Would you have supported Israel's creation in 1948?

[Gustaf]

Just to set the record straight:

1. There was no Palestinian state in 1948 (nor ever) so nothing was taken from anyone.
2. There was a lot of Jews in the area even before WWII, so they didn't get there because the state was created nor because of the Holocaust.

I always find it strange that the left in general is vehemently pro-immigration and considers it horribly racist to, say, argue that a large immigration of Mexicans into the US or of Arabs to Europe constitutes a threat to Western society, but yet, at the same time, thinks that Jews should not have been allowed to migrate into Israel during the 20s and 30s and that, even though this migration was legal and allowed by the authorities it was somehow deeply unethical.

Given what happened in 1937, 1948 and onwards it is pretty clear that another holocaust of Jews was the only realistic alternative to creating the state of Israel.

[Gustaf]

Just to set the record straight:

1. There was no Palestinian state in 1948 (nor ever) so nothing was taken from anyone.

So what? A legal state doesn't need to exist for people to argue that land is theirs, or have you forgotten the American Indians? By your logic, there was no Indian state, so nothing was taken from anyone.

2. There was a lot of Jews in the area even before WWII, so they didn't get there because the state was created nor because of the Holocaust.

The reasons for it's creation doesn't matter, the land was not the Jews' for them to have a state in.

I always find it strange that the left in general is vehemently pro-immigration and considers it horribly racist to, say, argue that a large immigration of Mexicans into the US or of Arabs to Europe constitutes a threat to Western society, but yet, at the same time, thinks that Jews should not have been allowed to migrate into Israel during the 20s and 30s and that, even though this migration was legal and allowed by the authorities it was somehow deeply unethical.

This sounds very much like a strawman. I've never heard this argument from leftists.

Given what happened in 1937, 1948 and onwards it is pretty clear that another holocaust of Jews was the only realistic alternative to creating the state of Israel.

Based on what?

I know you're not a great believer in logic so I doubt this will get anywhere, but all right...if the claim to land is not based on a state then what, exactly it is based on? The Jews were presenting a claim to the land too, what makes that claim less valid than the Palestinian one?

The rest of your post is not really arguing anything relevant so I will leave it be.

There is a lot of responses to my post. Some of them seem to be made by posters I respect feeling that I'm attacking them in particular. I'm not. I'm not even voicing an opinion on the matter of Israeli statehood. I'm merely pointing out some things that I think make little sense in the reasoning of some of those people opposing the creation of the Israeli state.

The only thing I'd like to comment on which is being said specifically against my post is the idea that the state should find out peoples' reason for migration and deny them them entry if this reason is not deemed politically acceptable. That is not something I've ever heard advocated by anyone before (if I had claimed that as a common position I would have been straw-manning) and it doesn't make much sense to me either.

My only points here are these:

1. Some people seem to think that the Jews took over a Palestinian state, which is not true.
2. Some people seem to think that Jews should not have been allowed to move to Palestine because it was Palestinian land. Coming from anyone other than the KKK this seems a bit odd and hypocritical to me.
3. Based on this (and the rest of the history of that time) I have trouble finding the moral principle on which to base opposition to the Israeli state. Pragmatically, I get it. You might think it was a bad outcome for the Jews and for the world as a whole. But I don't see where an average liberal could be outraged at what was done.

[Gustaf]

I know you're not a great believer in logic so I doubt this will get anywhere

You're an idiot, and not only for prefacing your reply like this.

but all right...if the claim to land is not based on a state then what, exactly it is based on?

Inhabitance, which the influx of european Jews doesn't represent. What makes Romania, Romanian land? The presence of a large population of Romanians. Russia- Russians, the people that inhabit the land, etc. Legislation doesn't make it so, neither does a mass migration.

The Jews were presenting a claim to the land too, what makes that claim less valid than the Palestinian one?

What is this claim based on other than the notion that it "was" their land?

The rest of your post is not really arguing anything relevant so I will leave it be.

Why are you even on a forum if you can't argue? Pathetic.

Eh...you can't argue, which is precisely why I'm reluctant to attempt to debate you, since you may at any moment simply contradict your original position.

In 1948 there were plenty of Jews living in the area, inhabiting it. What made their claim less valid than the Palestinian one?

[Gustaf]

My only points here are these:

1. Some people seem to think that the Jews took over a Palestinian state, which is not true.
2. Some people seem to think that Jews should not have been allowed to move to Palestine because it was Palestinian land. Coming from anyone other than the KKK this seems a bit odd and hypocritical to me.
3. Based on this (and the rest of the history of that time) I have trouble finding the moral principle on which to base opposition to the Israeli state. Pragmatically, I get it. You might think it was a bad outcome for the Jews and for the world as a whole. But I don't see where an average liberal could be outraged at what was done.

1) The Jews took over a colony of Britain in which the population was mostly Palestinian, although there was a significant minority of Jews.
2) I don't know who is advocating Jews shouldn't be allowed to move wherever they feel like, including Israel. The problem is with the establishment of a Jewish state. If there was a large minority of Jews living in a Palestinian state (sort of how the arrangement was before 1948 anyways), nobody would have a problem with it. And before you scream anti-semitism, it is impossible to know how Palestinians would have felt about Jews without the history of the last 60 years.
3) Yes, taking into account Europe's history of anti-semitism, it did seem like a good move to move the Jews out of Europe. And an "average liberal" may in theory be in favor of a Jewish homeland, especially just a few years after a holocaust has been conducted against them, but that same liberal would also be absolutely appalled by the way the Israelis have handled themselves from 1948 onwards.

1. Yes, that was my point.
2. I haven't screamed anti-semitism at anyone, as far as I know. I don't think you are correct in your claim though. For one thing, the Palestinian side refused partition (partly because the terms were not very good to them) in the 30s. I believe anti-semitism in the Arab world pre-dates the creation of the Israeli state even though it is correct that it does not have the long history it has in Europe.

I think, taking 1 and 2 together, you're sort of missing my point. The land was under British control to begin with, so it was neither Palestinian nor Jewish. Jews moved there so that it was partly Jewish, partly Palestinian. It was then divided between the two. One can argue that Jews should not have been allowed to move there in the first place or that they as recent migrants should not have had the same rights as the people who had lived there longer, but I find either approach to be inconsistent with standard left-liberal views on immigration.

3. The actions of the particular Israeli state in the last 60 years isn't really an argument against  having it though. At least not for the way I think about these things.

[Gustaf]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

What do you mean? That is exactly what happened because of the war. The partitioned state would presumably have been independent of Jordan and Egypt.

[Gustaf]

Yes of course, particularly in the aftermath of what Hitler wrought. Of course, if the Arabs had accepted it, they would have more land now than they are demanding now, which is kind of ironic.

Given that the "Palestinian" cause was as minor a concern as it was then, they might've gotten screwed in a different way, with a situation where Egypt kept Gaza and (Trans)Jordan kept the West Bank.

What do you mean? That is exactly what happened because of the war. The partitioned state would presumably have been independent of Jordan and Egypt.

What I mean is that, like what actually happened, the lack of Palestinian political organization and presence might have led, even in a peaceful situation, to the other Arab nations taking the Palestinians under their wing, so to speak.  The difference would be that Israel didn't seize those territories in the Six Day War 20 years later.

I find it very hard to imagine, what with the lack of serious, organized Palestinian (as opposed to Arab) advocacy in 1948, that the state promised to them would've happened, war or not.

I guess...but the original partition was suggested in 1937 (IIRC) and it seems possible that Egypt and Jordan would not have moved in then. It was clearly made a lot easier by the fact that a war was going on.