Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I don't think reflecting on history that the creation of Israel as was done in a way that was a catalyst for today's violence in the region, and perhaps there would be less of that if it hadn't occurred in the way it did is somehow wrong, is it?
The US is a more apt comparison, not the Canada was perfect or that it isn't debatable, but at least we sought peace and treaties, whereas the US sought destruction and conquering.
|
That's fair but your initial comment had much stronger language.
It's unimaginably hard (at least for me) to understand the complexity and difficulty with setting up any new state. In the (let's call it) Jewish colonization of modern Israel there was some violence in the establishment of the new state. Just as there was in Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. During the actual establishment of Israel, you could argue that the level of violence was lesser than what was experienced in the other nations I listed. Most of the violence in Israel and as a result of the forming of the country happened afterwards and most of it was initiated by neighbours who did not necessarily have good intentions. So, if we agree that setting up new countries is messy and bloody then the question, at least for me, is "does that country have a right to exist?" Or does any country have a right to exist if it's founded on bloodshed? If the answer is 'no' then there is probably no country in the world today that 'deserves' to exist.