Because I have been accused of not backing up why I don't support Israel's right to exist in the first place I shall do so now. And before someone says that I did a volt face and previously mentioned that Israel has a right to, yes, I have. However, I do not support the destruction of Israel, because the children of the initial generation know nothing other than Israel and genuinely call it their home. So yes, a compromise, but one whereby Israel returns to the pre-1967 borders and gives the Palestinians a state. If not, then they're severe hypocrites.
Reason number one that most supporters of Israel tend to use is an emotional, moral reasoning. They claim that the world has an obligation to the Jews for the centuries of abuse they have suffered and hence should be granted a homeland and that furthermore the Jews have a spiritual connection to the land.
But why the Levant region? Because as the Zionists (Note, usage is non-pejorative), claim that they have a spiritual link to the land, being one of the earliest settlers of the Palestine, before the Arabs. This, to any logical person's mind is entirely absurd. Yes there have always existed unbroken Jewish communities in the region, but they were after the Romans expelled them, a tiny minority. Yes, we certainly have all the archeological evidence that the Jews or proto-Semitic people settle there, but no amount of thousand year old cracked pottery can justify a people, absent for more than 2000 years, to come back and suddenly push out whoever is living there already.
If such a reasoning is given for any people to have a state, then why isn't America giving up land to the native Indians? Why isn't Russia giving up land for the Caucasian people in the steppes who have dwelled there long before the Russians came? Why isn't Turkey ceding Constantinople back to Greece? Why isn't Australia dividing itself up for its native Aborigines? The reasoning is simple. No one can stick a flag on a piece of land and claim that they will henceforth own it for time eternal, even if they have been driven off for centuries, even if most of their descendants have never stepped foot in the ''romised'' land, even if there's another people living there, that land is theirs. No. When land is lost to a victorious people, it's lost. And before someone states that this is hypocritical of me not supporting Israel's conquests, read up on international law, read up on the Fourth Geneva Accords, read up on my previous post.
Second reason I've heard a lot: The Jews are a small minority in the world and yet furthered the progress of civilization by introducing monotheism, the Marx Brothers, and the Pentium to the world.
Off the bat, being a minority does not justify a state. Furthermore, they are a scattered minority, minorities who have been ingrained and entrenched for centuries in their adopted societies. Should the thousands of African clans and tribes today be given a state each just because they are small? No. Size alone does not justify a state. Someone needs to think a little bit more.
Furthermore, without the state of Israel Jews will no longer want to aid the progression of civilization?
Reason number three: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
Before lauding Israel as a shining model of democracy, it is classified as a ''flawed democracy''. What people are not often told is that groups praising Israel often do not take into consideration Israelâs military rule of the West Bank or its stranglehold of Gaza. When a house is demolished in East Jerusalem or the security wall cuts off an orchard or garden, a Palestinian owner can only file a complaint at a hardly-impartial Israeli military court.
More tellingly, the 2009 Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RWB) does distinguish between Israeli practices internally and externally. Internally, it is ranked 93rd, behind countries like Kuwait (60), Lebanon (61) and the UAE (86). Externally, it is ranked 150th, mainly due to its military offensive against the Gaza Strip during which both foreign and Israeli media were denied access.
Meanwhile, recent initiatives by Israelâs coalition government of religionists, âRussiansâ and right-wing nationalists will do little to improve the countryâs democratic standing. On January 5, the Israeli Knesset voted for a plan, initiated by the Yisrael Beitenu Party (YBP) of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, to investigate the work and funding of domestic and foreign human rights groups.
But before I get carried away, we should look at the sudden rather erratic leap between ''being a democracy'', and hence ''right to exist''. Why should a political doctrine be used as a justification for shoving people off their land just because they're ruled under a more autocratic ruler? Does China, Russia, Turkey being less democratic than other nations mean they should not exist? Or, reverse that. Does being a democracy give you the right to exist as a state? No. A state consists of much more than that.
Reason Number Four: Israel is a roadblock to terrorism.
Given that terrorism as a phenomenon came out more prominently only after 2001, it comes off as a rather laughable and anachronistic argument. If such a reason was given in 1947, no doubt many of the Zionist leaders would have had a good chuckle, seeing that they did carry out numerous terrorist acts against the British to pressure them into giving them a state. Fast forward to the last decade and ask any Palestinian living in camps in the Gaza Strip or West Bank, and they'll tell you what they think of IDF soldiers.
I have seen numerous other reasons that are too absurd and asinine to even list, such as '' Because God said so.'' So I challenge anyone to give me three really good reasons as to why the Zionists had a right to try and establish a state on territory that clearly belonged to other people in the early 20th century.
