comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 1 minute ago
Thankfully most countries recognise Israel with the usual exceptions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

True. And your defence of it is, in a way, admirable.

comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 7 hours, 40 minutes ago
HRH

If I went back to the first house I lived in after being born, kicked the current occupants out (or said they could live in the back bedroom) and took it for myself would that be acceptable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A crude analogy.

How about:

Your family (Jews) were forced out of your first home by a bigger stronger family (Assyrians) leaving you sleeping on couches.

An even bigger family then pilfered it from that family (Ottomans)

When the even bigger family broke up, the Council (Britain) took it over and recommended half was given to you and half to some relatives of the even bigger family.

Would you feel you had a right to half of it?

Would you feel you had a right to half of it?
...................................

To make it work you need to include the over 2000 year timeframe gap.

Also under both the Ottomans and the British (and the romans and others before that) the family was actually left in their house.

It was the Israeli's that kicked the family out of the house.

Obviously he wouldn't have any rights on the house.

Are we right to assume the Palestinians as we know them were only there from the early to mid 1800s?

Are we to assume a Palestinian country would be here now if the war had not happened in 1948?

Are we to assume the West Bank and Gaza would not have been taken ovee if the war had not happened in 1967?

Are we right to say that by 1947 a third of the population of British Mandated Palestine (not a country and never has been) were in fact Jewish?

Are we right to assume that in the quarter of a century leading up to this there was a doubling of the Arab population, due to immigration to the area. As much as there was Jewish.

Are we right to assume the population of Palesine almost tripled in this time?

If in 1948 a third of the inhabitants were Jewish, is it fair to say that when completely new states were drawn up - Israel and Palestine - Jews were entitled to a third of the land?

Are we right to assume the Palestinians as we know them were only there from the early to mid 1800s?
.................................

No, the people have lived on the land for far longer than that.

.......................................
Are we to assume a Palestinian country would be here now if the war had not happened in 1948?
....................................

Given's Israel history of aggression and expansion in the area no certainly not.


.........................................
Are we right to say that by 1947 a third of the population of British Mandated Palestine (not a country and never has been) were in fact Jewish?
.......................................

Firstly let me point out, that like Palestine, London had never been a country but it would still be wrong to kick the natives of London out and replace them with a foreign people.

The vast majority of Britain has never been a country (only select certain bits have been kingdoms or states) but the majority in any number of configurations has never been a country.

Would this make a difference when it came to kicking people off their land?

If I kicked people out of the historical kingdom of Wessex people would obviously be very annoyed and fight back.

But If I kicked everyone from the historical kingdom of Wessex bar maybe one small area out, then these people shouldn't be annoyed or fight back because it was never a country!

2 seconds thinking about this tells you the logic doesn't really hold up.

Kicking people off their land and bringing in a foreign people to replace them is wrong if you take a whole area known as a country or only part of an area known as a country.

You try kicking the residents of London out and explaining that London isn't a country so its okay and see what kind of response you get.

Secondly the reason it had such a high Jewish population at the time was the creation of Israel.

Before the mass immigration that proceeded the creation of Israel (and the drive started before WW1) there were actually more Christians in the area.

In 1890 you have 43,000 Jewish people.

57,000 Christians.

432,000 Muslims.

As you can see in an effort to create Israel there was actually mass immigration.

Before this big immigration the percentages were closer to 8% Jewish 12% Christian and 80% Muslim.

If in 1948 a third of the inhabitants were Jewish, is it fair to say that when completely new states were drawn up - Israel and Palestine - Jews were entitled to a third of the land?
......................................

If Muslims immigrate in huge numbers to London over the next 20-30 years, against the will of the British and Londoners then I assume you would be equally happy with them forming their own country in London out of whatever percentage of the population they then make up...

Or is it only other peoples land that is allowed to be given away?

comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 5 hours, 5 minutes ago
If in 1948 a third of the inhabitants were Jewish, is it fair to say that when completely new states were drawn up - Israel and Palestine - Jews were entitled to a third of the land?
......................................

If Muslims immigrate in huge numbers to London over the next 20-30 years, against the will of the British and Londoners then I assume you would be equally happy with them forming their own country in London out of whatever percentage of the population they then make up...

Or is it only other peoples land that is allowed to be given away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

London is already part of a country, the capital in fact, so your analogy really does not work.

Let's say lots of Argentinians moved to the Falkland islands though. If Britain relinquished all overseas territories, I would say if a third of the island were Argentinian there would be a case for two states.

What is your stance on the Falklands by the way?

It has been British for over 200 years due to empire expansion, has generations of British people born there, so I assume you think Argentina has no claim?

Northern Ireland?

It has been Imperialist Britain's land for nearly 500 years, so I assume you think Irish claims on it are ridiculous?

Re Israel and Palestine and "kicking people off their land"

In 1948 a third of the area (not country) of British Mandated Palestine was already Jewish - it matters not why, as it is the same way it became predominantly Muslim in the first place.

As many Muslims immigrated to Palestine in the period pre 1948 as Jews. So probably only a third could be classed as true 'Palestinians'

Under partition rules, it was proposed Muslims were kicked off of some of their land, and Jews were kicked off some of theirs to create the two states.

To be fair, if the rules of empire mean the spoils of the Assyrian, then Ottoman Empires, are OK in your eyes, then you must think the British were within their rights to do as they pleased with the land once they took control?

London is already part of a country, the capital in fact, so your analogy really does not work.
............................

Palestine had been part of various countries and empire for thousands of years so my example very much does work.

comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
Northern Ireland?

It has been Imperialist Britain's land for nearly 500 years, so I assume you think Irish claims on it are ridiculous?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the Idea of either mainland Britain or the Republic of Ireland kicking the people of N.Ireland off their land and out of their homes ala Israel with Palestine would be ridiculous beyond measure.

Thankfully each side, Britain and Republic of Ireland want to govern the locals there, not kick replace them with their own people.

Re Israel and Palestine and "kicking people off their land"

In 1948 a third of the area (not country) of British Mandated Palestine was already Jewish - it matters not why, as it is the same way it became predominantly Muslim in the first place.
..................................................

Of course it matters why.

They all immigrated there in a short number of time in order to setup a country on someone else's border.

Once they have then turned up that isn't justification for them having a country there.

If loads of Muslims starting immigrating to London against the Londoners will and then setup a country using the new high percentage of London which is Muslim people wouldn't stand for it, so its not surprising that the Palestinians didn't either.

.................................
As many Muslims immigrated to Palestine in the period pre 1948 as Jews. So probably only a third could be classed as true 'Palestinians'
................................

The area was 80% Muslim in 1890 with 432,000 people and 12% Jewish with 43,000 people.

In 1947 it was 60% Muslim with 1,181,000 and 32% Jewish with 630,000.

So the Muslim population just under tripled whilst the Jewish population increased by a factor of almost 15!!

Looking at the Christian population it seems similar in growth to the Muslim population, a little under tripled from 1890 to 1947.

So it seems only one group had unnatural growth in the region before 1947, it wasn't the Muslims and it wasn't the Christians.

It was the foreign people come from a different land to kick the natives off their land.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Re Israel and Palestine and "kicking people off their land"

In 1948 a third of the area (not country) of British Mandated Palestine was already Jewish - it matters not why, as it is the same way it became predominantly Muslim in the first place.
..................................................

Of course it matters why.

They all immigrated there in a short number of time in order to setup a country on someone else's border.

Once they have then turned up that isn't justification for them having a country there.

If loads of Muslims starting immigrating to London against the Londoners will and then setup a country using the new high percentage of London which is Muslim people wouldn't stand for it, so its not surprising that the Palestinians didn't either.

.................................
As many Muslims immigrated to Palestine in the period pre 1948 as Jews. So probably only a third could be classed as true 'Palestinians'
................................

The area was 80% Muslim in 1890 with 432,000 people and 12% Jewish with 43,000 people.

In 1947 it was 60% Muslim with 1,181,000 and 32% Jewish with 630,000.

So the Muslim population just under tripled whilst the Jewish population increased by a factor of almost 15!!

Looking at the Christian population it seems similar in growth to the Muslim population, a little under tripled from 1890 to 1947.

So it seems only one group had unnatural growth in the region before 1947, it wasn't the Muslims and it wasn't the Christians.

It was the foreign people come from a different land to kick the natives off their land.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
still banging on

you're a hypocrite, this was established days ago..........

If Muslims immigrate in huge numbers to London over the next 20-30 years, against the will of the British and Londoners then I assume you would be equally happy with them forming their own country in London out of whatever percentage of the population they then make up...

**

this isn't that far away from happening

The point I made yesterday was millions of people have been displaced through conflict. I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that all those millions could have been moved back to their former homes.
...................................

So I assume every single group of people displaced every time there is a war get to start their own country?!

Nobody has suggested every single individual that is ever displaced by war gets to go back to the exact house above all others.... many may choose to move elsewhere within the country or immigrate to a different country.

But being displaced by war doesn't give anyone the right to suddenly kick some innocent people off their land and setup a country there.

Victims of war who have been displaced, like all the Syrian refugees should be helped as much as possible to find somewhere to live if the war in their homeland is still going on so they can't return.

Even if the war in Syria stops they should have help finding somewhere else to live if they choose.

But none of this gives them the right to kick another innocent group of people off their land to live there.

..........................................
The Balfour Declaration published in 1917 read:

His Majesty's government view 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, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

A clear commitment by the British.
.................................................

?

I'm not sure the British approving of something really makes it okay....

We have a pretty brutal history you know, this would just be one of many mistakes we made.

Also not sure how a foreign power deciding that a foreign people can take peoples land off them suddenly makes it okay.

Would we all be okay if America decided to give some of Britain away to Muslims to form a country?

Nobody would be okay with that.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The British Mandate.
............................

Yeah and the American mandate for Muslims to come and set up a Muslim country in Britain would be wrong regardless of their status as a bigger power than us....

Late 30's early 40's Germany was also a pretty strong power but that doesn't give any moral authority to their actions.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 57 minutes ago
The point I made yesterday was millions of people have been displaced through conflict. I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that all those millions could have been moved back to their former homes.
...................................

So I assume every single group of people displaced every time there is a war get to start their own country?!

Nobody has suggested every single individual that is ever displaced by war gets to go back to the exact house above all others.... many may choose to move elsewhere within the country or immigrate to a different country.

But being displaced by war doesn't give anyone the right to suddenly kick some innocent people off their land and setup a country there.

Victims of war who have been displaced, like all the Syrian refugees should be helped as much as possible to find somewhere to live if the war in their homeland is still going on so they can't return.

Even if the war in Syria stops they should have help finding somewhere else to live if they choose.

But none of this gives them the right to kick another innocent group of people off their land to live there.

..........................................
The Balfour Declaration published in 1917 read:

His Majesty's government view 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, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

A clear commitment by the British.
.................................................

?

I'm not sure the British approving of something really makes it okay....

We have a pretty brutal history you know, this would just be one of many mistakes we made.

Also not sure how a foreign power deciding that a foreign people can take peoples land off them suddenly makes it okay.

Would we all be okay if America decided to give some of Britain away to Muslims to form a country?

Nobody would be okay with that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
why do you keep saying 'we'??

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 52 minutes ago
the American mandate for Muslims


Never heard of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the immorality of throwing bits off their land for a foreign people to come in and replace them whether you had or hadn't.

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of decisions made by powerful countries over the years that you think were wrong.