Well if you’re saying a country should be reinstated because it once existed in a geographical region we would have go to back to the dawn of time and redraw all world maps would we not?
I’m not saying that though. I’m asking why having a historic settlement/kingdom or whatever should prevent a later claim for the land.
After all, isn’t that what is being demanded by the Palestinians. 
. That they should be given “their” lands back and have a new country/state (or is it a restoration back to pre-ottoman rule or earlier) put in place?
and I’m saying that historic claim arguments don’t help either side solve where we are at today.
Soooh, what will help?
well that is the $5 billion dollar question
If, god forbid, the region reverts to anything like the mandatory Palestine of a century ago, then the current horrific situation in Gaza will pale into insignificance compared to the complete annihilation of all things Jewish.
1 Like
It’s interesting to read that Jerusalem wasn’t in the Kingdom of Israel, but was in the Kingdom of Judah. The two kingdoms used to fight each other. They united in the face of external enemies.
Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and Judah by the Babylonians.
1 Like
When I start gobbing off, eveyone starts mentioning “Cave Life” 
It is interesting that this thread has quickly moved into a bit of a back and forth about whether Israel has the right to exist where it exists. Its interesting because the motion passed by the Green party does not stop at declaiming Zionism as racist. It specifically goes on to make the the claim that Zionisl is a racist and colonialist movement and therefore should be stopped. And stopping Zionisl means removing Israel and returning all territories to Palestinians. So moving beyond a discourse on whether Israel has the right to exist where is exists and determining no, it does not.
Is this truly something the majority of Green party leaders and members think is a good stance to take? Do they think this is realistic, aligns with other main Green party positions, is a vote winner, is sensible?
1 Like
Of course that’s bound to happen as the two topics are linked.
It’s quite interesting to read the ancient history. How big the original territory of Solomon’s or David’s Kingdom was or whether you could describe it as a nation or true kingdom cannot be conclusively proven vs that described in the Bible.
However some groups dream of expanding into these mythical borders. Historians have noted there is quite a bit of exaggeration in Biblical historical references which doesn’t hold up to archaeological scrutiny.
Its a topic of heated debate. But it seems to be driving some of the settler activities. If thats true then Israel would like the whole of Lebanon.
Perhaps the Greens ought to extend their policies too deal with the creation of Pakistan in 1948, and the subsequent creation of Bangladesh. Consistency is key, and I’m sure that its membership would welcome such policies.
2 Likes
That’s why I think it’s unhelpful to dwell on ancient land arguments and focus on the here and now instead
1 Like
Well, since Israel and Pakistan were created around 1948 and Bangladesh in 1971 (give or take), they are somewhat here and now within living memory for some.
I don’t know enough about Bangladesh and Pakistan’s current politics to understand your point
My point is that if one is to decry the creation of a state/country which involved much land grab, murder and genocidal activity (suggestions of millions killed in Bangladesh) as inherently racist, then fair enough if that’s what floats your boat. But at least be consistent about it.
I don’t think Zack Polanski is well, and therefore will not remain a Green leader for much longer.
1 Like
Like I said , the Greens should stick to their raison d’etre, trees bunnies and the environment. I don’t really understand where they are headed with this and it’s a shame they are polarising the issue even further.
My point was in response to comments here about ancient lands giving claim to modern territory. The site of Israel in Palestine wasn’t a sure thing last century. It could have ended up in Brazil or Argentina. The location was more guided by nostalgia rather than logic.
2 Likes
Looked at his wiki page. Seems that I’ll have known the headmaster of the secondary school he went to pretty well. Haven’t seen him for years, but if I do I might ask him about young master In Polanski.
1 Like
Not sure how well that might have gone down with some newish emigrés making their move to South America from the third reich in the mid 1940s 
I can understand why they’d want to settle near some old buildings and historic (religious) places of importance
Of course,all very reasonable, but does that justify expansion beyond 1948 borders ?
1 Like