Yikes... There's an idiot in the Knesset... Surprised? Nah!

[Coyote]

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

Words, as a statement of intent, most certainly create the condition of threat. In order for a threat to be valid and actionable - it has to be disseminated as a statement of intent and it has to be credible -- as in the threat has to be immediately capable of being carried out.

The gist of what is being asked is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a threat to Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. It most certainly did not. Thus, those nations had no cause to attack Israel.

The secondary question, and I gather the source of confusion, is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a credible threat to the non-Jewish people. I would argue that it did not.

It also depends, somewhat, on whether or not one views the conflict through the lens of the time or through the lens of modern humanitarian law. Population exchanges and expulsions in order to create homogeneous nations were the norm at the time.

Yes, Israel was created at about the same time as India and Pakistan, with their successful population exchanges. World War 2 ended only a couple of years before that, and there again, there were many successful population exchanges. And yet here we are, almost 70 years later, and there are still Palestinians living in refugee camps! That's crazy! My parents were Polish-Jewish refugees from WW2, once upon a time. But they made successful lives for themselves.

Wait a minute - are you seriously saying that India and Pakistan represent "successful population exchanges"?

 

[Coyote]

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

Words, as a statement of intent, most certainly create the condition of threat. In order for a threat to be valid and actionable - it has to be disseminated as a statement of intent and it has to be credible -- as in the threat has to be immediately capable of being carried out.

The gist of what is being asked is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a threat to Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. It most certainly did not. Thus, those nations had no cause to attack Israel.

The secondary question, and I gather the source of confusion, is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a credible threat to the non-Jewish people. I would argue that it did not.

It also depends, somewhat, on whether or not one views the conflict through the lens of the time or through the lens of modern humanitarian law. Population exchanges and expulsions in order to create homogeneous nations were the norm at the time.

That is well put, and I can agree - Israel did not pose a threat to the Arab states, but I disagree that it did not pose a threat to the Palestinians - that remains open to argument, I don't agree with you there. I don't believe in altruism when it comes to nationalism and territorial gains especially when one regards as a right by a diety.

I think you have to view it all through the lens of the time - what people believed, what they feared and what they hoped to gain. It is way wrong by our standards now, but not then. That's also why asking questions like "did the Jews pose a threat" is a question that I think is hard to answer. Today, looking back, we can say "no". In 1948, in the dynamics of that time and place and the fears on all sides of a bloodbath were likely real. The partition of India took place in 1947, displaced 15 million people and left over a million dead - a bloodbath indeed. That would certainly be fresh in everyone's memory.