Does Israel have any more or less right to exist than the United States?

Question

I'm not sure this has a right or wrong answer but I do think it an important exercise to do. After all America was either bought, stoled, or given to its current occupiers, just as the Israelis. Should America be give back to the Indians "their" lands and everyone else go back to where they descended from? This seems like an absurd question to Americans. Isn't the real question not who has the right but can't we get along no matter what the nation is called and who resides there? Maybe if we started seeing each other as world citizens and less of us vs. them we'd have a whole lot less strife in this world.

efu, the answer is both depending on the time and place in America. Remember America was not one united tribe but had many tribe and loads of unoccupied land. This did not mean atrocities did not happen. It only means you cannot so easily pigeon hole what happened. And I wrote all this without even resorting to calling you names. Peace

efu, Also you might want to change you source. At the moment you have it listed as Moron. I do not think this is what you meant.

Yes Man!, you gave somewhat of a practical possibility of how to view and solve the Israeli and Native American problems. However I think you overlooked the spirit of what I was trying to say which is for people to see each other as world citizens and letting there past grievances go. If this is done properly there will be no reason for remuneration. But of course we should strive to help out those who are in need.

kitkat, I used to be a zealot of types myself. To say that God has given a people a land and not others is in the words of the Church Lady, "How Convenient."

coreyand…, your edit started off great with logic and several good points but trailed off into areas I do not agree with. Do the American Indians really have it better. If you look at the percentage of land they had then and where they resided as opposed to now I'd be willing to bet it is much much lower than what it is in Palestine. If they would be willing to be peaceful towards Israel I'm sure Israel would let them be just as much as the American Indians. This is not said in judgment but as a matter of fact. I wish more disputes would be settled in a Gandhi like fashion. In this case I believe the Palestinians would have vastly more than they do now. Of course those that would want Israels annihilation would have to compromise their nightmares, but I think net alleviation of suffering would be worth it.

coreyand…, Its seems this conflict is very complicated but in essence there is religious bigotry on both sides. In part why Palestinians are so poor is not necessarily because the big bad wolf called Israel wants to keep them so. It is because the warring factions are creating havoc. Nothing like war on your own soil to crash a local economy. Now come on you know there are Jihadists that will stop at nothing to fulfill hate filled doctrines. This is not said in judgment as these minds are but captured via dysfunctions which pertain to "People of the Book." I have read the Torah, New Testament and parts of the Koran. It is not all love and dove. In fact there is much blood and bigotry. Until these issues are addressed I'm afraid more bloodshed will occur in the name of the Almighty. So many people want to make it about land and economics but overlook this important factor.

Kelly K, great answer. We see each others point.

Answer 1

This isn't a very good analogy; for one, the timescale is way off. The creation of the political state of Israel was in 1949, not 1776. The question of the right of return in Israel/Palestine is therefore very different and much more contemporary.

Second, there are very few people who actually advocate for dissolving the state of Israel. If you are directing this question only at that tiny subset of individuals who want to "wipe Israel off the map", then you probably won't get many helpful answers from Y! answers.

Most anti-Zionists oppose the fact that Israel is a religiously exclusionary state, in that it specifies an official religion and then bases aspects of its secular law directly on that religion. It creates second-class citizens out of its native Arab Muslim population. Marriage law is one example. The right to citizenship is also granted on the basis of religion, which is a very unusual standard for a modern state. So, the real question is not just what the nation (I assume you mean nation-state, not nation) is called or who resides there, it is also who makes the rules and whose rights are honored and who rights are ignored. If Palestinians had the same rights as Israelis, the entire issue would be very different. The problem is that one is militarily occupying the other and essentially determining the conditions of their existence. Today, we give Native Americans full sovereignty on reservations. Is it totally fair? No, but neither would be the full return of lands. What do the Palestinians get? Military occupation, little political rights, extreme poverty, and little freedom of movement. The Native Americans today have it WAY better than the Palestinians. To back this up, look at the CIA World Factbook figures on GDP per capita: Palestinians make, on average, $1500 per year (PPP). This is less than the average for North Korea. Israel, by contrast, is between Spain and New Zealand with $26,200 per year.

Now, you raise the issue of the "world citizen", which is a nice idea. But, for Palestinians today they are essentially non-citizens entirely, excluded from the rights of citizenship and representation that those in the US take for granted. Before we go about talking about Israelis and Palestinians as being "world citizens" on equal footing, why don't we actually give the Palestinians some basic political rights? How can they be considered "world citizens" if they are not also national citizens?

Finally, in reference to your comment about letting go of "past grievances" -- you can't really call them "past grievances" if there are occuring in the present. If your family had been living in refugee camps for the last fifty years, I don't think you would call that a "past grievance" -- that would be your past AND present grievance!

Answer 2

Who does Texas belong to? There were some natives here before Spain claimed it. Many Years later, It as a part of the Mexican revolution became Mexico. Years after, it fought and won it's independence from Mexico and became an independent nation called The Republic of Texas, having it's own presidents and constitution. It is the only free nation to ever become a state in the US. It later seceded from the US only to be brought back into the UNION by force. These things I say are true and well before all of this I'm sure there were tribes fighting and dying for pieces of what we now call the state of Texas. I don't know the answer to the Israel question anymore than I know the answer to the Texas question. Maybe Israel should become the 51st state in the US and it would be done. The Us uses more Texas dollars to help Israel than it does send back to Texas! I have no political leaning on this, but you should think about it some.

Answer 3

I've thought about your question...and read your debate...
i think i understand the spirit of your consideration...and the implication in it.

In Practicality, political issues are local social issues gone malignant, and 'government' has only managed too amplify the animosity's into ever larger and greater stages of contest and conflict..... Am i close to the sequence of occupation and conquer, and is the exercising of / failure of negotiation and compromise what you are inviting consideration of..?

If that's the case, .. my heart and spirit is for less government, and less religion, and less cultural supremacy. The diversity of earth and it's occupational variety's of humanity could be a very interesting place without the influence of such inherently bigoted aggressive conceptuallitys.

I know this is possible, all animals existing on earth are respectful of each others uniqueness and environments...even the predator species serve the laws of function-ability and survivability.

Entire cultures have expired throughout history and i reconsider the theory's offered for there passing...your question remains unanswer-able to me. There are too many variables and not enough predict-ables.

sorry... my answer is ambiguous, its the best i could do.

Answer 4

Of course, Israel has a right to exist. The peace process must by fairly negotiated. It is wrong for Palestine to ask for East Jerusalem and the right of return and it is also wrong for anyone to engage in attacks against soldiers and civilians. It is also wrong for anyone to support a militant government that is bent on the destruction of Israel.

As far as the issue of Native rights, there must be a land claims process that leads to community self-government for Natives as well as some kind of financial settlement. It must be fair to both sides--issues such as natural resource rights and the right to a tax-free status, as well as power-sharing at the government level-must be agreed upon. Private property cannot be on the table. Native fishing and hunting rights must be respected as well as their right to services in their own languages, control over policing, education and culture, and their right to provide for their own services and have their own democratically-elected officials and organizations. They must have real say in government policy nationally. There must also be financial compensation for past injustices along with a real anti-poverty plan. Other issues, such as homelessness, substance abuse and abuse by the missionary schools funded by the government, must also be addressed.

Answer 5

you make some excellent points sir, it is one of my favorite subjects, I agree with you but I can not answer your question more explicitly, because I have already lost two yahoo accounts harping on this very subject.

Answer 6

Israel has more of a right ot exist because it is the only land grant ever given by GOD HIMSELF. As for the Native ppl of the U.S.A., it is unfortunate that they were and are treated so unfairly but it does not compare with Israel's rights.

Answer 7

I agree with you, I think a united world would be great. How do we do it?

Answer 8

bought or stoled?
you're an ignorant pissant

Answer 9

No