Nathan Newman wrote:
> No- the existence of Israel derives from a vote of the United Nations, as
> part of the "mandate" system established at its founding. In that sense,
> Israel is one of the only countries whose existence is NOT derived from a
> specific military campaign, secession or unilateral carving out of
>colonial empires.
-Hmmm. Every country in the UN was admitted by a vote of the General -Assembly, so Israel is hardly unique in this regard. What is unique is that -Israel's admission into the United Nations was made conditional on its -acceptance of UN Resolution 194 - the right of return.
Countries may have been admitted to the UN, but Israel was I believe one of the first countries whose existence was called into being by a vote of the United Nations. And any conditions on Israel made were obviously waived, since it continues to vote in the UN.
And the Arabs never accepted Israel's existence at all-- and were about the only countries who voted against Israel's establishment. Interestingly, the Arab states also ignored the creation of the Palestinian state at the same time, as Jordan grabbed the West Bank and Egypt grabbed Gaza.
I have no sympathy for the Israeli Occupation, but after a war where surrounding Arab states tried to obliterate Israel in 1948, I think it is silly to argue that until peace was established, Israel should seriously have been expected to accept the return of people largely vowing to destroy it.
But the very fact that so many of those who criticize the Occuption move quickly to discussing why Israel has no right to exist feeds the cycle of all-or-nothing on both sides. Arafat has accepted Israel's right to exist; that so-called supporters of the Palestinians will not do so continues to amaze me. But the similar extremism among the Likudniks and their US supporters continues to amaze me as well.
-- Nathan Newman