Israel

Even if you don't support the existence of Israel it's not antisemitic. After all, there is a difference between saying Israel shouldn't exist and Jews should exist. The idea that a country should be created for a group of people of a certain religion is problematic anywhere, just look at Pakistan as another example where 14 million people were displaced BUT when it's in a region that has strong ties to the 3 Abrahamic religions is problematic handing it over to a specific one based on nothing more than man-made religion texts about a god and people who don't/didn't exist; it's even worse. Especially when the Jews moving there's claim to the land is suspect (most of them saw their Ancestors move to Europe between 2000 and 300 years ago, many well before Christianity existed and certainly before Islam which didn't start to around 610AD). What makes the Jews more important than the Christians and Muslims who descend from these same 'Israelites' that make up the Jewish claim but who have lived there for thousands of years?

Maybe if somewhere where there wasn't as problematic, didn't have to displace a large number of people either now or in future and probably most importantly the Zionists were willing to integrate in the region to make it better for all (Something they have never done in the middle-east, they identify with their European identity more than their traditional Arab identity. They do the majority of their trade with Europe, they hold Associate State status with the EU; the only one that has no land actually on the European continent, they enter European sporting events, Pan-European cultural events etc etc. The rest of the middle-east doesn't really benefit from Isreal being in the region as they largely cut themselves off) could be found then the idea of Isreal existing as a country might make sense but really if European Zionist Jews want to move to the area their ancestors left 2000-3000 years ago they should really be integrating into Palestine alongside the Arab Muslims, Arab Christians and Arab Jews who had live in relative peace for thousands of years to enhance Palestine. And if Arab lifestyles aren't for them they should have done what other Jews did and integrated in a multicultural society in places like the UK, US and others, There just isn't a good justification for Isreal existing where it is

 

What exactly is shameful about it. What justification is there for a Jewish state in that area over say a Christian or Islamic one? There isn't one. There isn't a justification for a religious state in the area for any religion, it's an area important to all the Abrahamic religions and one religion taking ownership of it is problematic.

As I said before the Zionist movement it was a region that all 3 lived in relative harmony. The issues only started when under the British mandate the Zionist movement starting importing vast amount of European Jews and then started an almost 30 year campaign of terror to try and get their Zionist state and displacing others who equally hold that area of religious importance.

If it's important for Jews to have the option of living there on the basis of their religious links then they could have done that without their own state because again they were living in relative harmony unlike now. Where BTW Christians have largely been driven out of the Israeli controlled sections. The assumption is that Palestinians are muslim but thats not completely correct. Palestinians were Muslim, Christians and Jews. Isreal absorbed most of the Palestinian Jews but Christians have hence been persecuted by Isreal as much as the Muslim part. Bethlehem traditionally was a Christian stronghold but they have been forcibly removed from much of their owned property. Some have just followed the muslims being displaced but many have been forced out of the middle-east

And if the reason for a Jewish state is security then it was absolutely the worst place to put it. A place you know is going to raise tensions, something the original architects of zionism acknowledged which is why they dismissed Palestine being the location (As I mentioned before they were looking at places like Argentina & Cyprus and had discussion with the UK government about parts of what are now Uganda and Kenya which would have potentially been less problematic)

 

Perhaps if you would learn to read rather than twisting yourself into knots trying to imply I'm antisemitic so you can look cool to your Zionist friends you would have your answer. I've criticised the creation of Pakistan on the same basis although Pakistan doesn't have as many issues as the land in question didn't have a religious importance, it is just the displacement of people who have lived there for thousands of years. Israel has both the displacement and religious issue.

There is a difference though between a country created for a religion which then sees natives displaced rather than a country who happened to be predominantly one religion. 99% of countries have a significantly dominant religion including the UK. And as I've made clear I don't have an issue with a Jewish state if it's in an area where it doesn't displace vast amounts of people, doesn't create religious tension by being a place of religious importance to those displaced and is in an area where they can they can cooperate with their neighbours for the betterment of the region

 

Also if you are so adamant Israel is justified to exist in the area it is then I would love to hear your reasoning for that view?