Why all Israelis are cowards

[LeveragedBuyout]

It is YOU who is avoiding facts and jumping all over the place. I always claimed that all legitimacy is gained at the barrel of the gun. You brought in the Americas, without realizing that you were supporting my argument. Your example of the Middle East also falls flat, since the facts don't support you.

Answer me this: what was the Jewish population of Palestine in 1917, at the time of the Balfour Declaration?

How on earth can you claim that giving the land to 3-5% of the population -- which was itself mostly very recent migrants in the previous 20 odd years with the explicit goal of colonizing the land -- can be equated to "giving the land to people who were living there?" The 95-97% of the residents, who were non-Jewish, were summarily dismissed by the colonial Brits.

Your example of Jordan is also flawed. The ruling tribe may have been shipped in, but the vast majority of Jordan's residents were already living there.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never challenged the primacy of force in international affairs; on the contrary, I fully agree with you in that respect. That's why I cited the Americas and Australia--these were lands not declared for the indigenous population, but rather taken by force, and have legitimacy today simply by existing. Whatever the history of what is now Israel, today's Israel came into being by force, and has legitimacy today simply by existing. There was no contradiction in my argument.

You introduced an incorrect line of thinking into the discussion by stating that Israel is the only state that came into being on behalf of a minority population. When I showed that was wrong, you arbitrarily tightened the timeframe to the early 20th century. When I showed that was wrong through the example of Jordan (let's leave aside such places as Yugoslavia, Rhodesia, and South Africa because of the fraught political implications), you've now come back and claimed that even though the native Jordanians don't rule Jordan, that's fine, because they still live there. OK. "Palestinian" Arabs still live in Mandatory Palestine, they just don't rule Mandatory Palestine. Therefore, based on your logic, all is well, and nothing needs to change.

I don't know what you're trying to argue for. If it's "might makes right," I agree. No argument. If it's "Israel is illegitimate because it was formed on behalf of a minority population," then there a plethora of additional examples of such states whose legitimacy is not questioned to the same degree that Israel's is, so you would essentially have to re-write the current world order to be consistent in claiming that Israel is illegitimate. Arbitrarily drawing lines around the early 20th century doesn't change anything.

Nice try, it goes back to the Balfour declaration. The British consensus a year after that recorded the Jewish people as minority.

You have your chronology incorrect, as usual. The Palestinian Mandate didn't exist yet at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued. The declaration didn't even promise a Jewish state, it promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine. UNSCOP partitioned Mandatory Palestine into a majority Arab nation and a majority Jewish nation. The formation of Israel was therefore legitimate even by your arbitrary definition of a majority population. The losses by the "Palestinian" Arabs due to their rejection of the UN plan further undermines their claims on the state. When you gamble in a casino and lose, you don't get to tell the house that you were just joking and please return your money. You live with the consequences.

 

[Developereo]

I don't know what you're trying to argue for. If it's "might makes right," I agree. No argument.

That is my argument. That Israel's legitimacy is purely through force of firepower.

If it's "Israel is illegitimate because it was formed on behalf of a minority population," then there a plethora of additional examples of such states whose legitimacy is not questioned to the same degree that Israel's is, so you would essentially have to re-write the current world order to be consistent in claiming that Israel is illegitimate. Arbitrarily drawing lines around the early 20th century doesn't change anything.

As a reductionist argument, as I wrote before, we can go all the way back to prehistoric Africa and argue that ALL countries are created by force. That is patently true since might is right has always been the final arbiter.

My comment on Israel was in reference to the discussion around the UN, and my argument is that Israel's legitimacy in the UN is purely by force of colonial firepower. That is where the colonial era comes in because, before that time, no one disputed the might is right principle.

After the colonial era, especially in light of the Wilsonian principles of self-determination, Israel is the only exception to the rule. You can debate over degrees of deviation but the Israeli case, of 3-5% population gaining ownership of the land and kicking out the remaining 95-97% is not matched by anyone else.

 

[Falcon29]

You have your chronology incorrect, as usual. The Palestinian Mandate didn't exist yet at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued.

Chronology incorrect about what?

The declaration didn't even promise a Jewish state, it promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

And?

The losses by the "Palestinian" Arabs due to their rejection of the UN plan further undermines their claims on the state.

Should the mods correct those quotation marks for you?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

That is my argument. That Israel's legitimacy is purely through force of firepower.



As a reductionist argument, as I wrote before, we can go all the way back to prehistoric Africa and argue that ALL countries are created by force. That is patently true since might is right has always been the final arbiter.

My comment on Israel was in reference to the discussion around the UN, and my argument is that Israel's legitimacy in the UN is purely by force of colonial firepower. That is where the colonial era comes in because, before that time, no one disputed the might is right principle.

After the colonial era, especially in light of the Wilsonian principles of self-determination, Israel is the only exception to the rule. You can debate over degrees of deviation but the Israeli case, of 3-5% population gaining ownership of the land and kicking out the remaining 95-97% is not matched by anyone else.

I'm glad we agree on the crux of the issue. As far as the UN, I'm afraid you've been misled. The UN didn't vote to give all of Mandatory Palestine to the Jews, it voted to give a slice of land to the Jews, a "Jewish State," in which the Jews made up 55% of the population, not 3-5%. See the UNSCOP report:

A/364 of 3 September 1947

So Israel is not an exception in this regard. What happened afterwards, with Israel holding all of the land from Mandatory Palestine (minus Jordan), has nothing to do with the UN.

In any case, I don't even know if we're arguing anymore, at this point, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Developereo]

I'm glad we agree on the crux of the issue. As far as the UN, I'm afraid you've been misled. The UN didn't vote to give all of Mandatory Palestine to the Jews, it voted to give a slice of land to the Jews, a "Jewish State," in which the Jews made up 55% of the population, not 3-5%. See the UNSCOP report:

A/364 of 3 September 1947

So Israel is not an exception in this regard. What happened afterwards, with Israel holding all of the land from Mandatory Palestine (minus Jordan), has nothing to do with the UN.

In any case, I don't even know if we're arguing anymore, at this point, so I'll leave it there.

The goal to create Israel as a Jewish State was decided at the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Britain was the colonial ruler of Palestine so the Balfour Declaration, as official British policy, carried the force of law and it was in direct contradiction to the Wilsonian principles being espoused by the colonial powers, including Britain, at the time.

In 1917, when Britain agreed to form a Jewish State, the Jewish population of Palestine was 3-5%. Subsequent waves of Jewish migration, facilitated by Britain, were only intended to change the demographics in line with the goal of creating Israel.

 

[Falcon29]

I'm glad we agree on the crux of the issue. As far as the UN, I'm afraid you've been misled. The UN didn't vote to give all of Mandatory Palestine to the Jews, it voted to give a slice of land to the Jews, a "Jewish State," in which the Jews made up 55% of the population, not 3-5%. See the UNSCOP report:

A/364 of 3 September 1947

So Israel is not an exception in this regard. What happened afterwards, with Israel holding all of the land from Mandatory Palestine (minus Jordan), has nothing to do with the UN.

In any case, I don't even know if we're arguing anymore, at this point, so I'll leave it there.

He stated that at the time of the Balfour declaration they made up no more than 5% of the population. He's not misled on anything. You're just going on and one behaving like a fool.

Where do you get this 55% from? They made up 1/3 of the population at the time of the mandate and were 'advised' to take 56% of the land.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Chronology incorrect about what?

I'll explicitly connect the dots for you. The Balfour Declaration is irrelevant, since it didn't promise a state to the Jews. It promised a "homeland" for the Jews, which variously could have been interpreted as a British colony where Jews could live, an independent state in which the Jews constituted a protected minority, an independent state composed of a federation between Jews and Arabs, or a straight up Jewish-dominated state, much like the British ruled India at the time. In other words, the census was irrelevant, because the nature and boundaries of such a homeland had not yet been defined. The Mandate that finally did define the borders of Mandatory Palestine came later.

In the run up to the dissolution of the Mandate and the UN vote, UNSCOP further refined the boundaries so that the resulting "Jewish State" would have a Jewish majority, according to a 1945 census. So the earlier British census was irrelevant in that case as well. In other words, you brought up the Balfour Declaration for no reason, or no rational reason, at least.

Should the mods correct those quotation marks for you?

I can just say Arabs if you prefer, but it becomes hard to distinguish between Arabs who live in the former Palestinian Mandate and other Arabs.

The goal to create Israel as a Jewish State was decided at the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Britain was the colonial ruler of Palestine so the Balfour Declaration, as official British policy, carried the force of law and it was in direct contradiction to the Wilsonian principles being espoused by the colonial powers, including Britain, at the time.

In 1917, when Britain agreed to form a Jewish State, the Jewish population of Palestine was 3-5%. Subsequent waves of Jewish migration, facilitated by Britain, were only intended to change the demographics in line with the goal of creating Israel.

Not sure what is so hard about this. Here's the text of the Declaration:

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, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

As I said before, there is no promise of a state there, merely a national home. So no, the Balfour Declaration did not contravene the demographics on the ground. See my post to Hazzy above for a more explicit elucidation.

The British Empire at the time was not in the habit of realizing Wilsonian principles, by the way. Ask the Indians/Pakistanis, or even the Irish. Not sure why you believe Wilsonian principles are relevant here, as they were not the motivating factor behind the Balfour Declaration.

He stated that at the time of the Balfour declaration they made up no more than 5% of the population. He's not misled on anything. You're just going on and one behaving like a fool.

Where do you get this 55% from? They made up 1/3 of the population at the time of the mandate and were 'advised' to take 56% of the land.

If you are not lazy, you will educate yourself by reading the UNSCOP report I linked to in order to discern where the 55% number comes from. I read it for myself, but I can't read it for you. Only you can do that.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Every single country which was formed after colonialism was given to the people actually living on the land.

The ONLY exception on the planet is Israel which was given to people who were later shipped in.



To sum up a reply to your post, all the "determination" in the world comes to nought when faced with superior firepower.

Whether you accept it or not, the fact is that legitimacy is ALWAYS bought at the barrel of a gun. This was true in prehistoric times, and it is true now. The UNSC is proof of that since the only thing that really matters is veto power, which is reserved for a handful of countries. Everything else is salad dressing for public consumption.

Israel exists because Britain and the US were convinced by Zionist lobbying to reserve that piece of land for migrating Jews. As for "original" claims, they are worthless. We can examine the history of ancient Canaan and dispel that myth any time, or we can go back all the way to prehistoric Africa and acknowledge that every group of humans are conquerors on their land.

No, the veto powers has absolute power to stop the creation of Israel.
They do not have the power to create Israel. For that, a majority of the Security Council has to agree.
The US was not a driving force behind the creation, Britain more so.
Also France and the Soviet Union agreed.

 

[Falcon29]

I'll explicitly connect the dots for you. The Balfour Declaration is irrelevant, since it didn't promise a state to the Jews. It promised a "homeland" for the Jews, which variously could have been interpreted as a British colony where Jews could live, an independent state in which the Jews constituted a protected minority, an independent state composed of a federation between Jews and Arabs, or a straight up Jewish-dominated state, much like the British ruled India at the time. In other words, the census was irrelevant, because the nature and boundaries of such a homeland had not yet been defined. The Mandate that finally did define the borders of Mandatory Palestine came later.

In the run up to the dissolution of the Mandate and the UN vote, UNSCOP further refined the boundaries so that the resulting "Jewish State" would have a Jewish majority, according to a 1945 census. So the earlier British census was irrelevant in that case as well. In other words, you brought up the Balfour Declaration for no reason, or no rational reason, at least.

No it isn't irrelevant. It's only interpreted that way in your head. It made public it's objective to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Rather than a bi-national state. This pledge is definitely relevant since it was followed up by mass immigration to finalize the plan. The census is relevant. Voices in your head are telling you otherwise.

I can just say Arabs if you prefer, but it becomes hard to distinguish between Arabs who live in the former Palestinian Mandate and other Arabs.

We're not discussing ethnicity or race here. Refer to them by their nationality, Palestinians are a Mediterranean peoples. Keep this attitude up though..

If you are not lazy, you will educate yourself by reading the UNSCOP report I linked to in order to discern where the 55% number comes from. I read it for myself, but I can't read it for you. Only you can do that.

I misread your post, I was referring to the population as a whole. The Jewish state as you call it made up 56% of the land. Even though Jews only constituted 1/3 of the population. My point stands.

No, the veto powers has absolute power to stop the creation of Israel.
They do not have the power to create Israel. For that, a majority of the Security Council has to agree.
The US was not a driving force behind the creation, Britain more so.
Also France and the Soviet Union agreed.

Where did he state that?

 

[Developereo]

As I said before, there is no promise of a state there, merely a national home. So no, the Balfour Declaration did not contravene the demographics on the ground. See my post to Hazzy above for a more explicit elucidation.

Despite your reluctance to accept the facts, the Balfour Declaration is generally regarded as the official acknowledgement by Britain to create a Jewish State in Palestine. When the colonial ruler makes something an official policy, it is as good as done. And that happened at a time when the Jewish population of Palestine was around 3-5%.

The British Empire at the time was not in the habit of realizing Wilsonian principles, by the way. Ask the Indians/Pakistanis, or even the Irish. Not sure why you believe Wilsonian principles are relevant here, as they were not the motivating factor behind the Balfour Declaration.

Do you even know what the Wilsonian principles (of self-determination) are? Am I just wasting my time here?

The US, under President Woodrow Wilson, was a driving force behind return of colonial lands to their indigenous peoples and Britain was adhering to those principles around the world, including the creation of India/Pakistan.

And Israel directly contradicts those Wilsonian principles.

No, the veto powers has absolute power to stop the creation of Israel.
They do not have the power to create Israel. For that, a majority of the Security Council has to agree.
The US was not a driving force behind the creation, Britain more so.
Also France and the Soviet Union agreed.

The veto power is a bargaining chip among the UNSC members: you scratch my back here, and I will return the favor there.

The initial Balfour Declaration was a British construct, but the US, under intense lobbying by American Zionists like Justice Louis Brandeis, became the overriding force supporting Israel in the later decades.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Despite your reluctance to accept the facts, the Balfour Declaration is generally regarded as the official acknowledgement by Britain to create a Jewish State in Palestine. When the colonial ruler makes something an official policy, it is as good as done. And that happened at a time when the Jewish population of Palestine was around 3-5%.

This interpretation of the Balfour Declaration is not true, and not regarded as true by most historians. The wording of the Declaration was very carefully chosen and very specific so as not to promise anything concrete. Please read this Wikipedia entry for a good overview:

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also recommend the book "A Peace To End All Peace" by David Fromkin for a very thorough review of the makings of the modern Middle East through the political machinations of the Great Powers in WWI through the mid-1920s. As Fromkin points out, it was precisely because Britain made promises out of both sides of its mouth to all parties in the Middle East in that time period that the Middle East is such a chaotic mess today. With all due respect, your interpretation of the Balfour Declaration as promising an independent Jewish State is anachronistic revisionism.

Do you even know what the Wilsonian principles (of self-determination) are? Am I just wasting my time here?

The US, under President Woodrow Wilson, was a driving force behind return of colonial lands to their indigenous peoples and Britain was adhering to those principles around the world, including the creation of India/Pakistan.

And Israel directly contradicts those Wilsonian principles.

So Britain, in 1917, supported Wilsonian principles by... succumbing to Indian (Pakistani) resistance in 1947? That's a new one. The Versailles Treaty should put to rest once and for all the idea that Britain supported or even implemented Wilsonian principles. FYI, not even the US realized Wilsonian principles for its holdings (e.g. Philippines) until after WWII.

Russia recently made a very good show of how "violating Wilsonian principles" is an academic matter, but not a practical one.

 

[SALMAN F]

Their arms, proved to be very efficient in killing Hizballat terrorists

I know that I said their army is only good at killing civilians I would like to see them fight against advanced army or they throw their weapons away and fight face to face without Air Force or their tanks and fleet then we will know how much brave and powerful they are

 

[SAMEET]

Israel is an offshoot of west herself , that's why they protect them so badly , because the western science can't solve the question of race anymore and the jews are interwoven with white people so bad

either your fake culture !

I know that I said their army is only good at killing civilians I would like to see them fight against advanced army or they throw their weapons away and fight face to face without Air Force or their tanks and fleet then we will know how much brave and powerful they are

you all are nuts ! solve the issue and live by compromising !

 

[Developereo]

This interpretation of the Balfour Declaration is not true, and not regarded as true by most historians. The wording of the Declaration was very carefully chosen and very specific so as not to promise anything concrete. Please read this Wikipedia entry for a good overview:

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also recommend the book "A Peace To End All Peace" by David Fromkin for a very thorough review of the makings of the modern Middle East through the political machinations of the Great Powers in WWI through the mid-1920s. As Fromkin points out, it was precisely because Britain made promises out of both sides of its mouth to all parties in the Middle East in that time period that the Middle East is such a chaotic mess today. With all due respect, your interpretation of the Balfour Declaration as promising an independent Jewish State is anachronistic revisionism.

Rather than debating interpretations, let's look at empirical facts of what Britain actually did towards creation of Israel.

FACT: In 1917, with 3-5% of the population Jewish, Britain made it an official policy to create a Jewish State in Palestine.
FACT: Over the next few decades, (and even in the late 1800s), Britain, as the colonial ruler of Palestine, facilitated large scale migration of Jews into Palestine.
FACT: Britain supported creation of Israel at the UN.

So Britain, in 1917, supported Wilsonian principles by... succumbing to Indian (Pakistani) resistance in 1947? That's a new one. The Versailles Treaty should put to rest once and for all the idea that Britain supported or even implemented Wilsonian principles. FYI, not even the US realized Wilsonian principles for its holdings (e.g. Philippines) until after WWII.

Russia recently made a very good show of how "violating Wilsonian principles" is an academic matter, but not a practical one.

Again, let's look at empirical facts.

All the British colonial possessions were turned over to people living on the land, in line with Wilsonian principles.

The only exception? Israel.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I know that I said their army is only good at killing civilians I would like to see them fight against advanced army or they throw their weapons away and fight face to face without Air Force or their tanks and fleet then we will know how much brave and powerful they are

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

George S. Patton