I agree that Jews have been horribly persecuted for millenia. I understand that a bunch of countries decided that there needed to be a Jewish state to protect Jews from further persecution. The part that I don’t understand is why did these countries give them land that was already settled by someone else? Why didn’t these countries give them their own land?
The way I understand it now would be like me arguing that homeless individuals have been persecuted enough and they need their own home. Therefore, me and my friends have agreed that they can have my neighbor’s house without my neighbor’s consent.
The one argument I’ve heard is that the land was the ancestral home of the Jewish people. However, it seems hypocritical to me if this argument holds true for the Levant but not all of the Americas. To maintain integrity and congruence based on this argument, then I’d think Israel would be highly allied with the Native Americans to help them get their ancestral home back. Because this isn’t the case, it seems to me that I have been misinformed about or misunderstood the reasoning behind giving Jewish people this land. So, what is the actual reason for this specific land??
I really just don’t get it.
Note: I am not arguing that…
Jews haven’t been persecuted
there shouldn’t be a Jewish state
Palestinians/Hamas are right in attacking Israel
Israel can’t defend itself
Palestinians should be able to defend themselves
innocent people haven’t died
anything about religion
anything about terrorism
whatever else someone might assume and get heated about
I really just want to understand the reasoning with valid congruence.
Why Israel? It’s because they’d already been a movement for decades before World War II by Jews to buy up that land because it was their ancestral Homeland. Also we aren’t talking about a highly populated region. Half of modern day Israel is desert.
So why didn’t countries give up their own land? I mean, Britain would have considered that their own land. They had possession of it, and they were the sovereign power governing it.
Why didn’t Europe give up prime real estate to Jewish refugees? Because in all of history no one has been that generous to any refugees let alone Jews.
Ahh, thank you! So some of the land was bought, which makes sense. Also, Britain was the colonial ruler, so they had the power to dictate how the land was to be used.
Were they voluntarily ruled by the UK or was it forced?
Did the people living on that land agree to give it up entirely, either by selling or donating it? If they did, then are they going back on their exchange? Or were they basically told to leave by the UK?
I think it’s irrelevant if the land is desert or not because if people live there, they live there regardless of the climate.
I really am trying my hardest to understand and avoid any arguments that are based on typify-ing a group of people as bad or immoral based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, race, etc. I appreciate this discussion 🙂
I think another issue is that there’s not exactly a lot of habitable land that isn’t already habitated. Like, where would you have them placed, Antarctica?
To the above persons point, you’re either giving up some of your own prime real-estate, or you’re offering some spot in some colony you own. The latter was chosen.
Now, there’s a whole separate debate about the evils of colonization in Africa and the Middle East, but that’s more to the point of Britain being the bad guy, not the refugees who were looking for any port in a storm and decided to take the land that was offered.
I agree that Jews have been horribly persecuted for millenia. I understand that a bunch of countries decided that there needed to be a Jewish state to protect Jews from further persecution. The part that I don’t understand is why did these countries give them land that was already settled by someone else? Why didn’t these countries give them their own land?
The way I understand it now would be like me arguing that homeless individuals have been persecuted enough and they need their own home. Therefore, me and my friends have agreed that they can have my neighbor’s house without my neighbor’s consent.
The one argument I’ve heard is that the land was the ancestral home of the Jewish people. However, it seems hypocritical to me if this argument holds true for the Levant but not all of the Americas. To maintain integrity and congruence based on this argument, then I’d think Israel would be highly allied with the Native Americans to help them get their ancestral home back. Because this isn’t the case, it seems to me that I have been misinformed about or misunderstood the reasoning behind giving Jewish people this land. So, what is the actual reason for this specific land??
I really just don’t get it.
Note: I am not arguing that…
Jews haven’t been persecuted
there shouldn’t be a Jewish state
Palestinians/Hamas are right in attacking Israel
Israel can’t defend itself
Palestinians should be able to defend themselves
innocent people haven’t died
anything about religion
anything about terrorism
whatever else someone might assume and get heated about
I really just want to understand the reasoning with valid congruence.
Why Israel? It’s because they’d already been a movement for decades before World War II by Jews to buy up that land because it was their ancestral Homeland. Also we aren’t talking about a highly populated region. Half of modern day Israel is desert.
So why didn’t countries give up their own land? I mean, Britain would have considered that their own land. They had possession of it, and they were the sovereign power governing it.
Why didn’t Europe give up prime real estate to Jewish refugees? Because in all of history no one has been that generous to any refugees let alone Jews.
Ahh, thank you! So some of the land was bought, which makes sense. Also, Britain was the colonial ruler, so they had the power to dictate how the land was to be used.
Were they voluntarily ruled by the UK or was it forced?
Did the people living on that land agree to give it up entirely, either by selling or donating it? If they did, then are they going back on their exchange? Or were they basically told to leave by the UK?
I think it’s irrelevant if the land is desert or not because if people live there, they live there regardless of the climate.
I really am trying my hardest to understand and avoid any arguments that are based on typify-ing a group of people as bad or immoral based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, race, etc. I appreciate this discussion 🙂
I think another issue is that there’s not exactly a lot of habitable land that isn’t already habitated. Like, where would you have them placed, Antarctica?
To the above persons point, you’re either giving up some of your own prime real-estate, or you’re offering some spot in some colony you own. The latter was chosen.
Now, there’s a whole separate debate about the evils of colonization in Africa and the Middle East, but that’s more to the point of Britain being the bad guy, not the refugees who were looking for any port in a storm and decided to take the land that was offered.