Senior Thesis - Proof Three, Parts One & Two

The Right of the Jews to the Land of Israel, Proof III

Meritorious Right

The Jewish nation not only possesses the right of military conquest and historical ownership, but the right of merit as well. Under the hands of the Jews the land of Israel has blossomed from a bare desert to a prosperous nation in a short 64 years. Since 1948 Israel has developed into a country with more companies in NASDAQ than all of Europe combined, ranking third after the U.S. and China; in 2008, it had more than twice the global venture capital of the U.S., 30 times that of Europe and 80 times that of China. (Student Life, Dan Senor Speaks About Israel’s Economic Success by Becky Prager.) This is merely one of many statistics proving, in simple black-and-white fact, that the Jews have earned their right to possess Israel.

Merit, according to definition, is “the quality or actions that constitute the basis of one’s rewards or punishments.” Our fundamental sense of justice, an innate part of every human being’s consciousness, creates an awareness of what we and others deserve for our actions. The idea of justice is also an important concept in the history of human rights, something for which wars have been fought, laws have been passed, violence has been perpetrated, and philosophies have been formed. I don’t attempt to argue that, because the Jews suffered the horrors of the Holocaust in the mid-twentieth century, they deserve a land of their own, though it certainly should be compensation. Rather, the fact that Israel’s economy has flourished since 1948 proves that they are amply capable of its care, representing the only democracy in the tempestuous Mideast.

1.) Economic History of prosperity

Economically Israel’s recent history has been characterized by growth and prosperity. During the British Mandate as Britain was preparing to hand Israel over to the Jews, their economical and political systems developed separately from those of the Palestinians’; Israel experienced rapid growth during this era due to the influx of both immigrants and capital. After this, in spite of the financial challenges it faced with immediate wars, new settlements, and adjustment to new government, its transition from British territory to Jewish state went relatively smoothly. Israel introduced a New Economic Policy in 1952 and achieved an especially high growth rate from 1950 to 1965 – real GNP increased by 11% while GDP per capita grew by 6%. “Following independence, the new state’s economy was structured around three basic elements: high defense costs, mass immigration absorption, and the building of new institutions such as banks, a national insurance institute, and government agencies, all of which necessitated massive infusions of public money into the economy.” (MERIA, Middle Eastern Journal of International Affairs, Journal, Volume 6, No. 3 - September 2002, Israel’s Economic Growth; Success Without Security, by Linda Sharby.)

2.) Success Against All Odds

As demonstrated by this brief summary of Israel’s economic history, the Jews faced and overcame numerous challenges at the inception of their new state. A mere few of the numerous odds against them were; a wasteland left by centuries of foreign misrule, six wars, enemies on all sides, an economic boycott by the disgruntled Arabs, an isolated diplomacy, and monumental task of creating a new nation from scratch. “Nonetheless, Israel has a strong, modern, and diversified economy that in 2000 posted an annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $104.1 billion, 40% of which consisted of exports of goods and services. Growth for 2000 reached six percent. Israel’s per capita Gross National Income (GNI) for 2000, at almost $17,000, placed the state ahead of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and New Zealand… 64-year-old Israel now ranks as a high-income economy and was identified as one of the most global emerging markets by Foreign Policy magazine’s Globalization Index. Over the past decade, Israel’s high-technology industry, second only to California’s Silicon Valley in concentration of firms, powered economic growth and attracted massive Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to the country, a figure that reached $4.4 billion in 2000.” (MERIA, Middle Eastern Journal of International Affairs, Journal, Volume 6, No. 3 - September 2002, Israel’s Economic Growth; Success Without Security, by Linda Sharby.)

As Mr. Wohstetter of the American Spectator points out in his article Israeli Exceptionalism, the United States at its inception was faced with none of Israel’s challenges – America was a land rich in natural resources, protected by two oceans, and populated by a few primitive Indian tribes, yet it took a full century to progress from George Washington’s inauguration to the “final frontier.” “Along the way, America had time to develop and prosper, shielded from the destructive wars of monarchical Europe, until in 1917 it came to the rescue of a Europe attempting to commit suicide.

“Israel had no such luxury. Shooting started the very night that news of the November 29, 1947 UN partition resolution reached the Mideast, and continued through Israel's May 14, 1948 proclamation of statehood. Sixty-three years of unremitting Arab hostility have followed. Israel is a tiny island surrounded by more than one-quarter of a billion Arabs, virtually none of whom think there should be a single Jew in the Mideast.” (The American Spectator, Israeli Exceptionalism, by John D. Wohlstetter.)  

 In 1867, 81 years before the Jews took possession, American author Mark Twain described the Holy Land, outside of Jewish settlements: “There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent--not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings...” Yet in less than a century, under the care of the Jews, Israel became one of the most prosperous nations in the world, surpassing even highly developed countries such as the U.S. in high-tech developments, exports, sales profits, etc., especially since it shifted its economic policy from socialistic to capitalistic during the past twenty years. She ranks third in the world in the number of university graduates per capita, possesses the highest per capita number of scientists in the world, publishes the largest amount of scientific papers per capita in the world, possesses one of the lowest inflation rates during the global economic crisis (2.3 %,) and the 24^th largest economy in the world, (in spite of being the 81^st smallest country.) Israel’s economy is based on significant resources such as copper, sulfur, citrus, dairy, vegetables, poultry and beef while the industry is primarily composed of high-tech projects, along with chemical and plastic productions. This makes for a highly diversified economy, a prerequisite to political and national financial stability.

 In 64 years Israel has been forced to fight 6 full-scale defensive wars to maintain her place in the nucleus of the Middle East. Yet she has developed into one of the most industrious and fertile nations in the world. How did this happen?

“Against the backdrop of the events that typically cause Israel to be in the news …people often forget that there are normal things happening in Israel. And in many cases, extraordinary things, like the amazing performance of the Israeli economy over the past decade. Haaretz reports that the TA-25, the flagship index of the Israeli stock market, has increased forty percent in the last year. A period that has included a month of warfare, massive public discontent with the Israeli political echelon, and the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. …What accounts for this growth? A vital factor is of course the Israeli culture, which embraces entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and ingenuity… (Michael J. Totten, Middle East Journal, July 13, 2007, The Israeli Economic Miracle, by Noah Pollak)

Aside from supernatural factors, which are clearly the key to the Jews’ success, several Jewish characteristics help explain how they overcame the monumental challenges facing their new country to meet with such results. For one thing, their enemies have been predominantly external, excepting the violent pockets of Palestinians throughout the country. Israel has never experienced a civil war, nor does it appear that she will anytime in the near future. Moreover, her military is one of the best in the world – out of necessity Israel has invested significant amounts of time, money and resources into defending her borders. “National military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although Arab citizens are exempted if they so please and other exceptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds.  Men serve three years in the IDF, while women serve two.” (Wikipedia, Israel Defense Force, Service) In 2010 Israel’s money supply decreased which could lead to stability in the long term – flooding a country with excess cash can lead to inflation, but Israel should be able to keep their inflation low. (MoneyNews.com, Israel: A Safe Haven of Economic Prosperity by Jacob Wolinsky) 

All of these practical factors contributed to Israel’s unexpected economical success. From a pragmatic point of view, the Jews overcame impossible odds by mustering their available resources and indefatigable Jewish ingenuity to make their nation one of the most prosperous leaders in the world today. Contrast their country to Cyprus, which was likewise ruined by Turkish rule, yet stands far beneath Israel in terms of financial success. Cyprus’ climate and agriculture are very similar to Israel’s. Perhaps the different nationalities occupying these territories have something to do with this contrast.  

A Greek Rhetorician and an American Pastor

I wrote this essay last year for my rhetoric class. It's intriguing to see the influence that Greek rhetoricians still have on modern thought and speech, though they have been dead for centuries. Thanks to classical tradition, this speech made history when it was given by black civil rights idealist, Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. In this essay I attempted to pinpoint just a few of Aristotle's ancient yet effective rhetorical techniques employed by King in this speech. 

            “One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity…still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition”…

            This famous speech given by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28^th, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial five years before his assassination, utilizes many human emotions and numerous methods of persuasion. One of the most dominant emotions evoked by King’s words is pity – pity for the plight of the black man and for social inequality in our country. Another is indignation – still others are anger, sadness, shame… emotions all analyzed by Aristotle in his The Art of Rhetoric. The Greek philosopher, nearly two thousand years before Dr. King’s time, outlined specific methods for provoking these emotions, methods put here into practice by King. His use of pathos is the decisive element in the effectiveness of this speech – it is what stirred so many American spirits and became the defining moment in the black race’s struggle for equality.

            The two main emotions to which King appeals in this speech are pity and indignation. Moreover it is not so much an appeal directed towards the oppressed as to the oppressors of America, designed to compel them to feel ashamed, drive them to action, and open their eyes to the harsh reality around them. No one, whether white or black, young or old, has heard this speech and remained unmoved by the preacher’s powerful words, crafted with these emotions in mind. They are effective because of the skill of a very persuasive orator, one who would have made Aristotle proud.

            The first and perhaps the most dominant emotion provoked is pity… “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality…We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only".”… Americans who are blind to the situation of inequality among blacks and whites are made acutely aware of its injustice as King portrays our racist society of 1963. Those who are aware and have done nothing are provoked to guilt by these scenarios. Those who are the victims of the injustice are moved from apathy to action. For all, pity is an emotion very powerful and important in regards to King’s aim, which is to peacefully end the social injustices suffered by the Negroes.      

            Aristotle states in his guide to persuasion that the key to stirring up any emotion is to know the states of men’s minds when they are full of this emotion, to know what causes them to feel the emotion, and to know what kinds of men feel the emotion. He must also be aware of how to take advantage of this knowledge. Dr. King utilizes this knowledge of the state of men’s minds when they feel pity, what causes them to feel pity and what kinds of men feel pity. Aristotle’s definition of pity is “a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil thing, destructive or painful which befalls one who does not deserve it.” King demonstrates to us that we should pity the oppressed Negro – “We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied...” 

         At the opposite end of the spectrum are the people who cannot feel pity – those who think it impossible for similar evils to befall them and who think they possess all the good things of life. These are the people such as the opponents of and passive bystanders to, the Negros’ fight for freedom… the “vicious racists,… [Alabama’s] governor having his lips dripping with the words ‘interposition’ and ‘nullification’..” of the “dark and desolate valley of segregation.” 

         King also employs the technique of repetition to pound home the message of  social racism’s injustice with phrases such as “now is the time,” we must/cannot”, “let freedom ring,” and, his most famous phrase, “I have a dream.” Those who are not suffering under these conditions are moved to pity for those who are, and the oppressed are likewise moved to pity each other and themselves. Perhaps some blacks standing in Washington that day had previously shut their eyes to their position, felt apathetic, or accepted the situation as their only known mode of life. But on August 28^th of 1963 they could not help being moved to realization and action. Blacks and whites everywhere, across time and land, were captivated by the power of King’s words. “Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.”

            The second primary emotion evoked by this speech is indignation; “…we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient find s in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.” Indignation became a major drive for blacks and whites alike in the civil rights struggle of the 60's - it expressed itself in indigation towards racist whites, towards Southerners in general, towards the laws and government of the nation which had caused so much stifling of equality,  and towards America as a whole. 

         Thus Luther addresses two domininant emotions which played powerful roles in this historic struggle. These emotions, indignation and pity, are ones which Aristotle defined thousands of years ago, ones common to mankind throughout the ages, ones as powerful in modern America as in ancient Greece. Human pathos existed then as it exists now, and Aristotle's pathetic appeal is still capable of stirring men to action - to speak out, to make new laws, to address corruption and oppression, and to try their best to change the world. 

Proof 2 - Right of Conquest, Part One

     This is the first part of my senior thesis' second proof concerning the right of military conquest. Enjoy and leave your comments below, critical or otherwise!


          “In international law, the Right of Conquest is defined as ‘the purported right of a conqueror to territory which he has taken by force of arms.’ This theory is based on the proposition that a state which emerges victorious in war is entitled to claim ownership of the land of which it has taken possession during a war.” (Right of Conquest, Real Property, Real Properties Information) This Right of Conquest, however, was gradually modified after World War Two when aggression was made an official crime codified in the Nuremburg Principles and passed in 1974 as United Nations resolution 3314:  “The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world… the devastation of World Wars I and II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellog-Bridan Pact, the post-1945 Nuremburg  Trials, the UN charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle.” (Right of Conquest, Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia)

            However, in Joshua’s day, conquest was certainly a legal right in formal international law. (Some may argue that the right of conquest is also still legitimate today in spite of the United Nations, based on the assumption that the conquering force is more capable of securing peace and stability to the territory than the lawfully entitled governance of which it has taken over.) But whether or not a modern country currently has the right to invade and conquer territory is irrelevant, for when Joshua dispossessed the Canaan approximately three thousand years ago, he was entitled to do so by the authority of God and the authority of the sword; that is, the right of conquest. No American has ever suggested, during the short two hundred years or so that this country has existed, that we should return the United States to the Native American tribes, its original owners. So why should Israel return land (which they owned for seven hundred years until the Babylonian captivity) to ancient peoples such as the Canaanites and the Jebusites? Land in which they maintained a continuous presence until they were granted its legal rights in 1948? Every nation that has possessed Israel throughout history has won it by the sword, yet strangely, it is only when the Jews defeat aggressive Arab invaders and claim land historically their own that dissenting voices arise.

            The first step in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan was the destruction of Jericho. In the Torah, Joshua sent two spies from their encampment at Shittim across the Jordan into the city to explore, where they stayed with Rahab the harlot. After they returned to Joshua’s camp the Israelites set out to march around Jericho every day for six days.  On the seventh day, Hashem commanded them to march around the city seven times and conclude by blowing their shofars and giving a loud shout. As they did this, the walls of the great city miraculously disintegrated and the Israelites took Jericho. They went on to conquer Ai, accept the surrender of the Gibeonites, kill the king of Bethel, gain control of Shechem, (completing the conquest of northern Canaan,) and decisively defeat southern Canaan as well. The land was then partitioned according to Hashem’s commands, each tribe receiving their allotted portion of land.

            Thus Israel belonged to the Jews hundreds of years before ancient empires such as Rome and Greece even existed – through military strength they conquered Canaan’s inhabitants and maintained their presence in Israel until the Babylonian exile. After they returned from Babylon they also continued to live in the land until a portion of it became legally their own once more in 1948. In spite of being surrounded on all sides by hostile Arab nations who opposed their state status when the United Nations’ resolution was passed, they have remained a strong State of Israel for sixty-four years. 

Right of Merit?

This is an open-ended post, as I would like your input on this one, followers :)
I am wondering, is there such thing as meritorious right?
To elaborate.... We know that the Jews deserve to live in Israel, but do you think that one of the reasons is because they earned it? Because, under their care, the desert blossomed and sprouted economically? Do you think that is a good reason to deserve something?
The pro-Palestinians and "anti-Zionists" (a not-so-subtle euphemism for anti-Semites,) would argue that the Jews took their land, and it doesn't matter whether it prospered or not; it's still theirs. What would you have to say to this?
If you "took" someone's house (and this is not a very good analogy, because we know the Jews did not snatch Israel out of the Palesinians' hands,) and then planted a nice garden in front, fixed up the trimming and made it look nice, does that mean that you are now the rightful owner? I am not so sure about this one. I was intending to use it as the basis for my third proof of my thesis, but I am not sure if it is even a valid argument. I would really like to know what you think.
Please comment below, or even email me! I could use the help!!

The Right of the Jews to the Land Of Israel - 2

About a month ago I posted the first part of my thesis' first proof. This first proof is that of historical right - essentially proving through history that the Jews are Israel's legitimate owners. In my latest post I outlined history's general summary of Jews in Israel - in this post I will attempt to back that up with archaeological evidence, upon which huge importance is placed in today's scientific, rationalistic world. This research was very rewarding, because it's important to know that tangible proof of our ownership exists. Enjoy :)

The Jews’ historical presence in Israel is not only found in the records of the past, but embodied in physical objects of today, such as jewelry, writings, art, furniture, buildings and so forth. As historian Andrea Berlin said, archaeologists view physical remains as cultural data. For many, items such as money or pottery serve as factual evidence that something or someone once existed where it was found. Monuments and artifacts that have stood the test of time transport us back into history in order to see characteristics of previous cultures, to ponder their ideas and thoughts - even to discover new civilizations. Physical remains exist as proof to our pragmatic eyes that lands were settled, nations were born, wars were fought and ancient communities lived and worked in modern territories. It is simple to discard the Torah and claim that the Jews never existed in the Holy Land – that their presence was conjured up by pro-Israel fanatics seeking to discredit the Arabs. But it is not so easy to dismiss shards of Hebrew pottery found in the south of Jerusalem dating back 3,000 years ago, nor artifacts found inside the Temple Mount and Old City of David from 1000 BCE.

The evidence of the Jews’ existence reaches even further back into the past than David, however. According to the Torah, Joseph lived in Egypt for 93 years serving the Pharaoh. Historical evidence supports this account also - “Imhotep (2655-2600 BCE, Egyptian ii-m-hatāp meaning "the one who comes in peace") was an Egyptian polymath, who served under the Third Dynasty king, Djoser, as chancellor to the pharaoh … He is considered to be the first architect and engineer and physician in early history… The Upper Egyptian Famine Stela, dating from the Ptolemaic period, bears an inscription containing a legend about a famine of seven years during the reign of Djoser. Imhotep is credited with having been instrumental in ending it.” (Wikipedia, Imhotep) The similarities between the historical Imhotep and the Biblical Joseph are too vast to be ignored – according to history, both were physicians, architects, and overseers; moreover, both lived to be 110 years of age, married into the priesthood of On, interpreted dreams, instituted a tax of one-fifth, and came from families of twelve. (Were Joseph and Imhotep the Same Man? The Genesis of Israel and Egypt, by Emmet Sweeney, 2001,2nd Edition)

From Joseph’s family, who later joined him in Egypt, emerged the numerous Jewish people, a nation fathered by Joseph and his eleven brothers, the Twelve Tribes of Israel. According to the Torah, the Jews remained in Egypt in the small region of Goshen for 430 years after Joseph. Extraneous evidence supports this fact as well – for instance the details of Egyptian life given in the Torah are surprisingly consistent with the historical culture of the time: “If the Israelites did not spend time in Egypt, it is unclear how the author of Genesis and Exodus would have known enough to so accurately describe Egyptian… customs… In the Joseph narrative, when the author mentions the titles of the Egyptian officials, he employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used in the period referred to….In Genesis 41:40 Pharoah elevates Joseph to a high position, which corresponds precisely to the office of prime minister or vizier of Egypt, who was the chief administrator in the country, second in power to Pharaoh himself.” (Quartz Hill School of Theology, Israel’s Sojourn in Eyypt.)

A papyrus scroll in the Brooklyn Museum dating from the reign of Sobekhotep III (the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses) was acquired in the late 1800s by Charles Wilbour. It is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves, half of which are Semitic in origin. (Did the Exodus Happen? Answering the Skeptics, by Dr. David Lewis) A city called Avaris, unearthed by the Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak in the land of Goshen underneath the city of Rameses, provides additional proof of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt; “The people who lived in Avaris were not Egyptian but Asiatic Palestinian or Syrian. The finds there included numerous pottery fragments of Palestinian origin. Several factors about the graves were particularly fascinating: - 65% of the burials were of children under 18 months of age, the norm for this period being 20-30%. Could this be due to the killing of the male Israelite children by the Egyptians, recorded in Exodus 1:22?” (Did the Exodus Happen? Answering the Skeptics, by Dr. David Lewis, John Fulton)

If the Jews’ presence in Egypt can thus be so conclusively proved through archaeology, it must follow that the subsequent Exodus and conquest of Canaan recorded in the Torah is also true. The Egyptian historian Manetho recounts how Egypt collapsed in the reign of Dudimose: ‘In [Dudimose’s] reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). [These were the Amalakites, or “Hyksos,” as they came to be called.] By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly… and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.” The Amalekite invaders thus found the Egyptian nation, devastated by Divine judgment, easy prey.

A papyrus dating from the end of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom was found in the early 19th century and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. “The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian.” (The Ten Plagues – Live from Egypt by Rabbi Mordechai Becher, Ohr Samayach) Some suggestive phrases found in this papyrus are, “Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere….The river is blood… Men shrink from tasting and thirst after …All is ruin. All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan... The land is without light… the children of princes are cast out in the street… he who places his brother in the ground is everywhere. It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations… Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze… are fastened on the necks of female slaves….” These events correspond exactly to the ones recorded in the Torah – the plagues of blood, cattle disease, darkness, death of the firstborn, and the plunder of the Egyptians.

After their departure from Egypt, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. They conquered Canaan around 1250 BCE under their leader Joshua. They established their presence and remained in this land until the Babylonian exile in 598 BCE.

If the Jews’ own proof were not enough, and one still found oneself in need of external sources to be convinced, other ancient cultures testify to the presence of Jews in Israel. The Tel Dan Stele is an inscribed stone discovered in 1993 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel dates back to the 9th century BCE - its author was a king of Damascus, Hazaelor, and it contains an Aramaic inscription commemorating victories over local ancient peoples including "Israel" and the "House of David." The Mesha Stele from around the same period is similar, written by King Mesha of the Moabites. “Revisionists insist there was no such entity as "Israel" until at least the 9th century BCE. Yet a well known Egyptian inscription dated to about 1210 BCE clearly identifies an Israel in the land of Canaan as a people that had to be reckoned with. The inscription, which depicts the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan, reads in part: ‘Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more.’” (Archaeology and the Bible, pt.2, by Rabbi Dovid Lichtman, aish.com) Thus the presence of Jews in the land of Canaan, conquered by them under Joshua, is not only confirmed by their own history recorded in the Torah, but by extraneous evidence from other contemporary cultures.

The Right of the Jews to the Land of Israel

Hello! 
Wow, it sure has been awhile.... who knew summer vacation could be so busy??? (Vacation?? What's that?? I think I may have heard that word somewhere before....)
This is part of the thesis I am currently working on about the legitimacy of the Jews' claim to Israel. This thesis consists of four proofs - historical right, right of conquest, right of merit, and legal right.In the first proof, I have attempted to prove through history why the Jews should possess Israel.
Any comments and criticisms will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy! (Note: This is only part of proof one - for those of you who know me, you won't be surprised to learn that I got a little carried away :) )

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity. It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store." (Charles Krauthammer, The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998)

Shakespeare said, “Time is the justice that examines all offenders.” It is an honored element binding together nations, peoples, traditions, beliefs… and possessions. Often we give credence to an idea because it is old. We value objects with long pasts, not merely because they have been widely accepted, but because they have stood the test of time. Likewise nations dwelling in an area of the world for centuries have proven that they are bound to their land; they possess a connection stronger than money or legal documents – this bond is their past, and a past is perhaps the most significant of all links between person and place that exist.

The Jewish people settled the towns and states of ancient Canaan around 3000 BCE under Joshua.  King David conquered Jerusalem in 1000 and established a powerful Israelite kingdom over much of Canaan including parts of Transjordan. When his son Solomon died, the kingdom was divided into Judea in the south and Israel in the north. The Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 BCE and 136 years later the Babylonians took over, sending the Jewish people into exile. 50 years after that, the Persian king Cyrus conquered the Babylonians and allowed some of the Jews to return to their homeland. Cyrus was followed by Alexander the Great and then by Alexander’s general Seleucus. Finally, in 167 BCE, the Jewish people drove the Seleucids out of their land. 

However, the Jews were foreordained to enjoy their freedom for only 106 years –the new masters of the world, the Romans, sacked Jerusalem in 61 BCE. They ruled Israel until the 300s, (AD) when the Byzantines took over, followed by the Muslims, the Turks, the Crusaders, the French and then the British. It seemed as though every nation in the world was destined to control the Holy Land at one point or another during history.

Throughout these periods of foreign invasion, the Jewish people never stopped travelling to Israel and settling in the land. By the fourteenth century large Jewish and Arab populations existed there. The first wave of modern Jewish immigrants settled in Israel in 1881, during what is known as the “First Aliyah.”  The Zionist movement, propagating a return of Jews to their land, became a formal organization in 1897 with the first Zionist congress in Basle, Switzerland, organized by Theodor Herzl.  The principal goal of the Zionists was to establish a Jewish homeland in the Palestine area, populated by Jews from all over the world. Then the Second Aliyah began 20 years later with the immigration of over 40, 000 Jews from Eastern Europe in 1904. By 1914 there were at least 100, 000 Jews in Israel.  

In 1917, the British expressed their support of the creation of a Jewish homeland in Israel with the Balfour Declaration, which stated, “His Majesty's government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a  national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…” Also in 1917, the new Jewish Legion, a group of volunteers, aided the British in their conquest of Israel. From this Jewish Legion and the violence sparked by Arab riots in the 1920s sprung the Haganah, Israel’s future army of the early twentieth century.

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Aliyahs were initiated by the growing anti-Semitism and rise of Nazism in Europe – together these waves of immigration brought 350, 000 more Jews to the Holy Land. However the Arab revolt during 1936-1939 caused the British to tighten restrictions on Jewish immigration and the Jews to form a clandestine movement called the Aliyah Bet, which smuggled Jews into Israel under the noses of the British. Many Jewish immigrants, however, were turned away or rounded up by English soldiers and detained in camps such as the one on the island of Cyprus. The cessation of British support of a Jewish state in Israel had the unintended effect of placing the Jews on the offensive and in open opposition of Britain.

Finally in 1947 the British officially announced their decision to end their Mandate in Israel.  The newly created United Nations approved the “Partition Plan for Palestine”, (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181,) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was designated a corpus separatum—an international city—to be administered by the UN. A United Nations Special Committee was created to draft proposals for a Jewish state in Palestine and the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14^th, 1948.

            “[The Jews’ claim to their land] was not a new claim, but rather a reassertion of a historic right that had never been conceded or forgotten. Even after the destruction of the last Jewish commonwealth in the first century, the Jewish people maintained their own autonomous political and legal institutions: the Davidic dynasty was preserved in Baghdad until the thirteenth century through the rule of the Exilarch Resh Galuta, while the return to Zion was incorporated into the most widely practiced Jewish traditions, including the…Yom Kippur service and the Passover Seder, as well as in everyday prayers. Thus, Jewish historic rights were kept alive in Jewish historical consciousness.” (An Answer to the New Anti-Zionists: the Rights of the Jewish People to a Sovereign State in Their Historic Homeland by Dore Gold and Jeff Helmreich, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Viewpoints, November 16^th, 2003.) The Jews were merely retracting their own possession in establishing their own state. Throughout history they had maintained a strong presence in the land despite the oppression of their various subjugators. 

Junior Thesis - Part One

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.” Israeli Declaration of Independence, May 14^th, 1948

In 1947 the UN voted to partition the ancient land of Palestine. The British officially withdrew on May 14^th, 1948 and the Jewish National Council proclaimed the State of Israel, recognized soon after by the United States. The next day, Arab forces from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the new nation. After the cease-fire on Jan. 7, 1949, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion became Israel's first president and prime minister - this new government was admitted to the UN on May 11, 1949. Since then Israel has been a focal point of terrorist attacks, controversy, disagreements and conflict.                                                                                                                                “Abbas declares that he would never deny the Jews’ right to Israel.” “Some question insistence on Israel as a Jewish state.” “Israeli cabinet has approved passing of a new law requiring all non-Jews to swear loyalty to Israel.” “Palestinian father reaches out after racist attack kills son.” These are a mere few of many current headlines all related by one dominant theme – the legitimacy of the Jews’ right to Israel. From this question stem all arguments against Israelis concerning the Palestinian conflict, terrorism in the Middle East and the continual peace process attempts between Middle Eastern leaders.

However, the general question which must be settled before the specific case of Israel comes to trial is, why does any nation own a land? What constitutes a “right” of a people group to possess a plot of soil which they deem “their” country? No one contests the right of the English to the isle of Britain nor that of the Americans to make their home upon the northern continent of America. Yet from the very day of its birth, dissenting voices have opposed the right of the Jewish people to own the land of Israel, consisting of a total 8, 019 square miles of desert bordering the Mediterranean. These arguments take many forms, valid and invalid, and the accusation that the Jews are the illegitimate owners of Israel is mainstream, held by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is a claim found everywhere, on jihadist websites, in the media, in the newspapers and on television. It is propagated by use of photos, articles, videos, essays, and speeches. Its roots are anti-Semitic and its effects are bias and prejudice against the Jewish people. Yet the accusations, if valid, are weighty ones – if true, the Jews have much to answer for.

There are, generally speaking, four universal laws widely accepted that constitute the right of a nation to own a land. These are; right of military conquest, right of merit, legal right, and historical right. Israel has proved throughout the past and continues to prove to the world today that she fully possesses all four of these major rights and that any contrary argument is based in prejudice or ignorance. 

Contemplating Crime and Caesar

                                                                                                            

            Is it right to commit a crime for what one believes to be a higher good? In 44

B.C., the Roman Senate named Julius Caesar, former dictator and present political master of Rome, as “dictator perpetuo”, effectively making him emperor for life. His friend Brutus, along with about forty other senators, saw in this act the death of the Roman Republic. They therefore conspired together and, on March 15^th, in Pompey’s Theatre at a Senate session, they attacked Caesar, stabbing him twenty-three times. After his death, rioting and chaos broke out in Rome and five civil wars ensued. Caesar’s nephew Octavian emerged the victor and became emperor of Rome on January 13th, 27 B.C.

           Everyone agrees upon these facts – however, some believe that Brutus should have assassinated Caesar and some do not. But Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar for three reasons – Rome would have benefited from his leadership, it is wrong to murder and the results of the assassination were disastrous for everyone involved

           First of all, Rome would have benefited from Caesar’s leadership. Indeed, it had already done so during the short time he controlled Rome. He was a skilled politician, as illustrated by his visionary policies, the order he established in the city, the tax laws he effectively revised and the citizenship he granted to communities. He was also a skilled military leader, having risen to prowess through his military achievements. He was in no way unread or uneducated.

           Secondly, Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar because it was wrong to do so. Caesar was defenseless. He trusted Brutus as a friend – during Caesar’s battle with Pompey, Brutus and Cassius were on Pompey’s side. Yet when Caesar had defeated Pompey he forgave both Brutus and Cassius and gave them prominent government positions. Moreover, the Torah commands us not to murder, as do most ethical codes of man.

           Lastly, the results were disastrous for Rome. The assassination created chaos – Rome was like a tossing turbulent tempest as her citizens rioted, as her citizens plundered and her citizens murdered. Brutus and Cassius committed suicide and five civil wars followed. The outcome was the very opposite of what the assassins had intended.

Some people claim that Brutus should have assassinated Caesar because he was a threat to the Roman Empire – if he became king, Rome would become a monarchy. However, the outcome was even worse than what the Senate had feared from Caesar – Octavian became complete dictator of Rome after he defeated Antony and Cleopatra. Moreover, assassination is certainly not the answer. The Senate still held enough power to prevent a tyranny and the Roman people, whom the Republic was supposed to represent, were in favor of Caesar’s leadership.

           Those in favor of Caesar’s assassination also argue that Caesar was corrupt. Some claim that he was gay, while others claim that he was corrupt. Again, assassination is not the answer. If he was corrupt in his private life, it had nothing to do with the way he ruled Rome. Historians also cannot prove anything -there is no evidence to support this charge of corruption.

           Thus the arguments that Caesar was a threat to the Republic and that he was corrupt are inadequate. There were other ways to prevent Caesar’s tyranny if the Senators saw it as a threat. Also, there is no proof for the charge that Caesar was corrupt. In either case, murder was the wrong way to deal with the problem, if there even was one.

           Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar because Rome would have benefited from Caesar’s leadership,  it is wrong to murder and the outcome was disastrous. In 44 B.C., it would have mattered to everyone in the city of Rome, citizens and politicians alike. But murder mattered most to Brutus and Caesar, who were affected more than anyone else by their decisions. 

Judaism in "Paradise Lost"

            “Not by destroying Satan, but his works in thee and in thy seed; nor can this be, but by fulfilling that which thou didst want, obedience to the law of God…”                          
              Many are familiar with Milton’s seventeenth century epic poem, Paradise Lost. The story of the man’s fall and subsequent redemption, written in the poet’s beautiful, graceful prose, are well-known events to Christians and non-Christians alike. However what is not so widespread is the fact that many sources which Milton draws upon to retell the drama come from Judaism and rabbinical midrash. Taking a close look at his masterpiece we find many similarities between Milton and the rabbis, many Jewish sources and names, and many rich ancient traditions taken from the Chosen People.                       
           This may seem odd at first glance, for Milton was a devout Christian, living in an anti-Semetic England of the 1600s, during a period of pietism. His contemporaries were predominantly Protestant or Catholic – it was an age where Jews were branded as heretics and outsiders who had killed the Christians’ Jesus. Moreover, Paradise Lost is rife with mythological characters of Greek and Roman origin – in other words, paganism. How could this kind of man coming from this historical background and religion, use Judaism in his most famous poem already containing numerous Gentile inventions? Yet he did with astounding success, creating a timeless work, famous for its beauty and scholarship.                                                                     Obviously since Milton’s account comes from the Jewish Torah, all his characters and geography are Jewish. The Garden of Eden is Gan Eden and the Devil is Hasatan, well-known figures in rabbinical thought. Milton also appears to have a wide knowledge of the “Old Testament” – that is, the section of the Bible containing the five books of Torah, writings and prophets. He displays a broad knowledge of Judaic tradition, for example, when he describes one of Hasatan’s angels:                  
"First Moloch, horrid King besmeared with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears… him the Ammonite,
Worshiped in Rabba and her watery plain,
In Argob and in Basan, to the stream
Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such
Audacious neighborhood, the wisest heart
Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
His temple right against the temple of God,
On that opprobrious Hill, and made his Grove
The pleasant Valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna called, the Type of Hell”…                                                                         
          Milton spoke Hebrew and seemed familiar with all these places and people, unlike many other Christians. This is in part because he was a Puritan who predominantly identified with the Jews– moreover he used Mosaic laws many times in his arguments in politics.                                                                                    There are also similarities between Milton’s midrashes and those of the rabbis. Paradise Lost contains many stories such as conversations between Hashem and the Messiah and between the angel Michael and Adam. These types of “elaborations”, so to speak, follow the same structure as the midrashes of Rashi. A Jewish author Golda Werman even contends that “Paradise Lost can be considered as a modern midrash; it is largely a midrashic commentary on a few brief Biblical passages. Milton turned and turned the Biblical text to derive every possible meaning from it as a midrashist would have done.” For instance, Adam’s pleading with Hashem for a partner in Paradise Lost parallels the Jewish midrash from Genesis Rabbah. In Paradise Lost the story of Adam’s naming "each Bird and Beast. . . Approaching two and two,"… ending with his entreaty to God ("In solitude/What happiness, who can enjoy alone, Or all enjoying, what contentment find!”)  is very similar to the midrash; "Hashem brought all the living creatures before Adam in pairs. Adam said, 'For each one there is a partner, but there is no partner for me!’”                                                                                                                                                                             Many of Milton’s sources are Jewish as well – his main one seems to be the Pirke-de-Rabbi Eliezer of the 700s, who wrote midrash composed primarily of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Targum – it is quoted by, among others, Rashi and the Rambam.                                                                                                                                                 Milton’s use of Judaism in his masterpiece may on the surface, seem to be inappropriate or strange – however, taking a close look, it becomes apparent that this is what makes the poem so epic and realistic. After all, the “Christian” account of the Fall and Redemption is a Jewish one and its midrashim and Jewish commentators are its supreme authorities. Milton’s masterful combination of Hellenism, Christianity and Judaism color the pages of Paradise Lost like no other author has done before nor will be able to do again. 

Why Study History? - Propono

            “To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child.” (Cicero)

            Many people have asked the timeless question – “Why study history?” It seems to be a valid one, with a solid credibility of its own in today’s world so caught up in the present. What can history offer the medical student, the computer tech, the business major, the lawyer, or any of us, for that matter? The answer is that we should study it, not because it is a guide to the present, but because it is the present. Everything that we see and know has a past, a past important to both now and the future.

            Most agree that it is important to study ideas, to study cultures, to study the way we are and why - in fact, to study everything and develop a curiosity for learning and thought. To take these ideas out of their historical context is to deprive them of what they are. To disregard the knowledge of sources is to look at the world in a two-dimensional context. This severely limits our understanding of these ideas. For history is the study of everything – to know history is to know politics, economics, business, human nature, God, religion, places, ideas…life. Otherwise, our civilization and its philosophies will have seemed to have come out of a vacuum.

            Moreover, knowledge of where we and all that we know came from enriches our knowledge of who we are. Why do we need to know who we are? So that we can know what we ought to do. What is Torah but the guideline for how to live? The story of history. As Heschel said, what is the Jewish religion but a religion of time, not one of space? Hashem is the God of time. And history consists of time, the foundation of all that we believe in. To reverse Charles Lyell’s popular maxim, the past is the key to the present.

            Thirdly, history is an important part of our education. We can learn many lessons from the past, as well as the present. It is a rich source of ideas, arguments and role models for all of us, as well as a wealth of information with which to draw upon in our daily lives. Though stories of great battles and great men may not seem to have anything to do with our menial tasks and mundane worries, they contain principles still applicable to every situation we face, if we can make the connection. And isn’t that what learning is all about – making connections? (In other words, if I had paid better attention to Herodotus, I may have found some comfort for my worries or some solution to my problems - you never know what history can teach you every day!) 

Why Study History? - Nego

It had been a long day. My mind was full of worries about my job at the athletic club, college, my trigonometry grade, piano and the impending SAT. I sat wearily down on the couch in the living room and reluctantly picked up Herodotus – opening it up, the first sentence my tired eyes fell upon was, “Croesus, son of Alyattes, by birth a Lydian, was lord of all the nations to the west of the river Halys. This stream, which separates Syria from Paphlagonia, runs with a course from south to north, and finally falls into the Euxine”….. My attention was swift to wander. After a few pages of taking in the words without their meaning, my brain snapped suddenly back to what I was reading. “This is completely useless,” I groaned, and tossed the book to the floor. Herodotus had nothing to do with my daily struggles or my life. His exaggerations and sermons did not relate to me in any way, shape or form and at the moment, I had no patience left to attend to them.

            “The first man to distill bourbon whiskey in the United States was a Baptist preacher in 1789.” “The ancient Egyptians recommended mixing an onion with beer to ward off death.” “Aristotle was born in 384 and died in 322 B.C.E.” “The Civil War began in 1861.” Honestly, who cares? In today’s world, it doesn’t really seem to matter – history is a required course we take to graduate high school. The question then becomes, why study history at all?

            Historians and teachers clamor, “History perfects the present! We learn how to mend our mistakes of the past by studying it!” But this doesn’t seem to hold true – if it did, by now we should have accumulated enough information about our ancestors’ mistakes to be rid of war, poverty and corruption. Moreover, how will knowing that Napoleon’s attempt to invade Russia failed stop us from doing the same? The modern world is very different from the ancient civilizations of Greek and Rome and the Romantic civilizations of nineteenth century England. What may have been true for our predecessors will most likely be untrue for us. In either case, humankind is bound to repeat its mistakes, whether or not history contains valuable lessons. This is a result of our fallen and fallible nature.

            Proponents of history also claim it foretells the future – whether it is the outcome of a battle, an everyday decision, or a political choice. In other words, we learn from the past how to better the future. Yet the same argument against the past stands – history cannot “tell” the future. It is not a crystal ball which we can look into and see consequences of causes. “History repeats itself” may be a maxim that is generally true, because human nature has not changed significantly, but it does not aid mankind in his daily decisions. This is because times and seasons do change and men have adapted to them.

            Lastly, the study of history is not important – the study of the present is. Stories of the past may be entertaining enough, and perhaps if you know them, you can show off how educated you are by writing a book. But it is the now that the majority of us are worried about – and it is the us who matter, not the Napoleons, Alexanders, or Romanovs of days gone by.