- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,863
- 4,177
- 1,815
Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.
There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.
1. There are plenty of historic precedents for States built around an ethnic or cultural group. It is exceedingly common as a precedent. Most are built on some aspect of "exclusivity" or purpose in preserving a specific culture.
2. There is most certainly a precedent for such a Jewish State, an indigenous Jewish state based on Israel's historical right to re-constitute sovereignty on her ancestral and historic territory.
3. There is NO precedent for an exclusive "Palestinian" state, whether you want to determine that as an inclusive state for two widely opposing cultural groups or as an exclusive state for only the Arabs. Therefore, if your argument rejects a Jewish State, it equally rejects a "Palestinian" State.
4. One need be neither the first people there nor the only people there in order to have an historical and cultural relationship with the territory. And again, if your argument rejects a Jewish State, it equally rejects a "Palestinian" State.
5. Israel does not, and has never, demanded an exclusive Jewish State. It has demanded (entirely morally and correctly) a state which seeks to preserve the unique culture of the indigenous Jewish people, while ensuring, in law, the rights of all peoples within her borders to freedom from discrimination for race, ethnicity, religion. This is in direct contrast to current Arab Palestinian governments who demand a Jew-free Palestine as a pre-condition to any sort of peace deal, and who demand, ultimately, a territory which has NO Jewish self-determination or guarantee of freedom from discrimination.
The Palestinian state had Muslims, Christians, and Jews with no distinction.Therefore, if your argument rejects a Jewish State, it equally rejects a "Palestinian" State.
Dividing people by religion was a British/Zionist thing.