TED Conversations

Roger Farinha

Founder, New American Spring

This conversation is closed.

Should Israel go all out?

Israel clearly exists as a nation on the basis of its claim to have been given its traditional land borders by the revelation of the one true God. Compromise therefore doesn't make sense. "In for a penny, in for a pound." Should Israel just chuck in its tiptoeing around the various international and Arab demands, take its original borders, and let its very existence rest on the promise of God? To me, this is the only rational option, given the very identity of the Jewish people. What say you?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 24 2012: One question might be whether Israel needs additional land, or are they able to meet their needs adequately with the amount of land that they have? If they are able to meet their needs adequately, perhaps there is no need to take more land, and taking it would provoke ill will, and be dangerous to them.
    • thumb
      Nov 24 2012: Its hard to imagine more local ill will. It seems that they will always be hated to why not just go all out for historical border integrity?
      • Nov 25 2012: Why not go a bit less back in history and then the arabs went all out instead? Where is it proper to go back in history? One hundred years? One thousand? Two thousand? Why do you think that Israel has more rights to the land than any other cultures?

        Who owned the lands where you live originally? How far back are you willing to go to figure out "historical" borders and thus rightful owners? Will you leave the place to their descendants? Why should they not go all the way out against you?
      • Nov 25 2012: Roger, you make me sick. I will leave you alone now. If you represent the way people think when they are "enlightened" this planet will not last much.
        • thumb
          Nov 25 2012: I'm not espousing anything, I'll say it again. I'm just putting fodder for the mind to chew on. I was hoping that TED could attract people who can dialogue with good natures and not get hot under the collar.
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2012: Roger, your historical view is very focused on the period of Jewish cultural of these lands, perhaps through a Judeo- Christian lens.

        I note the lands were probably settled by other peoples for millennia before the evolution of the "Jewish" tribes. Over the last 4,000 years Jewish control has been in the minority. Canaanites, Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Romans, Muslims etc. Actually, didn't the Eastern Roman Christian Empire kick out the Jews from the Levant?

        Over the last 7 centuries they have been Muslim controlled lands, with < 10% Jews until the collapse of the Ottoman empire after WW1.

        So your "historical" borders seem to be a very narrow and biased perspective.

        I can understand why many Palestinians and Muslims in general are still outraged that the WW2 Victorious Western Powers on the security council tried to create 2 states, one Jewish in lands that have been Muslim for much of the last millennia.

        Religion just exacerbates the whole problem. Religious Myopia. Different groups thinking they have the absolute truth, who all disagree on what it is, and not compelling evidence to support any of it.
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2012: well, I would say you can always have more ill will than you already have, roger. I think Israel tries to engender as little ill will as possible.
        I actually like my first question, which is, if Israel doesn't need the land, why go to large pains and much bloodshed to get it? What's so important about having the land in the Bible? Why do you think this particular standard is so important to you?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.