Why is ISIS Worse than the 1948 Israeli State?

[brewer]

They don't have a cool song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxtfdH3-TQ4

[Anomalocaris]

Because Israel was defending itself in 1948. Flawed as the situation was, they weren't the ones attacking the Arabs. It was the other way round with everyone attacking them. I thought that should be obvious.

One does not go into someone else's house without the owner's permission, and then get to claim self defense in resisting being thrown out.

[DLJ]

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this earlier today. For some reason I was remembering an Aussie news reporter interviewing some Aussie Muslims and asking what they thought of ISIS etc. and "Which law has primacy... Islam or Oz?" and many said Islam.

So then, I was thinking... it makes sense that they leave their (Westphalia-style) state and go to live somewhere where religion has primacy. But it's an odd situation because religions are borderless (which was kinda the whole reason for Westphalia in the first place).

I live in an Islamic state but it's the Hobbesian model where the religion is subordinate to the state (as per the UK). In fact, there are many existing Islamic states of this type. There were no Jewish states prior to Israel.

So, I think it's a false equivalence.

There's actually a couple of different ethical questions here.

1. What is the fairest way to establish a new state for a people with a common identity i.e. Jews or Kurds?
2. Is it acceptable for one group (people) to dispossess another group.

My answers would be:
1. Shit-loads of diplomacy.
2. No. Pioneers/imperialists have been doing that for centuries and that's why we have created the UN.

The question can be asked in a different way ...
Is it OK for the Europeans to invade the Americas and drive them out of their homes to establish their states, but wrong for the native Americans to have a state?

Since Cain and Abel, the arables will always fuck the pastorals (so much for having the favour of god):
Settlers vs. Injuns
Farmers vs. cowboys
Israel vs. Palestinians
Villages vs. Romanies/Gypsies
Brexiteers vs. Euro-nomads.

[abaris]

People, read up on the history of creating the state of Israel. All I see here are pretty uninfomred opinions to put it mildly.

The jews have always been there. They are as entitled to that land as the Palestinians. In fact, as far as ethnicities go, they're both semitic peoples. None of them is more or less entitled to that land and the original plan was to provide a home for both. I have my problems with Israeli politics, but I never once doubted the right to exist for the state of Israel.

[RobertE]

Because Israel was defending itself in 1948. Flawed as the situation was, they weren't the ones attacking the Arabs. It was the other way round with everyone attacking them. I thought that should be obvious.

This depends on the media and the way they see it. From what I heard, the Palestinians could do nothing with the land because it wasn't arable, so they sold it at over the price odds and the Israelis bought it. Now the Palestinians want it back since it is a little gold mine there.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

...Is this a serious question?

[Minimalist]

Time to trot this out again, I see.

https://youtu.be/-evIyrrjTTY

[account_inactive]

Israel doesn't want to force me to live under a barbaric legal system or behead me and parade my body through the streets. I don't care what you think of Israel but comparing them to ISIS in anyway is fucking stupid.

[Minimalist]

Um... there are degrees, though.

http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/c...ear-israel

Jewish ‘modesty patrols’ sow fear in Israel

The unidentified, 31-year-old woman had left the ultra-Orthodox fold after getting divorced, according to the indictment filed by the Jerusalem district attorney's office. The indictment said her assailant tried to get her to leave her apartment in a haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem by gagging, beating and threatening to kill her. He was paid $2,000 for the attack, it said.

A 17-year-old who moved to Israel from New York five years ago said she was hospitalized after being attacked with pepper spray by a crowd of men outraged that she was walking down a Jerusalem street with boys.

The Angry Desert God is a dick, BM.  He brings out the absolute worst in people.

[Aractus]

I'm hearing all over the radio that Trump is accusing Obama and Clinton of starting ISIS. I don't want a laundry list of the evils of Islam, but I would like to know why it's okay for the Israelis to invade Muslims and drive them out of their homes as they did in 1948 to establish their state, but wrong for Muslims to have a state.

The simple fact is that it's not any worse, and not any worse than Saudi Arabia either (which was started in much the same way as DAESH - with a Jihadist movement). Saudi, like the US, has supported Jihadist movements against other middle east countries for decades.

With Israel we have a convergence of problems. 1. There's an Indigenous population who's land has been invaded by the last great British colony. Britan actually tried to colonise the North Sentinel Island at some point in the past (inhabited by a primitive tribe known as the Sentinelese people), who now violently reject contact with other peoples. They are so primitive that they are still living in the stone age, and don't even know how to make fire. Now Britain's attempt at colonising the Sentinelese failed dismally because the two of the hostages they kidnapped (in order to indoctrinate) died! And probable as a result of western disease the Sentinelese had no antibodies to defend against. They kidnapped an elderly "couple" and four children, the elderly couple died and the children were returned to the island. Ever since then they have violently rejected contact, whenever outsiders come they are met with a "customary hail of arrows" warning them away (this happens whenever the Indian government sends a surveillance ship, helicopter, or plane). In the link provided you'll see in 2006 they killed two fisherman who drifted into their shallow waters, buried them in shallow graves, and then warned away the Indian coastguard from recovery of the bodies with their customary hail of arrows.

We have a similar problem in Australia, there's a similar problem in the United States, there's not so much a problem in Britain itself, but there's a big problem Japan, and there's of course the problem in Canada as well. NZ also has this problem - in fact, most countries have the problem of there being an Indigenous population foreign to the occupiers. India's response to this problem at the moment is to let the Sentinelese people remain un-contacted. There are ethical arguments both for and against this approach, of course! If they were successfully contacted they could be offered foreign aid in the form of modern medical care, and they could be liberated from the stone age. But, if they don't want to be contacted by a clearly more advanced civilisation that has planes, helicopters, and ships, perhaps it's best to leave them be. The other thing is we could easily suggest that their fear of other people was entirely created by the British in the 19th century when they kidnapped 6 people, two of whom died! They wouldn't have been able to kidnap anyone if they were mowed down by a hail of arrows on their approach, so it stands to reason they weren't as fearful at that time.

So let's get back to the point here. NZ treats their indigenous population very very well - they are a model for the world. Canada, I believe also treats their population well. India treats at least the Sentinelese people well (that's not be confused with mainland Indian Indigenous peoples). Japan treats theirs like shit, the USA looks at theirs as being a problem that just won't go away. Australia is better than the USA in their treatment of Indigenous peoples, but worse than Canada, and much worse than NZ. Right so we know where we all stand, then we have Israel. As I mentioned earlier, Britain doesn't actually to my knowledge anyway have an Indigenous population. And that's actually true for most of Europe.

So we have Britain, that doesn't understand anything about Indigenous affairs because they don't have an Indigenous population, and the USA who doesn't treat their Indigenous peoples particularly well by global standards who support Israel in the present day. Now the thing I haven't yet mentioned is that Israel has a right to exist - point 2. The way Israel treats the Indigenous population (the Palestinian people) is absolutely atrocious. It is a magnitude worse than Japan, the next worse offender.

So they have a right to exist, and I can prove this very easily. List out the number of Secular countries, then the number of Islamic countries, then the number of Christian countries, then the number of Atheist countries. Once you've done that, list out the number of Jewish countries. Now OK you might say that doesn't prove anything, well anti-Semitism was so rife in the early 20th century that Jews were not welcome anywhere. Well, they were welcome in some places, and one was Palestine.

So Israel has a right to exist, but Palestine also has a right to sovereignty. ISIL is yet to be seen, frankly I think they have legitimacy as a State now, just as Israel does. Like it or not, they have legitimacy and we can go over that more later.