Largest Jewish State after WW2

[Peter]

As I said, it wasn't a "punishment" or really anything at all to do with the Holocaust except that that changed European opinion and hastened Jewish immigration. The situation existed long before.

Yes, it was just a plain theft.

 

[Tyr]

You didn't set a upper time limit, just a lower one of after WW2....

JOOOOZZZZZ IN SPAAACCCCEEEEEEEE!

 

[I Blame Communism]

Yes, it was just a plain theft.

Essentially, yes. The real theft, as in driving people off the land and taking it, was in 1948, but settler Zionism had always been a colonial movement with the avowed intent of taking another people's land for themselves.

 

[Moltke]

Yes, it was just a plain theft.

I think that's in the eye of the beholder. Several arguments abound ... starting with the fact that was it theft if the British were in control of the region and therefore theirs to give? Was their historical or cultural matters to bring into the argument? Can one really argue this is that different than creating Poland after WW1? Sure there are differences, but it could be argued the premise is the same. Like everything in that region of the world, there are 16 sides to every debate.


Back on the topic, is this only asking about the size at its creation or just in general? Obviously some of the invasions and their subsequent beat downs can be WI'd into some larger Israels. Someone mentioned keeping the Sinai Peninsula already. Ironic that if the Arab states hadn't conducted any of their ill fated wars Israel would be at it's smallest size.

 

[Looseheadprop]

I think that's in the eye of the beholder. Several arguments abound ... starting with the fact that was it theft if the British were in control of the region and therefore theirs to give? Was their historical or cultural matters to bring into the argument? Can one really argue this is that different than creating Poland after WW1? Sure there are differences, but it could be argued the premise is the same. Like everything in that region of the world, there are 16 sides to every debate.

What gives any colonial occupier the right to 'give' land away! basically Israel has as much right to exist as Australia has (speaking as an Aussie citizen), none. However millions of people live there now, and have as much right to live there as anywhere so the only solution is allow full democratic rights to all inhabitants and let them sort it out.

 

[Joke Insurance]

Well...isn't Madagascar bigger than present-day Israel?

 

[I Blame Communism]

I think that's in the eye of the beholder. Several arguments abound ... starting with the fact that was it theft if the British were in control of the region and therefore theirs to give?

This is what we call "imperialism". We were in control of our colonies. WHy should we have given them away? Answer: what is known as demcoratic self-determination of peoples.

Was their historical or cultural matters to bring into the argument?

The principal cultural matter of the argument was that the culture of the people of Palestine was Arab. Using "culture" and "history" to override the actual situation is characteristic of crazy nationalists.

Can one really argue this is that different than creating Poland after WW1?

Yeah. I'm arguing it.

Because of the Poles, their democratic will, and their exertions toward independence, Poland was brought about.

Because of Israel being brought about by an arbitrary decree of the British invader, the Zionists turned up and made exertions toward independence.

The processes are essentially opposites.

Sure there are differences, but it could be argued the premise is the same.

How exactly do you intend to argue that?

Like everything in that region of the world, there are 16 sides to every debate.

To say that there being multiple sides toa debate makes one of them any less true is a logical fallacy.