Should the State of Israel have a right to exist?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

So ethnic cleansing against Palestinian settlements is OK then?

Wow. You support terrorism.
Think for one second, and see all of Israel's accomplishments.

Modernize their area ✓
Beat Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Hezbollah 2 times ✓
Become the only secular*¹ country in the middle east less Turkey which is now basically Islamist. ✓
Westernize in one of the most primitive areas in the world ✓

*¹By secular I mean that non-Jewish people are not killed, unlike in Syria or Iraq.

Ah yes, the secular state that enshrines its ineffable "Jewish character" in its constitution, and extends certain privileges, de jure (Law of Return & compensation for property lost in the 1947 to 1949 turmoil) or de facto, only to a certain ethnoreligious group.

Anyways, I hope you recognize that your argument about economic progress can just as easily be applied to countries like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, China, Francoist Spain, etc.

[Fahran]

Ah yes, the secular state that enshrines its ineffable "Jewish character" in its constitution, and extends certain privileges, de jure (Law of Return & compensation for property lost in the 1947 to 1949 turmoil) or de facto, only to a certain ethnoreligious group.

As most of the Arab states likewise did.

Anyways, I hope you recognize that your argument about economic progress can just as easily be applied to countries like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, China, Francoist Spain, etc.

This is pretty much true. Well... aside from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Francoist Spain not being secular.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Yes, Israel has a right to exist.

Every nation has a right to exist.

And the large diaspora does not invalidate their claim. Armenia exists but more Armenians live abroad than in Armenia. Both Jews and Armenians were subjected to massive genocides in the last century. So why not let people return to their native lands if they choose?

And if you don't feel comfortable with all of their decisions politically, remember that politics and people are not the same.

(I think Israel is overall a very good nation, but no nation is perfect. America and South Korea are great too, but they also have some issues.)

Except the Armenians have had a continuous, unbroken presence in present-day Armenia for who-knows-how many centuries. But should former majority Armenian lands in Eastern Anatolia be given to Armenia? Have the now majority Turkish residents established themselves for long enough that the Armenian claim is extinguished? I'm not sure, and that's only a hundred years old. The Jewish claim, no matter how heartfelt, was nearly two millennia old by the time of the establishment of Israel. Does that old of a claim count?

[Alcala-Cordel]

Yes, Israel has a right to exist.

Every nation has a right to exist.

And the large diaspora does not invalidate their claim. Armenia exists but more Armenians live abroad than in Armenia. Both Jews and Armenians were subjected to massive genocides in the last century. So why not let people return to their native lands if they choose?

And if you don't feel comfortable with all of their decisions politically, remember that politics and people are not the same.

(I think Israel is overall a very good nation, but no nation is perfect. America and South Korea are great too, but they also have some issues.)

Having ancestors in an area does not entitle anyone to an ethnostate, nor does having "different politics" justify apartheid.

[Fahran]

Except the Armenians have had a continuous, unbroken presence in present-day Armenia for who-knows-how many centuries.

So have Jews. They simply became a minority at some point, and then began to grow as a result of immigration. In large part from other Arabic-speaking regions.

But should former majority Armenian lands in Eastern Anatolia be given to Armenia?

I mean... if we approached the peace process between Turkey and Armenia as we do the peace process between Israel and Palestine, probably?

Have the now majority Turkish residents established themselves for long enough that the Armenian claim is extinguished?

They've probably been there about as long as Jewish folks have been in the recognized borders of Israel. Also, a lot of those regions actually have a significant Kurdish majority and Kurds played a pretty prominent role in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians despite how often they invoke the genocide in their own propaganda.

I'm not sure, and that's only a hundreds year old. The Jewish claim, no matter how heartfelt, was nearly two millennia old by the time of the establishment of Israel. Does that old of a claim count?

They represented about a third of the population in 1948, and most of the leadership had either been born or grown up in the Ottoman Empire or the Mandate. It's wasn't simply a two thousand year old claim. It was a constant fact of Jewish life, even in the Diaspora.

[Fahran]

Having ancestors in an area does not entitle anyone to an ethnostate, nor does having "different politics" justify apartheid.

Does anything justify an ethnostate in your opinion?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

-snip-

Well, that's more complex. The majority of a country obviously has the right to national self-determination in their majority areas, and the minority in their majority areas. I'm not familiar with the former geographical distribution within the area of Palestine, but if they did constitute a majority in some areas, then obviously, they have a right to national self-determination in those areas. But, on the other hand, if they were geographically dispersed in such a way that they constituted a majority nowhere, I couldn't really say what ought to be done.

And to clarify with the Armenians, I really should have said continuous, unbroken majority. Which is to say, my argument was that being a majority overall some centuries ago is not enough to establish a claim. Being a majority in certain areas would establish a claim, but the former is not sufficient.

In sum, Jews obviously do not have a claim based on the fact that they used to have a majority overall, since that is way too in the past. They might have a claim based on having a majority in some areas; I don't know enough to say. In the same way, Armenia obviously doesn't have a claim to all of Azeri-majority Azerbaijan, but it does have a claim to Armenian-majority Karabakh.

[Pyatingrad]

Yes, and if you only feel this way for Israel, sorry, but you are a racist.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Yes, and if you only feel this way for Israel, sorry, but you are a racist.

And if you deny American exceptionalism, you're anti-American. /s

No country is above reproach and moral interrogation, and nationalists have no right to throw around thought-terminating cliches like this. Obviously, the circumstances of Israel's creation are unique and unparalleled in the modern era. Of course then, we single out Israel, since its circumstances are one-of-a-kind. It simply isn't comparable to other nations and their foundings.

[Fahran]

Well, that's more complex. The majority of a country obviously has the right to national self-determination in their majority areas, and the minority in their majority areas. I'm not familiar with the former geographical distribution within the area of Palestine, but if they did constitute a majority in some areas, then obviously, they have a right to national self-determination in those areas. But, on the other hand, if they were geographically dispersed in such a way that they constituted a majority nowhere, I couldn't really say what ought to be done.

That's a peculiar distinction to make in my opinion, especially given Palestine had seldom been categorized as a distinct region from the rest of the Levant. Rightly speaking, the approach that would have made the most sense is partitioning the entirety of the ceded Ottoman territories between the various ethnic groups that resided in those regions if we were going to make national self-determination a thing. That would have been the most equitable approach.

And to clarify with the Armenians, I really should have said continuous, unbroken majority. Which is to say, my argument was that being a majority overall some centuries ago is not enough to establish a claim. Being a majority in certain areas would establish a claim, but the former is not sufficient.

I'm not certain why a historical geographical majority matters all that much within previously undefined polities.

In sum, Jews obviously do not have a claim based on the fact that they used to have a majority overall, since that is way too in the past. They might have a claim based on having a majority in some areas; I don't know enough to say. In the same way, Armenia obviously doesn't have a claim to all of Azeri-majority Azerbaijan, but it does have a claim to Armenian-majority Karabakh.

And what about in 1948? Would you have given them what was laid out in the partition with the exception of the deserts where no one lived and possibly Haifa?

[Alcala-Cordel]

Having ancestors in an area does not entitle anyone to an ethnostate, nor does having "different politics" justify apartheid.

Does anything justify an ethnostate in your opinion?

Nothing justifies a state in my opinion.

[Fahran]

And if you deny American exceptionalism, you're anti-American. /s

No country is above reproach and moral interrogation, and nationalists have no right to throw around thought-terminating cliches like this. Obviously, the circumstances of Israel's creation are unique and unparalleled in the modern era. Of course then, we single out Israel, since its circumstances are one-of-a-kind. It simply isn't comparable to other nations and their foundings.

I mean... if you make a specific rule for Israel that you refuse to follow for any other country, yeah, that feels racist.

[Fahran]

Nothing justifies a state in my opinion.

So it's an opinion wholly separate from the reality of modern politics both in general and in the case of both the Israelis and Palestinians?

[Alcala-Cordel]

Nothing justifies a state in my opinion.

So it's an opinion wholly separate from the reality of modern politics both in general and in the case of both the Israelis and Palestinians?

It applies to more than that individual conflict, but Israel's crimes against humanity do stand out.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

And if you deny American exceptionalism, you're anti-American. /s

No country is above reproach and moral interrogation, and nationalists have no right to throw around thought-terminating cliches like this. Obviously, the circumstances of Israel's creation are unique and unparalleled in the modern era. Of course then, we single out Israel, since its circumstances are one-of-a-kind. It simply isn't comparable to other nations and their foundings.

I mean... if you make a specific rule for Israel that you refuse to follow for any other country, yeah, that feels racist.

No modern state has been founded like Israel. Colonial states, like the US or Canada were obviously founded illegitimacy, but that also runs into the problem that they have been around for a long time, which lends legitimacy. Israel, as far as I can tell, is the only state founded based on such a recent mass population influx that changed the ethnic/religious majority in the modern era. It is sui generis, simply because it is so new. No inconsistencies here.

[Ors Might]

It has about as much right as any other state really? States don’t have rights, if they can’t perpetuate their existence, they stop existing.

Having ancestors in an area does not entitle anyone to an ethnostate, nor does having "different politics" justify apartheid.

Does anything justify an ethnostate in your opinion?

People in general do tend to feel a bit iffy towards the creation of ethnostates, to be fair.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

-snip-

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of terms of that region of the Middle East, and they aren't very relevant. If I can define an arbitrary geographical zone in which a certain group constitute a majority, and there are no arbitrary contiguous geographic zones I can define within the first polity in which the certain group does not constitute a majority, then they have the right to establish an independent state within the bounds of that polity. Obviously, in 1948, Jews did not satisfy that requirement over the entire current extent of the Israeli state.

As for the partition plan, if it followed the arbitrary geographic zone rule for both the Palestinian and Israeli states based on the actually existing demographic situation in 1948, then sure. But I'm unfamiliar.

My main point, however, is that I don't buy the Jewish historical claim. They probably have a solid claim to at least some areas based on actually existing majorities in 1948, but again, that isn't based on historical claims. In sum, Israel probably doesn't have a right to all of its land, but probably has a right to some of its land.

[Washington Resistance Army]

-snip-

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of terms of that region of the Middle East, and they aren't very relevant. If I can define an arbitrary geographical zone in which a certain group constitute a majority, and there are no arbitrary contiguous geographic zones I can define within the first polity in which the certain group does not constitute a majority, then they have the right to establish an independent state within the bounds of that polity. Obviously, in 1948, Jews did not satisfy that requirement over the entire current extent of the Israeli state.

As for the partition plan, if it followed the arbitrary geographic zone rule for both the Palestinian and Israeli states based on the actually existing demographic situation in 1948, then sure. But I'm unfamiliar.

My main point, however, is that I don't buy the Jewish historical claim. They probably have a solid claim to at least some areas based on actually existing majorities in 1948, but again, that isn't based on historical claims.

I could be wrong because it's been a while since I've looked into it but iirc Jews only made up a majority in a small handful of regions. It's one of many reasons the 1948 partition was rejected so fiercely, even some Jewish leaders admitted it was bullshit and they would have never accepted it if they were in the Arabs positions either.

[Fahran]

It applies to more than that individual conflict, but Israel's crimes against humanity do stand out.

They really don't. They're actually pretty par for the course in that region unfortunately. As evidenced by the fact that half of Israel's population was expelled from Arab countries in the past fifty years. And that's before we discuss the Amazigh, Berbers, Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks, Iranian groups, Druze, etc. They're not even really unusual in the context of Europe given what's been going on in Serbia, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina the last few decades. Not that this is good or something to praise, but the idea that Israel is uniquely bad is just nonsense.

[Fahran]

I could be wrong because it's been a while since I've looked into it but iirc Jews only made up a majority in a small handful of regions. It's one of many reasons the 1948 partition was rejected so fiercely, even some Jewish leaders admitted it was bullshit and they would have never accepted it if they were in the Arabs positions either.

The Jews were an approximate majority in most of the territory assigned to them by the partition. The Negev and Haifa were really the big exceptions, and Haifa had a notable Jewish population at the time. We shouldn't, however, pretend that the Palestinians fought a war for Haifa or the Negev. The war was fought to suppress any attempt at Jewish self-determination because of the belief by Arab leadership at the time and, in some instances today, that an Arab state should encompass all of Palestine. Not too surprising given many Pan-Arabists came from the Levant. They felt a strong emotional attachment to it - as was their right.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Jews are the oldest group to have existed in the land of Israel...

The Jews were not the first inhabitant of the region - their own evidence of their claim admits that they entered the region as conquerors (in, ironically, the first documented anti-Semitic genocide) and displaced an already existing population.

We now know that remnants of that pre-existing population can be found throughout a region covering Lebanon to Spain.

Technically, based on generic and cultural evidence - the oldest surviving group to have existed in the land of Israel are Sardinians.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

The Jews are the oldest group to have existed in the land of Israel, thus the land belongs to them. We know for a fact that by 1000 BC there was a united Israel ruled by the Jews. Prior to this the land was ruled by the Natufian's, though no one today claims descent from the Natufians as they died off as a culture. Between the rise of Israel and the Natufians you have the arrival of ancient Semitic speaking peoples who later evolved into the Jews.

The concept of "Palestinians" didn't exist until after the declaration of the state of Israel, but nonetheless the people who now identify as Palestinian are primarily Arabic from a genetic and genealogical perspective. Their ancestors originally entered Israel in the 630's AD as part of the Islamicization of the area. The Jews have lived and held claim to the land of Israel for more almost 3000 years, yet the Arabs have only held their claim for roughly 1400 years, not even half as long as the Jews have.

Therefore I am of the opinion that the land belongs in every way to the Jews. From a historical perspective, from a moral perspective (Jews have been consistently and violently persecuted globally when in exodus) and from a logical perspective (Israel has proven to be a stable, free democracy compared to it's authoritarian neighbors and even showed a willingness to share it's land with Palestine in the name of peace).

Move out Normans and Anglo-Saxons, time to return the UK to its original Celtic inhabitants.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It applies to more than that individual conflict, but Israel's crimes against humanity do stand out.

They really don't. They're actually pretty par for the course in that region unfortunately. As evidenced by the fact that half of Israel's population was expelled from Arab countries in the past fifty years. And that's before we discuss the Amazigh, Berbers, Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks, Iranian groups, Druze, etc. They're not even really unusual in the context of Europe given what's been going on in Serbia, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina the last few decades. Not that this is good or something to praise, but the idea that Israel is uniquely bad is just nonsense.

Only the way people regard it is unique, especially Americans. We don't really get called Islamophobic for criticizing Saudi Arabia, but Israel is different. It's almost like the US in the sense that it gets a pass for what it does because of "freedom and democracy", with the added bit that Jewish people are entitled to an ethnostate because of how horribly they have been treated.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

They really don't. They're actually pretty par for the course in that region unfortunately. As evidenced by the fact that half of Israel's population was expelled from Arab countries in the past fifty years. And that's before we discuss the Amazigh, Berbers, Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks, Iranian groups, Druze, etc. They're not even really unusual in the context of Europe given what's been going on in Serbia, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina the last few decades. Not that this is good or something to praise, but the idea that Israel is uniquely bad is just nonsense.

Only the way people regard it is unique, especially Americans. We don't really get called Islamophobic for criticizing Saudi Arabia, but Israel is different. It's almost like the US in the sense that it gets a pass for what it does because of "freedom and democracy", with the added bit that Jewish people are entitled to an ethnostate because of how horribly they have been treated.

To add on, no-one is an awful fan of Saudi Arabia or any of the Arab nations, or the Balkan states. People defend Israeli actions. In that way, it is unique.

[Fahran]

Only the way people regard it is unique, especially Americans. We don't really get called Islamophobic for criticizing Saudi Arabia, but Israel is different. It's almost like the US in the sense that it gets a pass for what it does because of "freedom and democracy", with the added bit that Jewish people are entitled to an ethnostate because of how horribly they have been treated.

Have you perhaps considered that y'all aren't getting called Antisemitic for criticizing Israel but rather for how specifically people in your camp are choosing to criticize Israel and the fact that too few people speak out when this happens? It was like pulling teeth to convince anyone on NSG that BDS was Antisemitic in spite of them being blatantly Antisemitic on numerous occasions. I literally quoted them pitching Nazi talking points and shared stories of them crashing Holocaust memorials, and yet there was a stubborn denial.