As an example, in 1920, Turkey managed to define Istanbul as a Turkish city, while Greece defined Thessaloniki as Greek, and both have managed to live in peace (aside from external threats) since then. In modern times, this (partition) has been the only credible internationally-sponsored solution in places from Kosovo (Serbs and Albanians) to South Sudan (Arabs and Black Africans).

So when Americans start talking to Jews and/or Palestinians about how this land is “too spiritually precious” for the closure and resolution of partition, I come to one of two conclusions. The first, and more innocent, is that they’re trying to make this part of the world in their own image, not realizing that Hebron is not Portland and Jerusalem not Washington, D.C., and the easy solutions (well, at least they’re pretty easy to ignore after the fact) of America’s history will not work here. The more frustrating possibility – and the one that your language seems to imply – is that for some reason the religious connotations of Hebron and Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, outweigh the understanding of national aspirations that have prodded America to its more successful foreign interventions.

Except that the Jews did not buy a piece of land in other country. They bought it in the multinational Ottoman Empire, which dissapeared in 1917 leaving in its place many minorities with claims to the land: Greeks, Slavs, Jews, Arabs, Turks, Kurds, etc.
Eretz Israel is not “Arab land”.

For Raed: come and take me away from my country if you can. We will drop so many nuclear bombs on you that even your ancestors will get radiated.

Thanks for your response and input. If all land inhabited by Jews in Israel were purchased, we would not have a Palestinian refugee problem. Even to suggest most of the land was purchased, is false revisionism characteristic of Western Propaganda (no offense) and does little to solve this perrenial conflict, but only serves to aggravate the Palestinian natives of the land by insinuating they are nothing but glorified “bad losers” in real estate investments.

Purchasing all the land was the original plan of the early Zionists, all good people by all accounts. However, when the Israeli right wing was born with Jabotinsky things began to change with his “Iron Wall” doctrine. It seems The British may have been contributed to the doctrine, long term seeing Israel as a strategic beachead, without having the responsibility of occupation. The “Iron Wall” doctrine was still repulsed by most Jews, until after the holocaust, where it gained popularity.

Be that as it may. Your folks seems to have been good people, and probably did purchase the land they got. With regard to your statement, “The goal of Zionists was to create a modern state that normalized the Jewish experience, allowing Jews to control their destiny and not be outsiders.” Nothing wrong with that. The problem comes from the fact that what you are saying could happen anywhere, in Alaska or on some unihabitated Pacific Islands. You ignore that fact of where Zionists are doing this. It is not just building a State. It is building a State on ground that it is sacred to at least three religions. And you also deny/ignore (mentioned above) that Natives were forcibly removed) from this holy land. Transferred, ethnically cleansed.

Restricting such hot property to one ethnic group, claiming “God gave this land to me, and me alone” (‘me’ because I’m at least ¼ Jewish”) is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

My own belief is that God intended this land for many different people, if not all people, including Jews. The Jewish people can claim stewardship of it, but not “exclusive biblical ownership” in the modern world. If they do claim “ownership,” there will never be peace in the region. Israel will be a secular Democracy someday. The longer we put it off, the more bloodshed there will be, and the more hatred there will be for Jews. Why not find a way to live together now? The promised land is a spiritual place, not real estate.

It sounds to me that the State has chosen the well-being of settlers over democracy. A long time ago, too. Haaretz has a very good article retracing the history of the settlements, and the successive governments that supported them.

Settlements are not temporary. They are meant to be perennial. Both the settlers, and the Government, know that. That people still bring up the Sinai settlements 30 years later is proof enough. The disengagement will haunt every serious discussion of removing settlements for the next decade; the same photos will overshadow any serious arguments in favour of removing a brick – or of a two-states settlements, for that matter.

And this is why I always maintain that time is on Israel’s side: the settlements metastasize, settlers get increasingly comfortable on confiscated land, the Palestinians lose their land – and get acquainted to it, sadly enough.

Gush Etsion or otherwise – every settlement is wrong. And must be removed, ASAP.

I don’t think either scenario expresses the reality. People want to live in a state that shares it’s values and priorities.

The United States was formed by people who agreed that they shared common interests and goals. The goal of Zionists was to create a modern state that normalized the Jewish experience, allowing Jews to control their destiny and not be outsiders. I don’t think someone needs to be Jewish to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state, or to accept the fact that Israel serves as a physical and spiritual haven for Jewish people.

Why is it so hard for them to accept those things? Isn’t it because they themselves are so bound up in their conviction that they are the only ones entitled to lay claim on the Middle East? How many Muslim/Arab countries are hospitable to outsiders?

Sure there are problems between Jews and Israeli Arabs, although there are some Arabs who do serve in the army. But some of these issues have to do with cultural/lifestyle differences as much as political ones.

The fact is that a way of life that had been lived by the Palestinians for hundreds of years was disrupted by the arrival of Jews. The Jews came, and acquired land not by the use of force, but by paying for it. They carved out a life for themselves, which mostly did not involve integrating with the local population (Although my mother-in-law, a seventh generation Jerusalemite recalled good relations with her Arab neighbors.

The Palestinians connection to the land is straightforward and immediate – that was the land I farmed, that was the house. Losing their land was no doubt traumatic in much the same way as it has been for farmers in the midwest who had to sell farms that had been in their families for generations. But there are millions of Palestinians now, instead of just half a million. The way of life they idealize is no longer viable.

The idea of creating one state, bringing together people who don’t share common goals and a common naarative is more forced and artificial than the idea of having a border.

Of course, all analogies are flawed by their very nature of being analogies. It is just a question of how flawed, but ananlogies have a good purpose for communication of concepts.

Native Americans have valid complaints. Manifest Destiny of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants does have some similarities to the continuing “Iron Wall” phase of the Zionist movement. However, what are the alternatives today for Native Americans? Go back to the reservation system? That would probably be analogous to Gaza.

As far as Jews returning to the land that was once theirs (Israel/Palestine) IMO this is more of an individual choice each Jew must make, not necessarily a something all Jews would want to do. I am all for that individual freedom to choose. As a spiritual home, this area is “home” to many different cultures, not only Jews.

How do you think Italian-Americans living in America for several generations (regardless of religion) would be received in Italy today, coming back and telling the Italians in Italy, that they are coming back to claim the land as theirs? I don’t think they would be so welcome, not even on an individual basis, much less with mass migration. I have heard that they are not seen as “real” Italians anymore, by Italians in Italy. This is probably true for most immigrants after a generation of two. And yet you hear immigrants often talk of such countries with affection as a spiritual “home.”

The Native Americans did not have to be treated badly for Europeans to annex North America. There could have be peaceful, respectful integration. The reason it did not happen was because too many powerful Europeans in high places saw an opportunity to get rich and powerful by finding ways to disrespect Native Americans and claim it was God’s will that they be dispossessed and oppressed by Europeans.