Ah yes, Israel the "artificial" creation. IM is getting his talking points directly from the mullah's. And he has the gall to criticize anyone who speaks out in favor of Israel's right to defend itself as a "Likudnik."
In that consequence, what is Iran? Only 50% of Iranians are ethnic Persians. The rest are various others (Kurds, Azeris, Turks, Arabs, etc) that got caught on the wrong side of a line drawn 500 years ago by a representative of the Sultan, or maybe 80 years ago by a representative of a the UK. How about all those states in Africa where there exist solely because someone drew a line on a map in 1880? Israel has an army, a post office, a national soccer team and a majority of its people have a feeling of "Israeliness." The Israeli Arabs may not share that feeling, but then again, something tells me you do not share the feeling of "Americaness." I am Likudnik Anthony and my Jewish controller has approved this message.
No argument from me here. I agree that Israel is as legitimate as any other nation state. I'm not sure why you thought otherwise. Why not? I'm an american. Shh! Don't blow my cover!
There's a wonderful quote from Emerson, that "the louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." The more IM yells about being neutral and unbiased, the more everyone else stops taking him seriously. He's someone who can get joepak and Bill Archer to agree that points he makes are stupid. And that, gentlemen, is a sign of the apocalypse.
Israel began around 4000 years ago. Those "Europeans" that re-established Israel were hardly considered natives by most actual Europeans, but Israelites or Judeans. If you want to discuss artificial entities, think about Iran, a people conquered by the Arabs and worshiping their God for over 1300 years. Perhaps some day you'll emerge from the spiritual diaspora and re-establish a true Iranian state.
international law? are you joking? this is the real world!! there are no laws only those created by those who are in power! anyone who wants to keep any other type of "international law" Is a fool. If you dont have the power to back up the law you cant enforce it but the nations who do have power have every right to create any law they see fit. Want to see it differently well nuke your house...welcome to the good ol world ..and ******** you iran
King Solomon built the first Temple nearly 3000 years ago on land that is now controlled by Muslims in Jerusalem. I'm wondering which denomination you're talking about. There are hypotheticals and then there are hypotheticals. The most one could fantasize about would be Arab Muslims treating Jews as well as Arab Christians, a people who have declined from 25% of the Arab world to a miniscule fraction in a few centuries. Of course, that is what you want, for Jews to be powerless in the region. Israel has a purpose that goes beyond a place where some Jews happen to live. It is the motherland, the spirtual capital, the only true refuge for Jews.
When I want to teach you Iranian history your resent it. And then you post nonsense. Iran is not some artificial creation. Nor was it part of any European empire or the Ottoman Empire. It has been an independent nation state and empire with all its ethnic groups a part of the duration of history. Iran has lost territories such as when it lost its possession in the Caucasus to Russia as a result of two wars in the 19th century. But nothing that holds today did not hold throughout history by every king who called himself the "Shahanshah of Iran" (king of Kings of Iran) through the ages. While the idea of Iran existed even at the time of Cyrus the Great and Achaemenid emperors, and in the confederation of the Persians and the Medes (the ancient decendants of both Kurds and Azeris), the official title of the "Persian emperor" (often not Persian, but belonging to one of many Iranian tribes though called Persian by the West) became "Shahahshah of Iran" beginning under the Parthians and continued under the Sassanids up to the Arab invasions. We have several Iranian dyansties that arsoe afterwards, but the modern Iranian nation states traces itself to the Shahs of Iran under the Safavid dynasty (1501-1726). That empire continued under the "Iranian Napolean" Nadir Shah later in the 18th century, survived civil war, reconstituted itself under the Qajar dynasty (1796-1925) and then the Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) and then through the revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic. While Iran lost some territories to the Russians in the 19th century (Caucasus) and while the Anglo-Persian war of 1856 forced Iran to recongize the secession of Afghanistan a century earlier during an Iranian civil war, and while Iran agreed to relinquish some of its claims to various other places in the interim, none of what is part of Iran has had any independent existence. That is not the proper analogy to Israel, but more like how "Iraq" was created. Iraq is an artificial entity as well. However, Israel was a "foreign project". It was not just a new creation; it involved also bringining in new people to fill up that new creation! Frankly, at the end, that is all that is left of your arguments and those here. To cover up racism by accusing others of it.
That is not entirely accurate. But more to the point, they certainly were not seen as "natives" of Palestine by the natives of Palestine either! Listen. The point I make is not about changing what happened after political Zionism succeeded. Rather, to clarify how ridiculous it is to not want to look at the other side and their claims, burrying it under labels such as "terrorism". Otherwise, what is done is done. The issue is how to proceed from now on without creating more problems? The answer is not easy, but ultimately will find itself in the "confederation" I have alluded to. Either that, or somehow the region has to be kept under strong boots for so long that the notion that is not so "legitimate" becomes finally "legitimate". Since I don't want the region to be under anyone's boots, I prefer my solution! That solution does need to be implemented any time soon, but it should become accepted as the final goal post. That solution would have legitimacy under both democratic theory as well as be more acceptable for the region to digest and genuinely embrace.
A "project"? The Jews were not "brought in", they were there already. After the creation of Israel, obviously more Jews wanted to come. You make it sound like someone dragged the Jews to those lands. The point being, is that Israel will continue being a country, and if someone will try to destroy it, it will pay a heavy price. Only when Arabs and Muslims, and people like you will accept Israel as a country, not a Federation, not a 2-state country, but just one Israel, only then peice will come. If not, Jews will survive no matter what. That is what we do, we survive. This time though, it's the others that will pay the price.
Political Zionism did not get its impetus, or begin with, the small Jewish community in Palestine. It was a movement among European Jews.
Maybe you don't understand. Or don't want to understand! There was a small Jewish community in Palestine, living amongst a majority of Moslems. But that small community weren't the ones who created Israel.
Well, duh. How could they? Nevertheless, the fact that Jews lived there gives them as much of a righ to live there as Arabs. Since Arabs didn't have a country, tried to kill the Jews, invade the territories, and yet the Jews won, Israel has its fullest right to exist as a one-state country. Case closed.
Legitimacy is at the core of the issue regarding Israel. Without it, force alone is never sufficient to bring peace. There are arguments that can legitimize Israel ex post facto. But not as long as Israel clings to political Zionism as its core ideology.
Yasik, leave IM alone. He needs to express his hatred of Jews somehow, and this is the perfect place to do it. Its easier than actually examining the rank cesspool that is Iran.
No, it will ultimately end up with Moslems accepting a tiny Jewish state. Otherwise, armageddon. Either option will work out just fine.
You are actually saying what I am saying! The only difference is that you somehow imagine that "legitimacy" can be won by force alone. And, it seems, you think "armageddon" is fine too. Frankly, the latter sentiment is one of the many reasons you often have the most unreasonable 'pro-Israeli' voices come from outside of Israel. Including prominently among many American Jews. I guess for them, who cares about even the Israelis (or certainly everyone else in the region): either they have this state that they can claim as exclusively their own, or the whole region can burn!
Wow, my fellow historian, do you know what is Balfour Declaration and when was it? Right, no you don't, well here you go. Read what it says: "November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, ... Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/balfour.htm So you see, there was a Jewish state, also there are no Plaestinians, do you get it, it's not even a word. They were Arabs from North Africa, Jordan (1936 became a country), Syria (1927 became a country), etc. Israel became a country in 1948. If you have an issue with it, then let's make Jordan, Iraq, Syria a Federation of Arab countries. Otherwise, my racist, Iranian Monitor, stop with all this bs because no one is buying it. Furthermore, "Palestinians" were offered a state, which they refused in '48, so it's their fault.
As you all know, in 1975 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution equating Zionism with racism. While the value of that resolution as a diplomatic tool is highly debateable, I thought I would list how various nations voted on that resolution. Among those voting yes were many states were neither Arab nor part of the Soviet bloc, including Iran, Turkey, Mexico, Portugal and Brazil. The world's two most populous states, China and India, both hostile towards one another at the time, nonetheless joined in voting for this resolution as well. The US, on the other hand, was able to rally the European states as well as an odd collection from a few other places to muster a total of 35 votes against the resolution. Since Dr. Kissinger was the US Secretary of State, you can bet that the US did try its best to twist as many arms as it could to vote against the resolution. Voting Record: Sponsored by: (25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates. Voted yes: (72) The 25 sponsoring nations above, and additionally 47 nations: Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, People's Republic of China, Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Voted no: (35) Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay. Abstaining: (32) Argentina, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burma, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia.
I think I know more about the Balfour Declaration than you. Not wanting to get into the ups and downs of British policy on the issue, if you are trying to win legitimacy among the nations and peoples in the region, you aren't going to go far by pointing out what "His Majesty's government" might have favored at one point! Or what it might have promised to some European Jews. Indeed, the opposite...
I am sorry but you are an idiot - UN is the most useless, corrupt, racist organization in this world (besides Muslim regimes and ex-Soviet republics). They always vote against Israel. Just a month or two ago they voted to put Zimbabwe as the head of Human Rights group, they put Sudan there as well. They calimed that because of Israel, not enough Muslims/Arabs receive Noble prizes. You must be kidding and you are an embarassment to any intelligent person. If you want to have a normal discussion, never cite anything from UN.
Yeah, I think I have heard that kind of line recently as well The UN is nothing but the collection of states that make it up. It is easier to heap abuse on a mythical "UN" than to insult the countries that make up our world.