there's still conflict at a personal level in that an Israelis are taking over a Palestinians' home nowadays, in a sense, Israel is the 'conquerer'. But obviously not fully. 3. You already argued that in 2, and I agreed with you, and still do. However, this does not mean that if Israel were to disperse tomorrow, and Palestine were to be made anew, that what has already been built there would collapse. It might, I don't know, but I hardly think having Israel there NOW, regardless of how it developed the land 60 years ago, is necessary for economic development. Of course, there could be those who argue against what you say now in terms of the development. Having a better economy and more things and businesses etc. isn't necessarily 'best' either, but that's another argument. 4. Why not give them Oklahoma? You can leave your home and give it to a stranger whose parents died in the holocaust. Where would you go? Oh, you'll think of something, I'm sure. That's pretty fair, isn't it? 5 and 6. Not being American, that Israel is a strategic position for the US doesn't mean a lick to me. In fact, I'm generally against this war on terror, in that I don't think terrorism would be a problem if people didn't see the United States and other countries as evil, looming powers that must be destroyed. You can either a) forcibly stop people from doing things and while doing so, make more and more people upset at you for ruling with an iron fist or b) give them as little reason as possible to fight you in the first place. I believe b is the Christian thing to do, which also happens to be the moral thing to do, and would also seem to be the democratic thing to do, because if you were truly democratic, then people would feel absolutely no need to undermine a system that truly took their views and wants into consideration. 7. Even if I believed in God, which I once did, I could not ever believe that the Bible is God's word. 2 strikes for your argument if you're trying to convince me. I honestly did not know a lot of why there's conflict between Palestine and Israel, and ever since I was a kid, there's been an enigma over why fighting has been there. This perhaps speaks more than anything in that it's been so long that there's been conflict, what's everyone fighting for anyways? Your ancestors from 3000 years ago or your grandparents homeland? If Palestine were to re-take what was once theirs, the conflict's gone on so long that you would be bringing in a new generation of Israeli's who would be treated unfairly and who would be moved out of their house, and yet who would be innocent of any wrong-doing, and it would just breed hatred of Palestinians. So even though I would like to side with Palestine because I see they were wronged most recently, in order to keep the peace and prevent further fighting, I think they should let it go. Again, I've never really understood what's been going on between these 2 countries, however if m3rkabic is correct in the facts he states, then I've actually learned a great deal, even if I disagree almost completely with everything that m3rkabic has said are good reasons to have Israel. Are the 2 governments and ideologies all that different from each other that everyone can't just share the land? I sound like a hippy and like I live in happy-go-lucky world, but I honestly think that the conflict they've had has gone on way too long. Peace needs to be made, and individuals who live there should stop worrying about the ideology and of things past, and simply live there. Its individuals who need to stop terrorizing each other with bombs and the like because they have to take or get something which was never theirs, theirs individually, to begin with. Once people stop doing that and fighting over things like idiots, then governments wouldn't have to walk on eggshells and perhaps peace treaties and cease fires would last. |
Re: The Jews Right to Israel
Quote:
It is true however that Israel gained additional land in later (defensive) wars. In the 1948 war for instance (where Israel's enemies tried to wipe the small Jewish state off the map), Israel gained IIRC 21% additional land to help secure its existence. Here's why Israel has a right to exist: an international organization that had jurisdiction formed Israel, and gave it to the Jews. (BTW: it was originally partitioned only in places were Jews were already the majority.) |
Re: The Jews' right to Israel
Quote:
Another, I'm afraid, is anti-Semitism. Israel is the Jewish state, and the Jew among nations. Among such bigotry lies can flourish (confer the blood libel) and the truth can be twisted to vilify Israel. For instance, I know of one Muslim coworker who honestly thinks the Israeli military killed civilians in the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 simply because they were Muslims. The truth is Israel sent a Christian (not Jewish) Lebanese militia to root out terrorist cells they thought were there. Things didn't go according to plan however and the militia settled old scores by going on a killing spree and murdered many civilians. The fiasco pissed off a lot of Israelis (300,000 demonstrated in Tel Aviv--then one-tenth of the population) and a commission was formed, concluding that Israel should have anticipated things might have gotten out of hand. The fiasco almost ended the defense minister's political career (the commission concluding he should never hold public office ever again). Israel might have screwed up by not anticipating what it should have, but it wasn't their military that did the killings, nor did they desire the result that took place. Also disturbing was that the militia who actually did the crime failed to received the brunt of the condemnation from the world--that was saved for Israel. Surely the majority of one's anger should be focused at the group that is directly responsible, so why was Israel the main target? Also, while the massacre at Sabra and Shatili brought huge uproar, few voices spoke out in a May 1985 massacre by Muslim militias against Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh refugee camps that resulted in comparable if not even higher casualties (possibly more dead, definitely more wounded). Is the killing of refugee camps only worthy of indignant uproar when Israel is involved? When one reads history, it’s not difficult to get the impression that there are some double standards going on here. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution