What does the right of self determination mean if not the right to be what you want to be. One peoples’ right to self determination negates the right of others in the same space. The right of self determination is not predicated on whether you will be democratic. The right of self determination on one level is the right to discriminate. If Israel is denied the right to favour Jews in immigration or to refuse political rights to others in its midst, it is denied the right of self determination.
See also this rebuttal by Fresno Zionism titled A Jewish State Can be Democratic and Moral. But I would like to make the point that it can be undemocratic and moral. Ted Belman
I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
What does it mean for a people to have a state “of their own”?
Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.
One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?
The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.
The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess. If indeed this were true, if Jews were being singled out in the way many allege, I would agree that it manifests anti-Jewish bias. But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained.
To begin, since the principle has three parts, it follows that it can be challenged in (at least) three different ways: either deny that Jews constitute “a people” in the relevant sense, deny that the right to self-determination really involves what advocates of the principle claim it does, or deny that Jews have the requisite claim on the geographical area in question.
In fact, I think there is a basis to challenge all three, but for present purposes I will focus on the question of whether a people’s right to self-determination entails their right to a state of their own, and set aside whether Jews count as a people and whether Jews have a claim on that particular land. I do so partly for reasons of space, but mainly because these questions have largely (though not completely) lost their importance.
The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. As for whether Jews constitute a people, this is a vexed question given the lack of consensus in general about what it takes for any particular group of people to count as “a people.” The notion of “a people” can be interpreted in different ways, with different consequences for the rights that they possess. My point is that even if we grant Jews their peoplehood and their right to live in that land, there is still no consequent right to a Jewish state.
However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people. The 18th and 19th centuries were the period of Jewish “emancipation” in Western Europe, when the ghetto walls were torn down and Jews were granted the full rights of citizenship in the states within which they resided. The anti-Semitic forces in those days, those opposing emancipation, were associated not with denying Jewish peoplehood but with emphatically insisting on it! The idea was that since Jews constituted a nation of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state. The liberals who strongly opposed anti-Semitism insisted that Jews could both practice their religion and uphold their cultural traditions while maintaining full citizenship in the various nation-states in which they resided.
But, as I said, let’s grant that Jews are a people. Well, if they are, and if with the status of a people comes the right to self-determination, why wouldn’t they have a right to live under a Jewish state in their homeland? The simple answer is because many non-Jews (rightfully) live there too. But this needs unpacking.
First, it’s important to note, as mentioned above, that the term “a people” can be used in different ways, and sometimes they get confused. In particular, there is a distinction to be made between a people in the ethnic sense and a people in the civic sense. Though there is no general consensus on this, a group counts as a people in the ethnic sense by virtue of common language, common culture, common history and attachment to a common territory. One can easily see why Jews, scattered across the globe, speaking many different languages and defined largely by religion, present a difficult case. But, as I said above, for my purposes it doesn’t really matter, and I will just assume the Jewish people qualify.
The other sense is the civic one, which applies to a people by virtue of their common citizenship in a nation-state or, alternatively, by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders. So whereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense. This can easily be seen by noting that the Jewish people is not the same group as the Israeli people. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Palestinians, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are not citizens of Israel and do not live within any particular geographic area. “Israeli people,” on the other hand, has only a civic sense. (Of course often the term “Israelis” is used as if it applies only to Jewish Israelis, but this is part of the problem. More on this below.)
So, when we consider whether or not a people has a right to a state of their own, are we speaking of a people in the ethnic sense or the civic one? I contend that insofar as the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination entails the right to a state of their own, it can apply to peoples only in the civic sense.
After all, what is it for a people to have a state “of their own”? Here’s a rough characterization: the formal institutions and legal framework of the state serves to express, encourage and favor that people’s identity. The distinctive position of that people would be manifested in a number of ways, from the largely symbolic to the more substantive: for example, it would be reflected in the name of the state, the nature of its flag and other symbols, its national holidays, its education system, its immigration rules, the extent to which membership in the people in question is a factor in official planning, how resources are distributed, etc. If the people being favored in this way are just the state’s citizens, it is not a problem. (Of course those who are supercosmopolitan, denying any legitimacy to the borders of nation-states, will disagree. But they aren’t a party to this debate.)
But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens. It is a violation of a people’s right to self-determination to exclude them — whether by virtue of their ethnic membership, or for any other reason — from full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall. Of course Jews have a right to self-determination in this sense as well — this is what emancipation was all about. But so do non-Jewish peoples living in the same state.
Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group.
If the institutions of a state favor one ethnic group among its citizenry in this way, then only the members of that group will feel themselves fully a part of the life of the state. True equality, therefore, is only realizable in a state that is based on civic peoplehood. As formulated by both Jewish- and Palestinian-Israeli activists on this issue, a truly democratic state that fully respects the self-determination rights of everyone under its sovereignty must be a “state of all its citizens.”
This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli.
I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.
There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.
Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he teaches and writes on philosophy of mind, metaphysics and political philosophy. He is the author of “Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.”
@ Shy Guy: thanks for the info and the link
@ Bernard Ross:
There is no subject not investigated and answered by our sages and in case of doubts just take the Hebrew calendar for example:
Since in Ancient Israel every male had to go up to Jerusalem three times a year and keeping the Feast Days was publicly enforced there must have been only one calendar. The Sages had authority to decide when the Feast Days would take place. They were given this authority by the Bible.
In the Talmud all learned scholars are exhorted to study astronomy.
Nevertheless even from a scientific point of view the Rabbinical computations cannot be dismissed as unreliable.
http://www.science.co.il/Hebrew-Calendar.asp
According to the Talmud, one complete cycle of the moon around the earth takes 29.53059 days (Masechet Rosh Hashana). This value is very close to the average value measured by NASA: 29.530588.
The difference between NASA and the Hebrew Calendar is only 00.000001!
Maybe NASA is wrong?
@ Bernard Ross:
Why Learn Torah Before Birth?
@ Bernard Ross:
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross Said:
Who told you that the sages were not aware of conscious and sub-conscious. They may have used other verbalization’s and metaphors but they were aware. Read the Zohar for example. “shalom zachar”..What’s A “Shalom Zachar”?
yamit82 Said:
you gave me a lot of homework, and as usual I have also gone off on tangents with some interesting subjects. I hope to discuss with you the original impetus for your links but this one subject has fascinated me and I have done more reading on it.
In reading about it and about shalom zachar it is thought of as mourning for the loss of the Torah but it struck me that before recently we did not know of the subconscious/unconscious mind and that a person can consciously forget but the memory, and the influence, of subconscious thoughts are active. it struck me that had the sages been aware of the subconscious mind they might have interpreted differently. If the Torah is “removed” from conscious memory it may still be active in the subconscious mind. Another fascination for me is that the angel touches the child’s mouth which seems to imply also something connected with the oral or verbal. perhaps what is forgotten is the verbal understanding with language but perhaps the Torah remains on a different level. I have read various explanations but none of them really make complete sense for the process described. it’s as if men are trying to figure out G_ds reasons without yet the requisite knowledge. If internet and radio transmission, etc were non-existent in the times of the sages then they would only interpret within the framework of their current knowledge. I read these explanations for G_d’s purposes but they seem shallow. This has led me to seeking the basis in the Torah for the oral law and interpretation. I am very ignorant on this subject however there are questions. If there is a commanded oral law then isn’t part of the command be that it is transmitted orally and not written? Writing freezes an interpretation whereas oral transmission creates change over time. Another question for me is that we see every day the incredible creation before our eyes in real-time but when it comes to the Torah we are commanded to look to the consensus of men’s interpretations and deductive thought processes a thousand years ago. from your link:
The forming of a canon by consensus, even by Jews, reminds me of the council of Nicaea: subject to the errors of man. I am a cynic when it comes to the opinions, motives and explanations of Men regarding G_D. Looking at, and thinking upon, His work in nature provides pure and beautiful answers today, in real-time. Whereas, reading the thoughts of men regarding G_D it often, not always, seems impure, incomplete and tortured. although there are many beautiful reasoning’s some make no sense. It appears that men are the distorting filter. Sorry for the digression, but after all, you are the site Rabbi :).
The argument for: “ …and to exist as a Jewish state” is an argument the Professor’s Spinoza–like intellectual structure fails to comprehend. It isn’t that Israel has a right to exist in Palestine, per se. It can exist as a state anywhere. The point, Professor, is it exists as a Jewish state because and only because of the universal historical and currently emerging international anti-Semitism. It will continue to exist on its being a Jewish state — a place for Jews as Jews –in inverse proportion to the degree of anti-Semitism in the world – that was the point of it all, Professor — and in the minds and acts of it’s non-Jewish citizens as well. “If Europe had been able to confront its anti-Semitism and deny it political oxygen Israel would not have come into existence as it did in 1948”. [“Globalizing Hatred”. Denis MacShane, page 154]
Bernard Ross Said:
I didn’t know what you were referring to until I thought of Yavne and then learned of its English/Latin name.
Bernard Ross Said:
Judaism, Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Curious That The Dead Sea Scrolls Were Hidden In Caves To Save Them From The Romans On The Eve Before The Destruction Of Jerusalem And Were Acquired by Yadin’s Father On The Eve Before The State Of Israel Came Into Being.
Bernard Ross Said:
Creating the Canon
The process and the product of the canonization of the Bible became the basis for a varied tradition of interpretation.
BIBLE CANON:
My experiment with having a civil conversation with yamit82 failed.
End of conversation.
yamit82 Said:
wasnt there a jewish council of Jamilla(or something) in the first century ce which decided on this under the influence of the roman administrators because it might incite rebellion? It that is so then the pagans helped write the jewish canon. Was this decision part of the “official oral tradition”? I understand that ethiopian jews who did not receive this decision have it in their canon from previous years. So who are the real jews, who are the real interpreters of Torah, the real oral tradition?
Bernard Ross Said:
I admit most are probably exaggerations of the truth but not exactly non historical events. I have checked although I did not list multiple sources for their claims especially the one by Elliot Horowitz who wrote a very credible account of the event in 614 “The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice”:
Roman historians and Christian historians certainly had a grudge and motivation to smear and slander the Jews but by the same taken modern Jewish historians and rabbis had equally justified reasons for burying and apologizing for events that might impact negatively by gentiles against Jews. Ever wonder why the Book of ‘Maccabees’ was excluded from the Jewish Cannon but included in the Catholic and Christian cannon?
For the Jews it’s mostly because of the violent civil war waged against the Jewish Hellenists lasting 23 years. They were virtually wiped out by Jewish religious zealots. That event saved Judaism. I loved the Biblical Judge Yiftach Judges [11] but the rabbis and sages were not hot on him because he wiped out 43,000 of the tribe of Ephraim in a tribal civil war and in that instance he was not unjustified in MO.
There are enough references to the events I mentioned so that it’s possible to form conclusions based on multiple sources even modern archeology where they found burial of thousands of body remains in Mamillia but no evidence of mass destruction of edifices claimed by Christian authors. Then because no evidence was found of burned out or destroyed structural remains is visible today does not in-itself negate conclusively the Christian claims. It’s logical to me that if they wanted to kill Christians enough to pay Persians hard cash for their Christian slaves just to kill them then it’s conceivable their anger and lust for vengeance would not overlook nor spare their Churches.
Joseph Levine needs to learn a little history. His premise that : In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust,… is completely wrong. He apparently concludes that Israel’s political rights stems from the UNGA Partitition Resolution of 1947. That is completely wrong. The Partition resolution was simply a recommendation of the General Assembly. Try as you may, you will find no authority in the UN Charter for the General Assembly to award political or national rights. (They can recommend but their recommendation is without force and effect in both sides do not agree to the recommendation). These are rights to political self determination. In 1917 the British developed a policy for the government of Palestine following the end of WWI if it were ended on terms favorable to the Allies. This was the Balfour Policy. The policy recognized the continuous uninterrupted presence of the Jews in Palestine for some 3,700 years, an historic association of a people with a land. However opponents of the policy contended that the Jews in all Palestine in 1917 amounted only to 10% of the total and it would be antidemocratic to let 10% of the people rule all the rest. The framers of the policy agreed with the concept in general but said as applied to the Balfour policy that conclusion would be “imaginary” That is because the political rights to Palestine would be placed in the trust of England or America who would have legal dominion over them. The Jews would have only a beneficial interest in them until such time that the Jews attained a population majority and were otherwise capable of exercising sovereignty just as any other modern European nation-state.
Ever since 1920, the Arabs have been trying to steal these rights by threats of violence and by violence. If it were the mafia, we would call it extortion. In 1948, the British were in poor financial circumstances and decided to abandon their trusteeship. The UN feared the Arabs would resort to violence so they recommended a partition of the remaining land of Palestine west of the Jordan, having already parceled off the land east of the Jordan to Abdullah and his Hashemite tribe expressly in violation of the trust agreement. In the UNSCOP hearings the Jews supplied evidence that the Arabs were threatening to attack the Jews. See: http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21JA12.pdf They agreed to give up a part of their political or national rights to Palestine that had been awarded by the Principal Allies at San Remo and confirmed by the League of Nations and the US. On the demise of the League, they were preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
In 99% of the Ottoman lands that were being divided into mandates and then states, the current majority population was awarded sovereignty. In the case of Palestine, to do so, the world felt at that time, would work a great injustice to the Jews, the most of whom were in the diaspora. The 1967 action of the IDF was not an occupation — it was a liberation of the area that had been illegally occupied by Jordan since 1948 when its troops, supplied and led by the British as the “Arab Legion”, had a major advantage over the Jews whose supply of arms was embargoed. The Arab Legion had conquered Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem from the newly constituted State of Israel.
Levine seems to think that who should hold the political or national rights to CisJordan, Palestine West of the Jordan is an open question. No. It was settled by treaties that, but for longstanding custom are the only was to establish International Law. See the video of Professor Eugene Kontorovich “Israel’s Legal Case’ http://www.torahcafe.com/professor-eugene-kontorovich/the-legal-case-for-israel-video_33fb484b5.html and also The Levy Report, opionions of 3 distinguished Israeli Jurists who agree with my view. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/english-translation-of-legal-arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_134228375
Threats of violence and actual violence hasn’t worked so now the battle has switched to the media where a massive campaign is going on with the Soviets and the Arabs using petrodollars to win peoples minds. It looks like they were successful with Levine.
see. Pacepa Russian Footprints. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218533/russian-footprints/ion-mihai-pacepa Ronn Torrossian, Arab Nations Hire 10 New PR Agencies Since Last Year http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ronn-torossian/arab-nations-hire-10-new-pr-agencies-since-last-year/
In 1950 the Jews attained a population majority. Now it has an 80% majority. And in voting on the Partition recommendation, the world showed that it believed that the Jews were indeed capable of exercising sovereignty.
vivarto Said:
Jewish customs How does a Jewish wannabe commit to the Jewish nation? Many non Jews I’m told are committed? Jewish customs are not uniform and may vary according to geography. Many Non Jew incorporate some Jewish customs even circumcision. Does not make them Jewish? What Jewish holidays would qualify them being Jewish? Most Jews in the Galut do not celebrate Jewish holidays and if asked don’t know what they are or how to celebrate them either. Defending the Jewish nation means defending Jews in and out of Israel and if you mean like joining the IDF many non Jews fight in the IDF, won’t make them Jews though, we have here a regular foreign legion, Druze fighters, Bedouin fighters, even Christian fighters made up of non Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe but they are not Jews nor do most want to be.
“We” in such a context is a reference to American historical events and not personalization of those events.
Your examples of Polish/Irish in America is pure Poop and you know it, none of them believe or have any emotions or connection to those events and I have not met any in my lifetime who ever voiced such expressions either other than in the abstract. The American cookie cutter absorption of ethnic immigrants dulled any connection to past historical events at least for most.
I think you had better come up with better definitions concepts and examples to argue your beliefs more credibly.
Jews have about a 4 thousand year history how could they be part of that history? I can trace part of my lineage at least back to King David. (I checked) how would a non Jew wannabee identify with my history? Did he suffer expulsions, mass murder, antisemitism? Did he experience a Jewish historical experience? Maybe Jewish converts should experience at least 4 generations living as Jews outside of Israel before allowed into Israel as Jews?
vivarto Said:
The Jews only had total national sovereignty for about 500 years, The rest they existed as either a conquered nation or a vassal nation controlled by foreign empires. And those 500 years were not continuous. So it’s obvious that if you do not have sovereign control you lack the power to enforce isolation. Israel fought and was conquered by every major empire in the ancient world.
The great majority of Jews? :D, I would hardly call them Jews except as JINO’s. For many if not most any concept of Jewishness is either a corruption or does not exist. They haven’t a clue.
What Alexander Hamilton said in his day [“the masses are asses”] was a mere echo of a famous Yiddish folk saying, “der oylem iz a goylem”. The golem, one recalls, is that brutish being incapable of independent thought, and keyed to the will of its master. Alas, the more things change, the less anything in the Jewish world does. The OYLEM, the Jews, remains a GOYLEM…
@ yamit82:
They would become Jews by demonstrating beyond doubt their commitment to Jewish nation.
Live by Jewish customs, celebrate Jewish holidays, defend the Jewish nation and the state of Israel against all enemies external and internal, and most importantly consider themselves part of Jewish nation, own Jewish history.
Just like someone may be of Polish or Irish descent and may have come to America only 2 generations ago, still will talk about “we” fought the civil war, or “we” freed the slaves, or “we” fought the English.
And perhaps they could be admitted to some preferred status, and only their children admitted into Jewish nation.
Additionally some of them may be descendants of forcibly converted Jews or Samaritans.
yamit82 Said:
why should we believe these versions of history, they have the same flavor as other christian histories which portray the christians positively and the Jews as villains. there is a track record of christian histories.
vivarto Said:
You did not ans. my question how would those 10% of Arabs become Jews? Denying Islam is nice but certainly not all there is to becoming a Jew, is it?
As for the rest you haven’t seen or question, check it out for yourself it’s all on the net if you are interested.
Jews, only an intellectual powerhouse!
Paul Said:
Read the Tanach!!! The major biblical statement on morality of war, Deuteronomy 20, differentiates between two types of war.
Now when Jews are scattered all over the world without a national sovereignty it’s kinda hard to initiate colonial wars or any other kind of war. For over 13 centuries of Jewish history in the Land of Israel Wars were as common almost as Sunday football is in America. The Jewish people were one of the ancient worlds most militaristic of peoples We fought against everyone even ourselves on occasion. Our civil wars made the American version kindergarten stuff.
Kitos war Jewish diaspora war
See Seige of Jerusalem 614 CE. In the wake of the Persian invasion, a Jewish administration returns to Jerusalem, but with it came the massacre and slavery of the city’s Christian population. “Thousands of young Jews volunteered for the Persian army as it moved massively into Syria at the turn of the seventh century. This, however, made them enemies of the Christians who were fighting the Persian advance.
A few years after Islam overran North Africa and the Middle East, in the later seventh century, the Berber Jewish Warriors of North Africa learned of the oppression of the Jews in the Visigoth Christian kingdoms of Spain. In an attempt to rescue them, a Berber Jewish army invaded Spain in aproximately 694 CE. The invasion was unsuccessful. Instead, a Moorish, Muslim army defeated the Visigoths in Spain a few years later (711 – 715 CE). Under Moorish rule, the Jews of Spain were liberated and returned to their rightful position in Spanish society
Jospeh Levine premises his argument on the proposition that the non-Jews have a right of self determination. “I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic.” It his major premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.
Not all peoples possess political rights. The Kurds and the Basques have been trying for many years to gain the political rights for self determination but to no avail.
No such rights were created for the non-Jewish communities in the British Balfour Policy, turned into International Law by the San Remo Agreement and confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and by the US in 1922 and again in 1924. On the demise of the League of Nations these rights were preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter. Only the Jews were given political rights in the Balfour policy and the treaties adopting it — stated to be because of their historic association with Palestine, in fact a continuous presence that goes back some 3,700 years.
The mandate or trust agreement providing for world recognition of Jewish political rights placed these rights in trust initially because at the time the population of Jews in Palestine was relatively minor — only about 10%. To remedy that so that the Jews ultimately could exercise sovereignty with a majority of the population, the trust agreement expressly provided that the trustee facilitate Jewish immigration. A savings clause restricted the Jews, when they finally did exercise sovereignty from imparing the civil or religious rights of the non Jews. According to the classic work on the Balfour Declaration, the French at San Remo proposed to amend the savings clause to add “political rights” but the others declined to add these to the savings clause. They had good cause to decline for that would be creating political rights for the non-Jewish communities in Palestine as they had before, had never exercised such political rights in all history. They French wrote instead a “process verbal” that said the savings clause means that the non-Jews will not have to surrender any of their rights. They didn’t.
@ yamit82:
>True but how did they become either Jews if Arab and Muslim or Muslim Arabs if they were Jews?
I think that some Jews were forcibly converted to Islam and assimilated into the Arab population.
Perhaps they became Christians first.
>Based on DNA Jews are more closely related to Kurds than Arabs. Pathan tribes of Afghanistan are almost 100% ethnic Israelite Jews based on DNA.
I have not seen such study.
>Most Arabs have sub normal I-Q’s and genetic diseases not prevalent among Jews due to inbreeding and I wouldn’t be rushing to include them within the Jewish nation too flippantly.
I was never talking about anything flippant.
I envision that some the Palestinian Arabs may indeed aspire to be part of Jewish nation. I expect that they are a rather small minority, probably not more than 10%. In any case, just like with the US citizenship I would want them to prove their commitment first. Most certainly I’d not welcome anyone who clings to the antisemite Muhammad and his cult.
As for intelligence, there may be a lot of idiots among Arabs, but there certainly are also some highly intelligent individuals.
As for Pastoons it would be very strange if they were closely related to the Hebrews.
Where can I read about that?
vivarto Said:
True but how did they become either Jews if Arab and Muslim or Muslim Arabs if they were Jews?
Based on DNA Jews are more closely related to Kurds than Arabs. Pathan tribes of Afghanistan are almost 100% ethnic Israelite Jews based on DNA.
Most Arabs have sub normal I-Q’s and genetic diseases not prevalent among Jews due to inbreeding and I wouldn’t be rushing to include them within the Jewish nation too flippantly. In any event how with your ideas about being Jewish would you give them the stamp of Kashrut in order to include them as Jews?
yamit82 Said:
I wonder if there is a way to reconcile your isolationist desires with the desires of the great majority of the Jews. I personally have no problem with Israel being “like any other Western country.” France, Germany, Italy, England, Holland, Denmark, etc are all like any other Western countries, yet they retain their national identities, national lanugage and culture.
In my understanding of ancient Jewish history is that Jews, like other nations, had plenty interaction with other cultures and civilizations. There is plenty historical and even genetic evidence of that. Even the Bible mentions different nations living among Jews.
Perhaps some parts of Israel should be designated for people who want to live in isolation and strictly according to the Biblical laws. But trying to impose such rules on the entire population is going to weaken the nation of Israel through unnecessary inner conflict.