Does Israel belong to anyone

Answer 1

Yes. Israel belongs to its citizens.

According to International Law, Israel's Declaration of Independence was a legally permissible act and therefore, Israel's Right to Exist, as a matter of law, is a settled question. It remains, however, a source of anger to all those who disagree with the State of Israel's Right to Exist and they choose to deny this decision's historical validity. (This is quite similar to how anti-Abortionists in the United States choose to deny that Roe v. Wade actually happened.)

Answer 2

Naturally, as this is a controversial topic, there are multiple answers.

Answer 1: Pro-Israeli
The way the question is written is to assume that it is not theirs, which is not the case in the slightest. According to historical, religious, legal, and political grounds, the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine at least partially, if not entirely, belongs to the Jewish people.

1) Historically: The Jews have an undeniable presence in the land from at least 700 BCE until 70 CE and this is proven not only by the Biblical account, but from Assyrian Ruins, Babylonian documents, Hellenistic inscriptions, and Roman volumes. Jews had a continuous presence in the land from 70 CE until the present day (even though they were nowhere near the majority) even though they were forcibly deported from the territory. The fact that they survived, as opposed to the Arameans or Hittites who were similarly exiled does not illegitimate their claims.

In addition to the population-part of the historical claim, Jews have physical ruins and cities that are very sacred to them in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine. The city of Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Bible. The city of Nablus used to be the Northern Metropolis of Shechem. Hebron was the first capital of Ancient Israel whence Saul ruled and David ruled until he conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Even more recent sites like Masada document the Jewish presence and struggle to persevere.

2) Religiously: The Jewish claim to have a connection to the land of the British Mandate of Palestine is firmly grounded in their religion. Jews as early as the Babylonian exiles wrote about returning to the land because God had promised it to them. According to the Pentateuch, God promised Abraham that piece of land. (This promise is even acknowledged in the Qur'an 5:20-21, 17:104, and 26:59.) Many Jewish Holy Sites are in Israel such as the Kotel Hama'aravi (Western Wall).

3) Legally: By international law, the Ottoman Empire took the territory from the Seljuks and Abbassids by internationally recognized conquest. The territory was ceded to the British as a Mandate by the Ottomans as a term of surrender in World War I. (Even though the British had promised the territory to both the Arabs and Jews during the War, neither promise is legally binding.) According to the terms of the Mandate, even though the British were in control, the League of Nations had official jurisdiction. In 1947, the British gave direct authority to the League of Nations' successor, the United Nations, in accordance with the terms of their Mandate. The UN passed the 1947 Partition Plan that gave both a Jewish State and an Arab State the Right to Declare Statehood. The fact that the Arabs decided not to immediately declare such a state does not make the Israeli declaration any less valid. (It is important to note that Palestine did declare statehood on these grounds in 1988, which further cements the legality of this view.)

4) Politically: Jews invested a lot in building the political and physical infrastructure of the land even before they had control. Jews built farms, trained military brigades, created political parties, studied government, and defended themselves. This created a system that was able to repel the Arab Attacks in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9, secure expanded borders in the Six Day War of 1967, and hold those borders in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Israelis were actually able to exert control over this territory.

Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but should capture the sentiment of the question.

Commentary on Answer 2 below
Answer 2 makes a number of flawed arguments both by disregarding pertinent data or incorrectly stating facts, in other cases misrepresenting concepts in order to take down strawmen, and in still other cases he creates situations that lead to undesirable incentives and outcomes. A discussion of his reasons in order follows below:

Religious: His religious argument seems predicated on the idea that the holy sites should be controlled by those who more religious. If a country's claim to the holy sites is vindicated by their religiosity, this naturally

creates incentives towards promoting fanaticism and fundamentalism. The fundamentalist is more religious than the moderate and the moderate than the secularist. However, we should not be interested in promoting fanaticism and fundamentalism since those typically lead to violence and intolerance. Rather, the allocation of religious holy sites should be given to whatever state can best guarantee access and freedom of worship at those sites for those to whom they are holy. The Jordanians and Palestinians have consistently shown an unwillingness to allow Jews to pray in the Holy Sites in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Islamic Waqf of Palestine to this day denies the Jewish holiness of the Western Wall and prevents Jewish prayer at the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus. It also encourages protests against Jewish prayer at the Cave of the Patriarchs (Machpelah). By contrast Israel has never forbidden Christian access to the holy sites in Nazareth or Jerusalem. Muslim access to Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock have occasionally been limited for safety concerns, but there has never been a period where Muslims were actively or passively prevented from praying at those sites. Israel is the better guardian of the holy places.

Ethnic: His ethnic claim is based on inferences instead of actual studies. Genetically speaking, European Jews have been proven to have more genetically in common with Palestinian Arabs than Mizrahim (Jews from Arab countries) have with Palestinian Arabs. This shows a common genetic connection. Additionally, it shows that Europ

ean Jews have remained Semitic. It is also worth noting that Palestinians do not object to Circassians in Arab countries when Circassians are quite proudly not Semitic.

Historical: In addition to the reasons cited above, the "majority" of Israelis do not have ties to Europe. The majority of Israelis are actually Sabras, Israeli-born citizens. If this claim is to be exclusively read in a historic-national context, until 1990, the majority of Israeli Jews traced their heritage not to Europe or the USA, but to the former Arab World where they had been evicted from 1948-1952. Additionally, while a good number of Palestinians lived in Palestine for millenia, the Palestinian population grew incredibly in the 1900s, indicating immigration from other areas of the Levant as well.

Legal:

In addition to the completely clear legal process enumerated above, there are two major errors in Answer 2's analysis. Firstly, the "no consultation argument": Palestinians were actually consulted. The United Nations sent 12 ambassadors from neutral states to investigate the Mandate of Palestine to decide whether or not Partition would be proper and if so how in the spring and summer of 1947. The Palestinians actively chose not to send representatives to guide this group believing the entire process to be illegitimate. The Zionists took advantage of Palestinian unwillingness to cooperate and were able to present a very convincing case for the need of a Jewish State. Secondly, even if the Palestinians were not consulted, the failure to consult with aboriginals of a region does not render any state founded there illegitimate. Otherwise, every New World State, Australia, New Zealand, and numerous other states would be illegitimate because there were no negotiations with the indigenous individuals in state formation. It is an absurd argument. I also wish to note that Deir Yassin was not "forcibly seized". It was a regrettable Israeli massacre of Palestinian civilians during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9. The Irgun, which perpetrated the attack, did not hold onto the territory.

Conquest: This a clear strawman. The Israeli claim is not that they deserve the land because of conquest but because of defensive conquest. The difference is critical. If conquest is illegal only on paper, that does not help the conquered. Imagine that A wishes to conquer B. A goes to war with B and A wins, A now controls B. It is highly improbable that Another Country will go to war with A to protect B's right to freedom (unless they conveniently have petroleum like Kuwait). If A goes to war with B and B takes territory away from A, now A can say, "Well, conquest is illegal, so we should be restored to an pre-war situation." This means that there is no incentive for A not to be bellicose, because they cannot lose but only gain. If defensive conquest is allowed (where B is allowed to hold any territory that it acquires as a result of A's belligerence), this provides a strong disincentive to bellicose activity because now there is risk involved for A; it can come out worse than how it started the war. The Arab-Israeli Wars were perfect examples of defensive conquest. The Arab States consistently declared war or gave Israel legitimate causus belli and the Israelis ended the wars in a better situation than it had pre-war. It is specifically because of this doctrine that after 1973, no Arab State wished to engage with Israel militarily, meaning that regional "peace" was finally insured.

Technology: While the laziness of Levantine Arabs during Ottoman Occupation cannot be faulted terribly, their current laziness can. Why have the Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip not invested in technologies to perfect modern agricultural techniques or develop a strong service sector? Nobody is stopping the Lebanese, Syrians, or Jordanians from doing this? They actively make the choice to leave their lands fallow at this point. Salaam Fayyad is trying to motiv

ate the Palestinian economy, but is still not making the big jump to modern agriculture or a strong domestic economic production.

Democracy: There are just a large number of inaccuracies here. Firstly, there are 6 million Israeli Jews. There are about 3.7 million Palestinians in the Palestinian Territories, another 1.3 million in Israel and around 2 million Palestinians living in Refugee Camps outside of the former British Mandate. So that makes 7 million total Palestinians to the 6 million Israeli Jews, not exactly 10:1. However, if we excise the 2 million "out of state" Palestinians, the Jews are actually still a majority. 6 million Jews to 5 million Palestinians.

As to the question of "honor". Every Palestinian presented with Israeli citizenship has taken it. There are currently 1.3 million Palestinian Israelis, some by birth, some who got citizenship through a past marriage to an Israeli citizen, and some who got citizenship through the Jerusalem Law of 1980 (this was when Palestinian East Jerusalem was properly annexed to Israeli West Jerusalem). There have not been anything other than isolated incidents of Palestinians rejecting Israeli citizenship. The only that has en masse rejected Israeli citizenship are the non-Palestinian Syrian Druze of the Golan Heights. (Some say that this is an issue of "honor" and others say it is fear of reprisals should the Golan Heights revert to Syria.)

The Shin Bet (not Bet Shin) is an Israeli hybrid of the American FBI with some aspects of the French Gendarmerie. They do not function as strikebreakers, torturers, or intimidators. While there are problems in Israeli prisons, the Israeli government is trying to address them. There are also certainly cases of torture in the Palestinian Territories done by the Israeli Military in prisons, but these abuses are limited to those places and several such instances have been contested at the Israeli Supreme Court, with verdicts for the abused. As for any prohibition on peaceful expression of Palestinian identity in Israel or the Occupied Territories, this is also false. The Palestinian flag is completely legitimate, protests are completely legitimate, and even MKs (Members of the Knesset) have brought these symbols into the Parliament building and have actively walked out during the recitation of the Israeli National Anthem.

In short, Israel is clearly a democracy since every citizen can vote and argue about what the law should be in a clear and open forum.

Answer 2: Pro-Palestinian

After living for 17 years in the Middle East, I feel that the Palestinians have, by far, a superior claim to the land. To support this, allow me to analyze the following arguments used (by both sides).

1. Religious.

While the fight is about land, no one can deny that religion is a part of it. Many Jews claim that they have a historical/biblical right to the land, as well as the city of Jerusalem. Ironically, only a slim percentage of professing Jews claim to be religious, and the majority of that percentage is made up of converts, and the majority of those don't even live in Palestine. The Palestinians, however, are practicing Muslims and Christians, with claims to such sights as the Dome of the Rock and Church of the Nativity (in addition to other Christian holy sights in Jerusalem such as the Holy Sepulcher). If the land were to be awarded on a religious basis, then the Palestinians would win easily.

2. Ethnic.

Some would claim that the Israelis have a claim to the land due to their Semitic nature. This argument is seriously flawed. The vast majority of Israelis are immigrants who have been living in Europe for the past two millenia. Over time, intermarriage would've weakened the Semetic genes to the point where European Jews are, genetically, more European than Semitic. On the other hand, the Palestinians are completely Semitic.

3. Historical

The historical claim is a tie, at best. The Israelis, who are largely immigrants from Europe have as many ties to Europe as they do Palestine. The same is true about the Palestinians who have been living in the area for millenias. History isn't the best way to fairly decide who has a better claim.

4. Legal

Many claim that Israelies have a claim to Palestine because it was created for them by the British. Again, this is a flawed argument, since the Palestinians were never consulted. While it is true that some (and only some) Palestinians sold land to immigrating Jews, the majority of Palestinian land has been forcefully seized by Israel (take Deir Yassin for example). Legally, Palestinians have a much stronger claim to Palestine.

5. Conquest

There are also some who claim that Israelis deserve Palestine by right of conquest, but if this were true, then one could effectively claim that the majority of Western Europe belongs to Germany, which conquered it in WWII. Additionally, it could be claimed that China deserves Tibet, despite Tibet's insistence that they deserve independence. Let's face it- might does not make right, and on this basis, the land should go to Palestinians.

6. Technological/Agricultural

Some claim that before the Israelis came, Palestine was rugged, unused, and undeveloped, and that the Israelis, who did develop the land, deserve it more than the Palestinians, who lazily did nothing. This is again, a flawed argument. While it is true that Palestine was largely undeveloped, this was not the fault of the Palestinians. The Ottoman Turks, have forced a Feudal System on the Arabs, prevented them from ever having access to modern tools, or having the ability to work large pieces of land. The British were more concerned with controlling Palestine than developing it and because of these factors, Palestinians simply could not develop their land. Since it logically follows that, if the Palestinians had a choice between developing their land or leaving it fallow, would've chosen to develop it, then it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have a better claim.

7. Democratic

Perhaps the most often used argument is that Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East. However, the definition of "Democracy" is a government by the majority of the people. Since the majority of people living in Palestine are Palestinians (outnumbering the Israelis nearly 10 to 1), it would seem that there would be a Palestinian government- not an Israeli one. By the very definition, Israel is not a Democracy, since the majority does not have a say in the government. Some would argue that Israel has welcomed Palestinians to become Israelis, but again, this argument is flawed. Israel is aware that due to the Palestinian perception of honor, Palestinians will generally refuse to become Israelis. Israel's encouragement is purely for the sake of appearing Democratic. If the Palestinians actually did all become Israelis, they could literally vote the government away from the Jewish-Israeli minority.

Furthermore, Israel, despite its constant denials, orders actions and legislates laws that are highly Un-Democratic. Israel uses an an agency called the Bet Shin as strikebreakers, torturers, and intimidators. It is also against Israeli law to own, use, or wear a Palestinian flag or any reproduction of a Palestinian flag.

In short, Israel is NOT a Democracy and so no one can use the argument that a Democratic state takes precedent over a people group who may or may not form a Democratic state.

In conclusion, it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have a better claim to Palestine.

Answer 3: Pro-Israeli - There are No "Real" Palestinians
The word "palestine/filistin" is not even an Arabic word by origin !, ask any scholar how do you say Palestinians in Arabic!? there isn't a word called Palestinians in Arabic because there isn't such nation!
Arabs cant even pronounce the "P" in Palestine since the "p" doesn't even exist in Arabic ! they pronounce it "(B)alestine" or "(f)ilistin"
the word palestine/filistin comes from a LATIN via GREEK via
HEBREW word The Philistines (Hebrew פְלִשְׁתִּים, p'lishtim, lit. "invaders") from Greece , Myceneans not- MUSLIM ARABs !!
(so in Hebrew the word "palestinians" lit means = INVADERS)
the Romans ( who changed the name from judea to syria-palestina) used the word to describe a -REGION- never a nation nor a country!
after the victory of the british army over the Turks
the brits divided the land into 3 pieces, 2for the Arabs one for the Jews.(Transjordan was given to the "hashemite" from Saudi Arabia)
the Arabs rejected the UN 2 state solution.
opened a holy "war 1948" against the israelites (7 countries VS 1 small israel) LOST land. and what do you know..
say hello to the EX-jordanians & egyptians =the "palestinians"
Gaza was Egypt before israel won it in the "Six-Day War 67" and the west bank was Jordan there were no "PALESTINIANS" back then!
(ever wondered why the jordanian flag = hashemite flag, looks exactly like the fakestinian flag?)
they say they lived there all along,,, well....
lets read together those reports from people who actually visited the holy land.... before 1900 shell we kids..??
"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature.
- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad",
1867 -
"There are many proofs, such as ancient ruins, broken aqueducts, and remains of old roads, which show that it has not always been so desolate as it seems now. In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life. There some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins .."
- B. W. Johnson, in "Young Folks in Bible Lands": Chapter IV, 1892 -
"The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil".
- British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s -
"Palestine is a ruined and desolate land".
- Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian -
"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population".
- James Finn, British Consul in 1857 -
"The area was under populated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab.
- The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913 -
-Ibn Khaldun (Arabic: أبو زيد ولي الدين عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن خلدون الحضرمي)-
one of the most creditable Arab historians, in 1377 c.e. wrote:
"Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years... It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement".
"In the East, however, crafts have established themselves since the days of ancient Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Israelite, Greek and Roman rule".
[Ibid., p 55]
in The 13th century Arab biographer -Yaqut ibn-'Abdullah Ar-Rumi (Arabic: ياقوت الحموي الرومي‎)- noted Mecca is holy to Muslims; Jerusalem is holy only to the Jews
"Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata" - a detailed geographical survey of Palestine in 1696 written in Latin by Adriaan Reland published by Willem Broedelet, Utrecht, in 1714.
Residents of the REGION mainly concentrated in cities: Jerusalem, Acre, Safed, Jaffa, Tiberias and Gaza.
In most cities, the majority of residents are Christians, Jews and others, very few Muslims who generally are Bedouin, seasonal workers who came to serve as Seasonal workers in agriculture or building.
Nablus: 120 Muslims, 70 Samaritans
Nazareth: 700 people - all Christians
Umm al-Fahm: 50 people-10 families, ALL Christian
Gaza: 550 people- 300 Jews,250 Christian(Jews engaged in agriculture ,Christians deal with the trading and transporting the products)
Tiberias: 300 residents, all Jews.
Safed: about 200 inhabitants, all Jews
Jerusalem :5000 people,most of them (3,500) Jews,the rest - Christian (1000) Muslim (500)
note* (no Muslims in Gaza) !
-Professor Azmi Bishara(Arabic: عزمي بشارة)- a "palestinian Arab"
"There is no "palestinian nation" !
when were there any Palestinians??? LOL
until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of "Greater Syria" another resent invention.
there is only an Arab nation !
the word "palestine" its self is a colonial invention used by the Romans in order to erase the Jewish identity of judea and israel.
even the "Palestinian National Charter" recognizes all the Jews living in the region prior to the 1948 war as "palestinians" !
its an intellectual fad, divorced from the concerns