> -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.
Why so extreme, Nathan? Who's calling for the destruction of Israel? Certainly not me.
There's a lot of rhetoric and manipulation here (though as usual with your posts, also some truth). For the Palestinians in 1955, "destroying Israel" just meant going back to their homes. It's just like the Republika Srpska in Bosnia. For three years the Bosnian Muslims fought a bloody war to "destroy" the Serbian Republic of Bosnia. Most of them are still in favor of "destroying" it.
Does that mean the Bosnian Serbs shouldn't let the Muslim refugees return to their homes? Does it mean the Muslims should all be forced to swear some blood oath that they really, really, really recognize the entity's "right" to exist - even though it's a country that was forged through ethnic cleansing?
Do *you* think it has a "right" to exist - or do you think its existence should be recognized out of pragmatism, all the while recalling the injustice that led to its creation?
Seth
But I'd ask you - does the Bosnian Republika Srpska have a "right" to exist?