No one has a human right to their own state.
They should leave and make a life for themselves. Just like they would have years ago, if not for their evil brethren.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
{ 11 comments }
So you are saying the establishment of Israel was based upon a false premise?
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Micahel Yon in the Wall Street Journal
The establishment of Israel happened about 3500 years ago when Joshua led the Jewish conquest of the land G-d had promised to give to us. It was a Divine privilege not a human right.
Did native Americans have a human right to their own state? How about the Aztecs?
Naftali is referring to the establishment of the nation of Israel, not the state.
Ron Coleman’s last blog post..Miami days
Naftali is referring to the kinyon kibush, which means acquiring through conquering, that took place at that time. And Naftali refers here also to the kinyon chazaka which was accomplished at the beginning of the second commonwealth, vekedusha shneia lo butla. Naftali here also refers to the unbroken Jewish presence in our land
from that time until the present day, a phenomenon that some Rishoinim describe as a miracle and hold to be the legal basis to the Jewish calender.
In other words the establishment of the land’s halachik connection with the Jewish people. The time the land which the Torah at one point calls the land of Canaan, becomes the land of Israel.
But yes, UN israel starts in 1948, and who the hell cares why the goyim decided to ‘recognize’ it.
How utterly slimy of you to use our closeness as leverage to distort my intentions.
You know very well that I did not intend what you ascribe to me. If i had i would have chosen the exodus or Sinai as you well know. You are are a lawyer, aren’t you.
In the future, if you disagree, disagree. Don’t use our closeness for leverage.
naftali,
classy as always. if the native americans had claimed divine right for their nation, would that be enough in your eyes?
could you explain kinyon kibush to me? is there something special that makes a conquered land from the day of the conquering forward through eternity an inviolable expansion of a god-given property?
Zach,
You be the classy one, OK.
1. No, not enough in my eyes. I suppose they”d have to have an army or something.
2.I will not.
Naftali is making the Jewish claim based on Divine Right, according to the Torah.
Divine Right is a much stronger claim then “we were there”. Both logically and practically. Divine Right, as stated in the Arab scriptures, is actually the claim that motivates the Arabs. “We were there” is what the Arabs present to liberal western audiences looking for an excuse to demonize Israel. In fact, Divine Right is really the basis for the strongest support Israel gets – from deeply religous Christians.
Let’s consider the Arabs”we were there and the Jews took it by force” claim. So? Now the Jews are there and the Arabs are trying to take it by force. How long must the Jews hold the land before the Jews are the legitimate bearers of the “we were there’ claim? You say “never- the Jews took it by force – so they can’t use “we were there”. But that makes no sense because the Arab’s were only there before the Jews took it in 1948 because the Arabs took it by force in the seventh century from the rulers of the land at that time, who took it from the Jews by force. If the Arabs took it by force, then why can’t the Jews? (This point is not lost on the Arabs, who in their propaganda claim decendance from the Cannanite nations who where there before Israel conquored it under Joshua.)
In contrast, Americans don’t even have a claim of Divine right (“manifest destiny” not withstanding.) Americans don’t even claim that their scriptures granted them the right to conquor the land of America from the Indians. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong here…) Americans just have a more stable situation.
In my mind the only cogent argument an American Christain can make against Israel is a theological one, based on his religion and scriptures. Of course I will disagree, but at least I would grant him recognition as a person who understands his own premises. An American athiest, in my mind, has no cogent argument even according to his own premises.
Naftali,
thanks for your help!
Zach, I think its ironic that swaggering is more easily done from an armchair.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..The Papacy and Jon Stewart
I think its ironic that concessions to arabs are more easily made if you are a muslim.
Aziz is not making concessions to Arabs. Aziz is telling the Jews to make concesions to the Arabs. From his safe little armchair. And its not ironic. To me, its hostility with a smile. Actually he reminds me more of Ghandi – telling the Jews to just shut up and let themselves be killed. For peace, of course.
Comments on this entry are closed.