Would you have supported Israel's creation in 1948?

[War on Want]

BRTD comparing Israel to the SS = the second member of my ignore list.

Why do you support Israel?

[Earth]

BRTD comparing Israel to the SS = the second member of my ignore list.

I should put you on ignore for that godawful signature.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

BRTD comparing Israel to the SS = the second member of my ignore list.

I don't see it that way, actually.  And besides, he could be worse.

[Хahar 🤔]

BRTD comparing Israel to the SS = the second member of my ignore list.

I should put you on ignore for that godawful signature.

My God, that's disgusting. I'm glad I turned signatures off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD comparing Israel to the SS

No I didn't.

[useful idiot]

The zionists had been working the land even before 1948. Prior to all of those kibutz's the country now called Israel was just a pile of rubble with very few natural resources.

So you're arguing for some sort of global eminent domain?

[ag]

If I were alive in 1948, I would. If I were not only alive, but smarter than I am, I wouldn't. It was a big and cynical mistake.

Of course, now that it is there, it needs no further justification for existence. There is the Israeli people and Israelis have no other country and they have the right to it and the right to fight for it against anyone who questions their right to it. This is something I, actually, do support: an alternative would be too horrible to comprehend. We shouldn't have gotten there, but that's beyond the point. The only thing I object to, is its claim to somehow being a homeland for all Jews. I, for one, have nothing to do with it.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Nope.

[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.

[Earth]

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?

[k-onmmunist]

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.

^^^^ Thanks for summing up what I think

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

The Mexicans and Arabs have legitimate reasons for moving (mostly economic plus also moving to more free and liberal countries in Europe), not nationalistic garbage based on some idiotic worship of the land over crap that happened almost 2000 years ago.

[Bo]

I really fail to understand how anybody can be so blinded by his (legitimate) hate of current Israeli government to the point of denying them the right to exist. It's totally moronic. I've always hated Bush with a passion, but never wished that USA would never have been created in 1787.

The U.S.A. was created in 1776, not 1787.

[War on Want]

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.

What a stupid argument. I would have had no problem with Jews moving to Palestine. I would have had a problem when they set up their own ethnic nation and expelled millions of Palestinians from their lands. I would have had a problem when they created a state that offers little in the way of rights towards an Arab minority.

Are Mexicans immigrating to America because they see it as their religious homeland and because they seek to establish their own nation and religious community?  

[ag]

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.

Creating the state - and, once again, I would have been in favor of it in 1948, and I would have been wrong - was a mistake for the Jews. For the Europeans it was a calculated antisemitic decision, trying to get rid of the Jews.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Very true. Zionism had massive support among anti-Semites pre-WWII, since it provided a way to get the Jews out of Europe. The fascist regime in Romania was a huge supporter of Zionism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

^^^^ Thanks for summing up what I think

I really fail to understand how anybody can be so blinded by his (legitimate) hate of current Israeli government to the point of denying them the right to exist. It's totally moronic. I've always hated Bush with a passion, but never wished that USA would never have been created in 1787.

The U.S.A. was created in 1776, not 1787.

The USA started to exist in 1787. I we were to take the Declaration of Independence as the beginning of the US history, then you can also say that Israel was created with the first Zionist manifesto.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And also a big problem with the Mexican/Arab analogy is Mexicans and Arabs don't plan on setting up their own ethnic/religious-based state in the area and ethnically cleansing the locals. Only far right parties like BNP, FN and all that and clowns like Tom Tancredo believe immigrants to the west are in any way comparable to Zionists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Or, perhaps, the founders of your own country. Yes, someone had to bring that up at some point...

If it seems like a cheap point, it isn't. Or at least, isn't supposed to be. Most countries have dodgy foundational issues.

---

Of course, we shouldn't forget that mass population movements of a less than entirely voluntary nature was pretty common in the creation of European nation states from 1918 onwards. This isn't to excuse what happened in 1948, but to point out that we cannot isolate it for moral condemnation.

[The Mikado]

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.

Who's saying that?  I'm not arguing against Jewish migration into Palestine, I'm saying that forming a state based on kicking people out of it and dispossessing them is wrong.  A unified Palestine with Jews and Arabs that wasn't explicitly based on being a "Jewish state" is, again, what I would've supported.  I cannot support a state based on being the "home" of one nation, it's appalling to my sensibilities as an American.  (I feel the same way about the horrid immigration policies of, say, Japan)

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's pretty simple and obvious as liberals oppose nationalism. And nationalism was the only reason Jews were moving to Palestine.

[Beet]

At the time, yes. In retrospect, no.

[useful idiot]

Given that there was a slight majority of Jews in the state carved out by the UN, I'd say yeah I would have supported it as a haven for Jews, but not necessarily as a Jewish state, as it was still 45% Arab at that point.