Was it right to form Israel?

Question

I will post a few arguments against the creation of Jewish state. Are these valid reasons? Or am I perhaps mislead by history books?


-British mandate in Palestine would not allow for a democracy until the region had a majority of Jews, b/c in a democracy Palestinians would have closed the border. (Around the same time that US congress was debating whether to close the border to Eastern Europeans many of which were Jews) British mandate allowed for democracy in other Middle Eastern regions much earlier.

-Hussein-McMahon correspondence was a promise by the British to the Arabs of a united Arab nation in return for revolting against Ottoman Turks. This promise was ignored later, b/c British had imperialistic interests in the region (Sykes-Picot).

-King-Crane Commission under President Wilson found that creation of Jewish state was impossible unless you undermine the rights of the Arabs. The Arabs didn't mind Jews living in an Arab nation though. The report of the commission was ignored b/c it did not support British/French interest.

-Palestinians were forced to move out of their homes to make way for European Jews despite the fact they had lived there for centuries.

-Zionists had the option of creating a state in other places of the world where there would not have been conflict (S.America/Africa) but they chose Palestine b/c of religious reasons.

-Arabs also consider Jerusalem a holy city, but Jews' religious interests obviously take precedence.

-Arabs did not hate Jews (they coexisted in the region for centuries), but after the formation of Israel there has been much violent conflict.

These are a few arguments against the creation of Israel. We have to live with what we have now, but if it weren't for this I think we would live in a more peaceful, safe world right now.

Please give me your opinions on this.

Answer 1

Aside from the fact that your arguments are not really arguments as to why Israel should not have been born (case in point: if what you say about the "King-Crane Commission" is true, why is that an argument against the State of Israel? It merely represents the specific viewpoint of some members of a specific American committee in 1919, a full 29 years before Israel was born.) Some of the arguments are NOT true.

For the record, Arabs were not FORCED out of their homes to make way for Jews. That was a result of a war which the Arabs started and encouraged their own people to leave their homes. It should be noted that those that did not do that ended up being citizens of Israel.

Also, it may be true that Arabs consider Jerusalem as a "holy city" but in respect to Mecca and Medina it comes a distant 3rd place. There is a reason why Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran.



And for the record, the myth that there was peaceful coexistence before Israel came along is just that, a myth. In fact, there were many violent conflicts decades before Israel came into being. In fact, the same attitudes that the Arabs had about Jews and Zionism then still exist, which is one of the main reasons why there still isn't peace.



Update:



No, it is not an important point at all, because you are forgetting one key component which I pointed out already.

I said, "your arguments are not really arguments as to why Israel should not have been born...". In other words, you said "I will post a few arguments AGAINST the creation of Jewish state. "

In other words, if you are trying to make the argument that one should include the "King-Crane Commission" as part of a historical study of the region then maybe you have a point. But the fact is, you are NOT trying to argue that.

You are basically saying the following:

"Since there was a "King-Crane Commission" conducted in 1919 THEREFORE that is a ARGUMENT against Israel's creation."

Thus, my point.

I do not know one way or the other whether the "King-Crane Commission" was biased or not. I've never actually said that. (By the way, saying that they were unbiased merely because the USA had no interest in the area and that others were biased because of a mere assertion on your part is not very logical.)

My point is that even if they were unbiased, whatever their conclusions were they are still mere OPINIONS of the authors of the commision. Added to that fact that it preceded the founding of Israel by 29 years means that it also did not take into account the circumstances of those 29 years (i.e. it was a DATED opinion by that time).



You apply this same illogic to your other points as well.

e.g. the centrality of Jerusalem in Judaism vs. Islam.

While it may be true that Jerusalem has some role in Islam (a minor one, BTW) that is NOT an ARGUMENT against Israel.

It is totaly irrelevant to your point.



This also ties in with your other point about the Ottoman Empire. (Which, BTW, means that you agree with my point that conflicts predated the founding of Israel by decades, which is NOT what you originally claimed.)

How is the fact that Jews had relatively peaceful relations (and that was more true in the middle ages and less true starting with the 18th-19th century) with their Arab neighbours (either in the Ottoman Empire or other Arab lands) have any relevance to your argument?

Answer 2

Read the Old Testament of the Bible.

It will answer all of your questions about Israel.

Or just Google the word Israel and go to Wikipedia..

God "gave" them the land, clear title.

They are the only Nation on the Planet that actually "Owns" the land.

The rest of us are nothing but squatters..

Answer 3

So it's Britain's fault is it ? we really cant do right in the rest of the world's eyes can we , might as well just leave the rest of the world to their own devices