Reply #213: Wrong

[durutti]

and that was ours first and taken away forcibly by the Romans.

It was not yours first. In fact, it was never yours...

First of all, Judaism is a religion. Throughout history, in various areas, most notably Khazaria, large segments of the population converted to Judaism. Thus, today, some Jews have no biological connection to the ancient Israelites.

Secondly, the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record. It is a highly mythologized history that does a racist hackjob on some of the world's greatest civilizations.

Archaeological findings tell us something quite different. Before the Israelities, the land was occupied and controlled by the Canaanites. Israelite tribes invaded Canaan in 13th century BCE. (That's right, you took it forcibly from them.) And before the Israelites invaded, it was invaded by the Egyptians, the Hyskos, and the Hittites.

Various Israelite rulers established small tribal kingdoms throughout over the years. But there was never an Israel that encompassed all of historical Palestine, or even all of the land occupied by the modern state of Israel.

Why should it belong to the Jews, as opposed to the descendants of any of the many other occupying forces who have taken Palestine throughout history?

Furthermore, why Palestine? Why not Germany, Syria (home of Abraham), or Egypt (where the Jews were supposedly enslaved, though we know this too is probably false).

FYI, the word "Palestine" comes from the Roman name "Falestin", which the Romans named the land in order to make the Jews feel less connected to it. The Romans occupied it until the middle ages, when it became part of the Ottoman Empire.

True. But what it's called is irrelevant. The Palestinians were and are the descendants of the Canaanites, who inhabited Palestine before the Israelites.

Then the British took it in WWII and acted as occupiers, drawing the wrath of both Jews and Arabs living there

Yes, but not the ire of the Zionist settlers. The indigenous Jews of Palestine were largely opposed to the Zionist project. It's also worth noting that Palestinian Jews initially had to live under military rule just like the rest of the Palestinians, until 1964.

The settlers, far from being angry with the British, at first collaborated with them, receiving military training and acting as a means to keep the Palestinians in check.

And you omit an important point: the Arabs fought for the British against the Ottomans, with the understanding that they'd be granted sovereignty over Palestine.

until 1948 when the state of Israel was born, having been sanctioned by the League of Nations and later the UN.

Utterly false. According to the White Paper of 1939, indefinite Jewish immigration and the transfer of Arab land to Jews was a violation of both League of Nations Article 22.

The UN proposed partition in a General Assembly resolution. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding; they have no legal force. (Israel constantly reminds the public of this fact, since its conduct has been condemned in countless such resolutions.) The UN never ordered partition.

Furthermore, the resolutions called for provisional partition -- a temporary partition to see if partition was a feasible solution.

The UN had originally voted on a 2-state solution, but the Arab states rejected it and made war on Israel.

Wrong again. If the Zionists accepted the UN's authority to partition the land, it logically had to accept that the UN, not Israel, would determine Israel's borders. But Israel decided to do just that, in defiance of the UN -- arguably an act of war in itself.

Furthermore, the neighboring Arab states had suspected that Israel was going to invade the area allocated for Palestine and divide the area between itself and Jordan (which was seen, more or less correctly, as a British puppet). Jordan's rulers had dreams of conquering much of the Middle East, Palestine being the first step in their plans. So the Arabs invaded not to prevent Israel from being established, but to prevent the rest of Palestine from being divided between Israel and Jordan.

Of course, even if what you're saying here were true, it wouldn't justify denying Palestinian statehood. It's totally racist to say that because some of "the Arabs" (a bit like saying, "the Asians") decided to invade, the Palestinians in particular should be held responsible.

That is why Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from "territories" captured in the 1967 war and does not say "the territories" or "all territories." The USSR had tried to pass a resolution with one of those two phrases, but it was deliberately rejected by the US, the British, and a few other delegations on the Security Council.

This isn't true. But this a complicated matter beyond the scope of this post. I'll post more later concerning it, but for now, I'll just note that at the Fifth Emergency Session of the General Assembly convening the war's immediate aftermath, there was "near unanimity" on "the withdrawal of the armed forces from the territory of neighboring Arab states captured in the recent war" since "everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest." (Secretary-General U Thant, summarizing the G.A. debate)

But I think Israel has every right to the land and has no obligation under international law to return to the 1948 borders, let alone pack up completely and move to Europe as you have suggested.

I've never met anyone who suggested that Israeli Jews move to Europe. The only demand that's been made is that Jews in the Middle East live as equals with the Arabs.

My personal view is that Palestinians should fight (violently, if necessary) for a secular, democratic state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The settlements should all be dismantled. The former settlers should be given to the opportunity to live as equals in the new Palestinian state. Palestinian refugees should be granted the right of return or compensation.

Israel will remain a racist, religious chauvenist state after the Palestinian state is established. Palestinian Israelis should continue their struggle for equality, employing electoral action and civil disobedience. Eventually, I would like to see Israel becomea secular, truly democratic state.

And when both states exist side-by-side in peace, secular and democratic, I would like to see them reunite as one state, called Israel or Palestine -- it doesn't really matter -- with the consent of the citizens of both states.

But that's a long way off, if it will ever happen. For now, Palestinians and their supporters should focus on the first step, attaining statehood and the right of return.