However, the bulk of the land carved out for the Jewish state consisted of the Negev desert, which was not suitable for agricultural and urban development at that time.

Of course, I agree with you that history is not the sole consideration. What I’ve been arguing is that history is relevant.

I suppose “historical” means going far back in history well before 1947 partition.

Just to share with you the insights of this guy Jason D. Söderblom of The Terrorism Intelligence Centre, Canberra. He cited four “core foundational reasons behind the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan”. The reasons didn’t go too far back in history but dwell more on merits/fairness or unfairness of the Partition based on circumstances and conditions existing at that time.

I quote his 4 reasons:

[1], “the Arab world perceived that the United Nations were not competent under international law to partition or otherwise dispose of the territory of Palestine against the wishes of the clear majority of its inhabitants.

[2] The Partition Plan was perceived as having no legal validity.The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not have any mandatory force.Therefore, the General Assembly vote to accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was being created over the objections of one of the parties.

(3) The partition plan also violated a very
basic principle in international affairs: that of self-determination of peoples, recognised by Article 1 of the United Nations
Charter. The carving-out of 55 % of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish state and the subjection of part of the original inhabitants (who were not Jewish) to its dominion represents a fundamental violation of this aspect of international law.

[4], the Partition Plan was neither just nor fair. The Partition Plan granted 55% of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 or 7% of the land. Within this Jewish State there were to have been 407,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Arab State was to comprise only the remaining 34% of the land. The UN Partition Plan also ordered that the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers. The remaining 45% of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70% of the population who were Arab.

The major reason then the Palestinians rejected the partition resolution was on the grounds of its lack of fairness: it proposed to give the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to the majority of the land. In 1946, the total population of Palestine was 1,972,0000 inhabitants, comprising 1,247,000 Palestinians and 608,000 Jews, as well as 16,000 others.”

When many Muslims argue that the UN resolution which led to the establishment of modern Isreal is wrong and appeal to historical arguments to show why they think this is wrong, we should provide counter arguments from history to show them why the need to respect the existence of Israel is not merely something forcibly imposed on them by the big powers of the world. At the very least, we have to show them why history is not so clear-cut in supporting their case. Otherwise, many Muslims will feel greater indignation against those who recognise Israel when they think that the latter have no historical arguments to support what is essentially arbitrarily imposed on them by the superpowers they hate. Of course, some go further and argue that history actually leans more towards their opponent’s case.

On a different note, Noor first denies the relevance of historical continuity. But he then refers to 1948, the so-called Zionist expansionism etc as if all these references make no assumption of historical continuity.

But history is relevant.

The power lobbyists, victors of war might have fallen back on historical justification where convenient but it was also other motives: the Soviets for eg after annexing large swathes of Eastyern Europe after Hitler’s fall wanted to encourage clearance of many Jews in Europe and supported their return and fin d historical/biblical reference helpful. American geopolitical considerations to have an ally in Middle East flushed with oil wealth had her own agenda.

The Arabs, who suddenly developed a separate national identity due to Jews ocupying part of Jerusalem in which one of Islam’s holiest shrines is located, awakened to have then a Palestinian identity. It was made more acute by the fact t hat the partitioning and creation of Israel in their midst was a matter decioded by big powers which they had no much say, in contradiction of UN’s own professed principle of self determination!

We’re not concerned about morality of causes of whether Israel should b e created because to do that one has to argue the benchmarks in history overlapping to theology. Sure the promulgators of Israel state – and those against refer to historical and even theological considerations but these might have been a convenient justifications in cover of their own geolpolitical and other agendas : so relevant or not, depending on which perspective… .

If we’re concerned whether Israel exists, it does by international law’s criteria; if we’re concerned whether international law is right as adjudged by moral or historical bases , that becomes complex, and one wonders if it is necessary to probe in that direction for every nation that currently exists, given that it started existing as the other new states created with the dismantling of colonialism after world war II.

For this reason I rather appeal to international law/norm whether Israel or Palestine exists as a separate nation / state and once by that benchmark Israel’s existence is incontrovertible fact, then I find little usefulness to go back to history or theology to justify or contradict that fact or whether international norms/laws were just, unjust to so create that state..

In referring back to history, again how far back, ancient history, modern history ? The status of state can be no if it were sacked by conquerors with its people cast in diaspora. In this way, as f ar as ancient history goes, Caananites lost land to the Jews (Jewish kingdom of King Saul, Solomon and David) and the Jews lost it to conquering Ottoman Turks, who in turn in modern history, suffered their empire carved by colonial powers, with Britain at end of world War I administering it as mandated territory first by Leaque of Nations, then after Word War II by its successor the United N ations (UN).

If one makes references to sacred religious texts/Abrahamic Covenant and argues on the Promised Land, then it is not something I know much to support or contradict. So I prefer to rely on references to interntional law, which by [A] article 38.1(b)of ICJ Statute confers statehood or entitlement based on 4 criteria: (i) a permanent population with majority racially/culturally homogenous (ii) defined territory (iii) its own government & social and economic structure (iv) independent capacity to enter into relations of other states and recognised by those other states as a state with which they could have whether diplomatic or military engagements [B] UN resolution 181 legally by international law, and majority of votes (33 to 13, with 10 abstentions) created the state of Israel, which presently satisfies criteria of statehood listed in [A].

I agree that appealing to history raises a host of difficult questions. But the UN can only make a completely arbitrary resolution if it cannot appeal to history given the difficulties of these historical questions.

Without appealing to history, what can the UN decision makers say if, let say, a group of Chinese demand an autonomous region in Israel with Ashkelon as their capital before they vote for the partition resolution? If they reject the demand, what can they say? They can only resort to arguments about history.

So history is still relevant, even in the process of drafting the resolution. History continues to be relevant, as various parties continue to argue whether the resolution is fair when we take all historical evidence and other principles of land ownership into consideration. They will argue that the resolution should be subjected to such a scrutiny since it was first drafted on the considerations of such historical evidence and principles.

I’m not saying that appealing to these will easily solve the problem. I’m just saying that they are relevant.

From history when the Arabs were strong, they conquered Europe up to Bosnia. From the features of some Arabs, they look more like Europeans rather than the Arabs. During that period they must have taken a lot of European women back to Arab as wives.

When a country is strong, the ruler will claim conquered lands belong to him. When the ruler becomes weak, the conquered lands will be taken back.

So when Israel is established by the United Nation, why can’t Israel be accepted as a country and coexist in peace with the Arabs. If they cannot co-exist in peace then there is always wars.

So when will it end?

Well, if historical grounds cannot be relied on, then what about Ketuanan Melayu? Just because Malays claimed to be the first to settle in this land here, does not make them the rightful or only owner of the land called Malaya/Malaysia. The Chinese, Indians and Others who have been here for umpteen generations have equally valid claims.

P/S I hope the war will stop when Obama steps into the White House officially on the 20th.

While annihilation might have been good enough for a master strategist like John von Neumann, he probably wasn’t living in a sensible semi-d in Moscow when he suggested it. I think, Jeffrey, your ‘will be’ should be ‘is increasing rarely’.

So it is OK for the Islamic Arab world and especially Iran to call for complete eradication of Israels and all Jews in the world numbering millions but not OK for the Jews to retaliate in self defence. I am sure most Muslims will now want and pray that all the JEWS in the world die and die from painful death. If they are smart they should have waited until Iran get the atomic bombs first before trying anything silly because Israel already have them. It is no use crying foul when you get whacked in return by poking you enemies behind. If you are not strong enough why provoke. So when Iran gets the bomb eventually it should lob it over Israel to evaporate the country so that the great and pitiful Palestinans can have their land and country back.