I'll take the oft-given advice to relax on the subject; fortunately, we're a bunch of poets with political opinions, rather than people in positions to affect outcomes.
I'll try to do this next bit without stomping anybody's buzz. First, in response to the oft-recycled number of "800,000 forcibly displaced" Arab Palestinians:
To put it simply: There were barely 800,000 Arabs
to expel from Israel in 1948, and 160,000 remained as Arab citizens of Israel. Beyond that, the vast majority did
not leave at gunpoint or anything like it. The Lydda and Ramleh expulsions actually have that name, because they were the exception. There were no "Jerusalem expulsions," "Haifa Expulsions," or "Jaffa Expulsions," for example. In the vast majority of cases, Palestinian Arabs (as they later decided to call themselves,) left at the urging of invading Arab armies, or of their own volition, when the fighting had started. It's estimated that over 2/3 of them never laid eyes on a Jewish soldier; hardly a "forcible" expulsion.
The following web-page is certainly open to debate, and is from a Jewish source. However, I think it may provide food for thought to those who lament the plight of the Palestinian people, and continually do so with no sense of proportion or context.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../refugees.html
Back and forth, back and forth. I know. It never ends. But it's worth noting that the Arab nations of Southwest Asia and North Africa encouraged and in some cases sponsored pogroms of their own Jewish populations, until
more Jews left their homes in those nations, than Arabs left Israel during the War of Independence.
These were communities who had centuries-long roots in these states. Do we hear demands that Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, et al. pay them reparations, or repatriate them in Jewish statelets within Arab countries? No. Because Israel
absorbed these refugees. Arab states -- many of them oil-rich -- never took any such stand on behalf of Arab refugees from the 1948 war. Does this not enter into the mind of the pro-Palestinian "analyst," when he considers the ongoing crisis that has been the middle east?
I do aim to educate those who seem happiest when being glib about others' lives and ethnic and national identities, although it's a losing battle. It is all quite funny to many here, which is telling commentary. Blithe disregard for real human suffering speaks for itself. To take such voices seriously is folly, since they do not take the conflict itself seriously.
And those who embrace Anti-Semitism as part of a fashionable political agenda -- and then cry "Ad Hom!" when they are described as what they
are -- can be refuted and lectured, but never really swayed in the least. In such cases, the Anti-Semitism is clothed as Anti-Zionism, until the real colors begin to show (as we've lately seen.) This isn't some sort of "card" I am playing, it is the obvious implication of inconsistent yardsticks used to measure Jews and parallel groups, whether ethnic or religious. It is quite simple: when you measure Jews by more stringent standards, when you demand Jews do more to reap lesser rewards, when you deny the rights of Jews where you would gladly grant those rights to non-Jews, you are an Anti-Semite.
Apropos, to discuss whether there needs to
be an Israel, is dependent on the behavior of the 299/300ths of the world that is not Jewish. Thus far, that behavior has suggested that the 1/300th of the world which
is Jewish has a right, a responsibility, and an obligation to make certain that, if only on one very small patch of land, the Jewish people will be protected from those who desire their destruction.
Neither the terrorists who currently oppose Israel (and slaughter Israelis) in the Middle East, nor the peoples of Europe who unwittingly contributed so much to Israel's fighting resolve, have shown themselves responsible "protectors" of the Jewish people. Over the millennia, one thing is clear -- the only responsible stewards for the world's Jewish population are Jews themselves. This goes hand in hand with Wilsonian self-determination.
So, as noted, arguments against a Jewish state, democratic though it may be, secular though it may be, will not wash. This is a matter of guaranteeing survival. Our erstwhile fellow semites have chosen the wrong people to threaten with extermination.
Quincy, I'll address this last bit to you. You take issue with Jewish nationhood (but evidently not with Palestinian national identity -- although there has never been a Palestinian state, unless you count Jordan, and Palestinians began identifying with a "nation" of Palestine in the 1960s...) I respectfully differ; I do believe there to be a Jewish people, which rises to the status of a "nation" as distinct from a nation-state, as that term is commonly used. In some examples below, I'll cite nations which also enjoy statehood, which should keep things simple.
First, on the "Nationhood" of Jews, in this sense of the word: A Sephardic Jew in Sao Paulo could discuss the most important things in his world, in a common language, with an Ashkenaz in Minsk; then the two could have a lively debate about it with Chinese, Indian, or African Jews -- and this has been the case for thousands of years. They have and have always had a common culture, an ethnic kinship bond, a common language, and a common religion. One of these features is considered enough for any other people to be a nation (as distinct from a nation-state.) For example, although Serbocroatian is one language, the Catholic Croats and the Orthodox Serbs are considered ethnically separate. Even more tellingly, Montenegrans, who do not differ ethnically from Serbs at all, are considered a separate people. I would like to say I am surprised that these conditions are less than sufficient in the Jewish case -- but at this point, it is
not surprising, which is much worse. But no matter. If a Jew considered himself a Frenchman (like Dreyfus,) a German, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Arab, an Iraqi, Jordanian, or a Syrian, the "real" peoples of those nations always set him straight on the subject in short order. This is not something a few words of civilized debate will erase.
Regarding expansionism: Israel routinely attempts to withdraw from territories won in war. What other nation do you know of that does this? There's a phrase in the Israeli vocabulary, "The Lebanon Mud." I doubt very seriously that Israel aims to mire itself therein beyond a limited several-week-long engagement. You may be right, but I think you're seeing parallels to Iraq, where there aren't any.
Finally, I hope for those patient, civil, and well-spoken souls watching the back-and-forth and chiming in, that I am not too terribly vitriolic in my point of view -- the last thing I would want to do is put off those people in the "middle," among whom I usually count myself regarding this issue. Despite needing "and editor" [sic] from time to time, and despite my distaste for the fraternity house style of Israel-bashing, I really do see other sides to the present crisis than the Zionist basics you're seeing me discuss here.
Oh, and if anybody surprised I'm happy to say I'm a Zionist... it's not a dirty word.
Dan