This is something that Pro-Israeli's never tend to address....
Can anyone come up with a good reason why the Palestinians deserved to be kicked off their land for a foreign people to form a country there?
And
Would you accept you your family, friends and most of the people in your country being kicked out of their homes to make way for people someone else mistreated some of who's ancestors lived there thousands of years ago?
It's very hard to come up with justification for kicking these innocent people out...
And nobody would take kindly to what is asked in the second question. I don't think there is a country on Earth that wouldn't fight back......
Note the first question is not asking whether the Jewish people deserved a homeland there, just good reasons these people deserved to be kicked out for a foreign people to come in.
In a nutshell that seems to be about it
........................................
Missed a lot so don't know what exactly has or hasn't been covered.....
But there were Jewish people still living there even before the migration efforts started to for form Israel, which is before WW1 IIRC.
The Jewish population was relatively small though, there was actually a larger Christian population, though the Arab population made up the vast majority.
Sounds pretty accurate though.
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 5 hours, 36 minutes ago
Also, if there was never a state called Palestine, why does it have a right to exist if Israel does not?
....................................
There has never been a country called London either but if you kicked all the Londoners out to make a new country of people from some foreign land I think people might get a bit annoyed....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestinian national identity is a fairly new construct, no? Only as a direct consequence of the Zionist movement.
An empire fell and maps were redrawn all across the Ottoman's territories. It is not as simple as just plonking people in a country. Jews were settling in the area long before Israel was created.
Throw in the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem backing the Axis powers in WW2, throwing their weight behind Adolf
Palestinian national identity is a fairly new construct, no? Only as a direct consequence of the Zionist movement.
.......................................
I'm not sure whether that really matters or not....
There's not much of a sense of European Identity but if you kicked a bunch of Europeans off their land to make way for a foreign people they'd probably fight back.
In fact let me take that back, European history shows they'd definitely fight back and not just back they are racists who hate the invading foreigners because of their race/religion/culture.
I'm not sure where this idea of national identity existing or not makes it okay to kick someone out of their homes to move a foreign people in really works anyway....
Many people in my local area may call themselves Welsh or British (part of a larger empire like the Ottoman one for example) but there is no real local identity, no more than the Palestinians had back then anyway.
So I suppose if we moved a foreign people into the Welsh valleys and kicked all the locals out that would be okay?
No probably not...
.........................................
An empire fell and maps were redrawn all across the Ottoman's territories. It is not as simple as just plonking people in a country. Jews were settling in the area long before Israel was created.
........................................
The area had more Christians than Jewish people prior to the mass immigration (not just from WW2 that proceeded the creation of Israel.
The area had far more Muslims than both combined though, if people living there should decide what it becomes then it would have been a mostly Arab state with a little bit of Christian and a tiny percentage of Jewish.
Quite frankly based on the percentages you could probably make a better argument for kicking all non Muslims out of London and replacing them with Muslims from abroad.
London is far more Muslim than Palestine was Jewish before the immigration drive that proceeded the creation of Israel.
........................................
Throw in the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem backing the Axis powers in WW2, throwing their weight behind Adolf
..............................................
Finland was also friendly with Germany.
Germany gave Finland military support, something they never did for the Muslims or to the best of my knowledge even Japan.
Because Soviet Russia wanted Finlands land.
And there was some support for Germany because Jewish people wanted Palestinian land.
Basically the Arabs and the Finns were doing exactly what everyone else in their position would have done, acting in their own self interest. Anyone who thinks we wouldn't have done similar has more national pride than common sense.
I guess it is something we will never agree on, so best to leave it there.
It could be argued Palestine and Israel belong to the surrounding states rather than either Israelis or Palestinians.
It could be argued that the land itself is the spoils of an Imperialistic Ottoman empire, and that empire collapsed when it backed the wrong side in WW1, and this was compounded by the region backing Hitler in WW2. That Arabs have as much right to the land as the Romans have to Britain post fall.
Like Northern Ireland, it is a legacy of another era, but one we are now stuck with.
comment by jar jar winks (U21185)
posted 3 hours ago
Forgive me for the length of the post but I have an answer. It's because of the ideological crossover between the radical left and hard right. This isn't something inherently new.
Take some of Trumps foreign policy statements to see what I mean.
Trump has questioned the value of NATO and implied he doesn't think Article 5 is fit for purpose [collective self-defence if one member is attacked, the British triggered this after 9/11].
Now this view is the absolute antithesis of the kind of politics held by the likes of Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. They would have taken the exact opposite position. Or more recently Cameron, May or Obama would have the opposite position.
But it just so happens to be exactly what Sizzles hero, Jeremy Corbyn, has believed in all his political life. And he said as much just a few months ago.
Look at Trumps view on Russian hostility more generally. He believes the West and America are to blame for Russia's adventurism in Ukraine. He has even said the U.S should legitimise Russia's occupation of Crimea. Once again, Thatcher and Reagan would be turning in their graves. But it just so happens Comrade Jeremy has said exactly the same thing quite recently.
The list goes on. Also look at his campaign against free trade and globalisation. Trump is against TTIP and the transatlantic free trade agreement generally
. Who else is? Cameron? No. May? No. Mitt Romney? No. Ah yes, of course, Saint Jeremy again!
Point here is that if you keep telling people over and over again that our political systems are "corrupt" and only work for the 1% etc, then eventually they are going to believe it and want radical change.
If you keep telling people over and over again that most of the worlds big problems are the fault of Western intervention or whatever, then they might eventually believe you, and vote for someone who brags about withdrawing from world affairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, and I have pointed this out too, in less eloquent posts.
Corbyn has also been anti-Eu most of his life.
The far left and far right also blame jews for world problems, such as international finance.
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by jar jar winks (U21185)
posted 3 hours ago
Forgive me for the length of the post but I have an answer. It's because of the ideological crossover between the radical left and hard right. This isn't something inherently new.
Take some of Trumps foreign policy statements to see what I mean.
Trump has questioned the value of NATO and implied he doesn't think Article 5 is fit for purpose [collective self-defence if one member is attacked, the British triggered this after 9/11].
Now this view is the absolute antithesis of the kind of politics held by the likes of Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. They would have taken the exact opposite position. Or more recently Cameron, May or Obama would have the opposite position.
But it just so happens to be exactly what Sizzles hero, Jeremy Corbyn, has believed in all his political life. And he said as much just a few months ago.
Look at Trumps view on Russian hostility more generally. He believes the West and America are to blame for Russia's adventurism in Ukraine. He has even said the U.S should legitimise Russia's occupation of Crimea. Once again, Thatcher and Reagan would be turning in their graves. But it just so happens Comrade Jeremy has said exactly the same thing quite recently.
The list goes on. Also look at his campaign against free trade and globalisation. Trump is against TTIP and the transatlantic free trade agreement generally
. Who else is? Cameron? No. May? No. Mitt Romney? No. Ah yes, of course, Saint Jeremy again!
Point here is that if you keep telling people over and over again that our political systems are "corrupt" and only work for the 1% etc, then eventually they are going to believe it and want radical change.
If you keep telling people over and over again that most of the worlds big problems are the fault of Western intervention or whatever, then they might eventually believe you, and vote for someone who brags about withdrawing from world affairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, and I have pointed this out too, in less eloquent posts.
Corbyn has also been anti-Eu most of his life.
The far left and far right also blame jews for world problems, such as international finance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But most of the world's problems ARE caused by "western intervention or whatever".
And the Palestine issue is a case in point.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It could be argued Palestine and Israel belong to the surrounding states rather than either Israelis or Palestinians.
..............................................
I'd argue that, as in the case absolutely everywhere else the land belongs to the people that live there.
....................................
It could be argued that the land itself is the spoils of an Imperialistic Ottoman empire, and that empire collapsed when it backed the wrong side in WW1, and this was compounded by the region backing Hitler in WW2. That Arabs have as much right to the land as the Romans have to Britain post fall.
..............................................
The people that lived there had more right to the land than people that didn't live there.
If the British government collapsed that wouldn't mean someone whose ancestor lived in Britain has as much right to your house as you......
That is madness.
Do you really believe that the British Government collapsing would mean someone whose ancestors lived in Britain thousands of years ago have as much right to your land and property as you?
Because quite honestly I don't think you or anyone else believes that for a second.
TBH I'm not sure the Ottoman Empire's support for Germany makes any difference what so ever, Britain has had some pretty nasty allies over the years.
I can't see that stopping you thinking your land and property being taken away and given to a foreign people is okay.
Look at the problems Britain has had from just a little immigration!!
Now imagine those people instead were coming here to steal your land, kick you out of your form and form their own country.
If you actually changed the Israeli's to a different name and the Palestinians to a different name absolutely nobody would try to justify it...
I'd like to second that Western influence is responsible for most of the worlds problems.
Or at least is plays a huge part in causing all the problems around the world.
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 15 minutes ago
It could be argued Palestine and Israel belong to the surrounding states rather than either Israelis or Palestinians.
..............................................
I'd argue that, as in the case absolutely everywhere else the land belongs to the people that live there.
....................................
It could be argued that the land itself is the spoils of an Imperialistic Ottoman empire, and that empire collapsed when it backed the wrong side in WW1, and this was compounded by the region backing Hitler in WW2. That Arabs have as much right to the land as the Romans have to Britain post fall.
..............................................
The people that lived there had more right to the land than people that didn't live there.
If the British government collapsed that wouldn't mean someone whose ancestor lived in Britain has as much right to your house as you......
That is madness.
Do you really believe that the British Government collapsing would mean someone whose ancestors lived in Britain thousands of years ago have as much right to your land and property as you?
Because quite honestly I don't think you or anyone else believes that for a second.
TBH I'm not sure the Ottoman Empire's support for Germany makes any difference what so ever, Britain has had some pretty nasty allies over the years.
I can't see that stopping you thinking your land and property being taken away and given to a foreign people is okay.
Look at the problems Britain has had from just a little immigration!!
Now imagine those people instead were coming here to steal your land, kick you out of your form and form their own country.
If you actually changed the Israeli's to a different name and the Palestinians to a different name absolutely nobody would try to justify it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was it ever really 'their' land?
Or did an imperialistic power take it as theirs? Once that empire fell, so did their claim on the land
It never being a Palestinian state in its own right prior to that, and a Palestinian national identity not existing until the 20th century.
The Romans retreated when Rome fell, and did not stay put. Should the Ottoman empire be allowed to keep land they claimed? Land which Jews were forcibly expelled from by the Assyrians.
Do the British have claims on Zimbabwe if so? Hong Kong?
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?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Was it ever really 'their' land?
................................
Yes!
They lived there!
We are not on about the poor Ottoman Empire losing land it once held.
We are on about the ordinary people who live on the land who live on houses in the land, whose parents and grandparents were born on the land.
Nobody cares about the Ottoman Empire losing land.
It makes no difference that the Romans ruled over the locals previously.
What is a big difference is the Israeli's aren't simply ruling over the locals, like the Romans did, like the British did or like the Ottoman Empire did.
They are kicking out the locals for their own people, like the Europeans/Americans did with the native Americans.
...............................
Do the British have claims on Zimbabwe if so? Hong Kong?
...............................
I think this sums up the problem...
This is nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire.
If somebody kicked you out of your house you wouldn't be tempted to just accept it if the British government had crumbled...
You wouldn't care, neither would Cal.
Kicking people out of their homes to make way for a foreign people is wrong regardless, mentioning that the area had a few different rulers in the past few thousands years doesn't really make a difference either, the locals had come and seen many rulers come and go...
Until a foreign people came along and kicked them off their land....
But that's okay apparently because you know the Romans owned it once...
Palestinians and their supporters are massive hypocrites
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I'm saying that kicking a people wholesale off a land to move a foreign people in is very very wrong and not morally justifiable regardless of whether the ruling empire lost a war or the foreign people being moved in were mistreated by people nothing to do with the natives being kicked out.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
?
Sorry maybe I am not making myself clear.
Kicking people off their land and moving a foreign people in is wrong, whoever does it.
If for example Britain and America in their recent Iraq adventure had moved the Iraqis out of Iraq and setup a new country for British and American people and continued to expand that country with their own people kicking out the natives...
That would be very wrong, just as wrong as Israel doing it.
In fact much like Apartheid South Africa the left would probably speak out more strongly because the crimes would be committed by our own in a way, that is to say White with a Christian background (though not necessarily Christian)
Or if say for example a Central European power in the middle of the twentieth century wanted to expand its living room at the expense of neighbouring countries....
Even if they weren't moving a foreign people in from another continent, that would be wrong...
In fact I think even though the people wouldn't really be foreign to the land and they would probably have a much better claim than Israel that the European powers would even be willing to start a massive war over it...
No it seems that kicking people off their to move a foreign people in is only acceptable when its done to Muslims.
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
?
Sorry maybe I am not making myself clear.
Kicking people off their land and moving a foreign people in is wrong, whoever does it.
If for example Britain and America in their recent Iraq adventure had moved the Iraqis out of Iraq and setup a new country for British and American people and continued to expand that country with their own people kicking out the natives...
That would be very wrong, just as wrong as Israel doing it.
In fact much like Apartheid South Africa the left would probably speak out more strongly because the crimes would be committed by our own in a way, that is to say White with a Christian background (though not necessarily Christian)
Or if say for example a Central European power in the middle of the twentieth century wanted to expand its living room at the expense of neighbouring countries....
Even if they weren't moving a foreign people in from another continent, that would be wrong...
In fact I think even though the people wouldn't really be foreign to the land and they would probably have a much better claim than Israel that the European powers would even be willing to start a massive war over it...
No it seems that kicking people off their to move a foreign people in is only acceptable when its done to Muslims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
here we go - I knew it would come down to this
you either agree on freedom of movement or you don't, Muslims are certainly moving to other parts of the world in big big numbers so not sure what you're issue is with Jews wanting to return to their holy land. hypocrite
Freedom of movement?
I think there is a slight difference between freedom of movement and kicking the natives off their land to setup a country.
Can't imagine you'd be too happy if a bunch of Muslims kicked everyone out of your local area to setup a Muslim country...
Hell the Sun and the Daily Mail starts ranting about Sharia law at even the hint of people holding onto some of their old customs, can you imagine the reaction to Muslims coming to Britain to kick people out of their homes and make a country?!
It would be war on the streets.
Can't imagine you'd be too happy if a bunch of Muslims kicked everyone out of your local area to setup a Muslim country...**
it's happening in many parts of Britain but you're okay with that right??
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago
Freedom of movement?
I think there is a slight difference between freedom of movement and kicking the natives off their land to setup a country.
Can't imagine you'd be too happy if a bunch of Muslims kicked everyone out of your local area to setup a Muslim country...
Hell the Sun and the Daily Mail starts ranting about Sharia law at even the hint of people holding onto some of their old customs, can you imagine the reaction to Muslims coming to Britain to kick people out of their homes and make a country?!
It would be war on the streets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not just muslims home and you know it, thats the issue, you don't want the jews there because you're prejudiced towards them.
Sign in if you want to comment
Relationship between Left and Fascism
Page 32 of 45
33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37
posted on 14/11/16
This is something that Pro-Israeli's never tend to address....
Can anyone come up with a good reason why the Palestinians deserved to be kicked off their land for a foreign people to form a country there?
And
Would you accept you your family, friends and most of the people in your country being kicked out of their homes to make way for people someone else mistreated some of who's ancestors lived there thousands of years ago?
It's very hard to come up with justification for kicking these innocent people out...
And nobody would take kindly to what is asked in the second question. I don't think there is a country on Earth that wouldn't fight back......
posted on 14/11/16
Note the first question is not asking whether the Jewish people deserved a homeland there, just good reasons these people deserved to be kicked out for a foreign people to come in.
posted on 14/11/16
In a nutshell that seems to be about it
........................................
Missed a lot so don't know what exactly has or hasn't been covered.....
But there were Jewish people still living there even before the migration efforts started to for form Israel, which is before WW1 IIRC.
The Jewish population was relatively small though, there was actually a larger Christian population, though the Arab population made up the vast majority.
Sounds pretty accurate though.
posted on 14/11/16
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 5 hours, 36 minutes ago
Also, if there was never a state called Palestine, why does it have a right to exist if Israel does not?
....................................
There has never been a country called London either but if you kicked all the Londoners out to make a new country of people from some foreign land I think people might get a bit annoyed....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestinian national identity is a fairly new construct, no? Only as a direct consequence of the Zionist movement.
An empire fell and maps were redrawn all across the Ottoman's territories. It is not as simple as just plonking people in a country. Jews were settling in the area long before Israel was created.
Throw in the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem backing the Axis powers in WW2, throwing their weight behind Adolf
posted on 14/11/16
Palestinian national identity is a fairly new construct, no? Only as a direct consequence of the Zionist movement.
.......................................
I'm not sure whether that really matters or not....
There's not much of a sense of European Identity but if you kicked a bunch of Europeans off their land to make way for a foreign people they'd probably fight back.
In fact let me take that back, European history shows they'd definitely fight back and not just back they are racists who hate the invading foreigners because of their race/religion/culture.
I'm not sure where this idea of national identity existing or not makes it okay to kick someone out of their homes to move a foreign people in really works anyway....
Many people in my local area may call themselves Welsh or British (part of a larger empire like the Ottoman one for example) but there is no real local identity, no more than the Palestinians had back then anyway.
So I suppose if we moved a foreign people into the Welsh valleys and kicked all the locals out that would be okay?
No probably not...
.........................................
An empire fell and maps were redrawn all across the Ottoman's territories. It is not as simple as just plonking people in a country. Jews were settling in the area long before Israel was created.
........................................
The area had more Christians than Jewish people prior to the mass immigration (not just from WW2 that proceeded the creation of Israel.
The area had far more Muslims than both combined though, if people living there should decide what it becomes then it would have been a mostly Arab state with a little bit of Christian and a tiny percentage of Jewish.
Quite frankly based on the percentages you could probably make a better argument for kicking all non Muslims out of London and replacing them with Muslims from abroad.
London is far more Muslim than Palestine was Jewish before the immigration drive that proceeded the creation of Israel.
........................................
Throw in the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem backing the Axis powers in WW2, throwing their weight behind Adolf
..............................................
Finland was also friendly with Germany.
Germany gave Finland military support, something they never did for the Muslims or to the best of my knowledge even Japan.
Because Soviet Russia wanted Finlands land.
And there was some support for Germany because Jewish people wanted Palestinian land.
Basically the Arabs and the Finns were doing exactly what everyone else in their position would have done, acting in their own self interest. Anyone who thinks we wouldn't have done similar has more national pride than common sense.
posted on 14/11/16
I guess it is something we will never agree on, so best to leave it there.
It could be argued Palestine and Israel belong to the surrounding states rather than either Israelis or Palestinians.
It could be argued that the land itself is the spoils of an Imperialistic Ottoman empire, and that empire collapsed when it backed the wrong side in WW1, and this was compounded by the region backing Hitler in WW2. That Arabs have as much right to the land as the Romans have to Britain post fall.
Like Northern Ireland, it is a legacy of another era, but one we are now stuck with.
posted on 14/11/16
comment by jar jar winks (U21185)
posted 3 hours ago
Forgive me for the length of the post but I have an answer. It's because of the ideological crossover between the radical left and hard right. This isn't something inherently new.
Take some of Trumps foreign policy statements to see what I mean.
Trump has questioned the value of NATO and implied he doesn't think Article 5 is fit for purpose [collective self-defence if one member is attacked, the British triggered this after 9/11].
Now this view is the absolute antithesis of the kind of politics held by the likes of Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. They would have taken the exact opposite position. Or more recently Cameron, May or Obama would have the opposite position.
But it just so happens to be exactly what Sizzles hero, Jeremy Corbyn, has believed in all his political life. And he said as much just a few months ago.
Look at Trumps view on Russian hostility more generally. He believes the West and America are to blame for Russia's adventurism in Ukraine. He has even said the U.S should legitimise Russia's occupation of Crimea. Once again, Thatcher and Reagan would be turning in their graves. But it just so happens Comrade Jeremy has said exactly the same thing quite recently.
The list goes on. Also look at his campaign against free trade and globalisation. Trump is against TTIP and the transatlantic free trade agreement generally
. Who else is? Cameron? No. May? No. Mitt Romney? No. Ah yes, of course, Saint Jeremy again!
Point here is that if you keep telling people over and over again that our political systems are "corrupt" and only work for the 1% etc, then eventually they are going to believe it and want radical change.
If you keep telling people over and over again that most of the worlds big problems are the fault of Western intervention or whatever, then they might eventually believe you, and vote for someone who brags about withdrawing from world affairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, and I have pointed this out too, in less eloquent posts.
Corbyn has also been anti-Eu most of his life.
The far left and far right also blame jews for world problems, such as international finance.
posted on 14/11/16
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by jar jar winks (U21185)
posted 3 hours ago
Forgive me for the length of the post but I have an answer. It's because of the ideological crossover between the radical left and hard right. This isn't something inherently new.
Take some of Trumps foreign policy statements to see what I mean.
Trump has questioned the value of NATO and implied he doesn't think Article 5 is fit for purpose [collective self-defence if one member is attacked, the British triggered this after 9/11].
Now this view is the absolute antithesis of the kind of politics held by the likes of Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. They would have taken the exact opposite position. Or more recently Cameron, May or Obama would have the opposite position.
But it just so happens to be exactly what Sizzles hero, Jeremy Corbyn, has believed in all his political life. And he said as much just a few months ago.
Look at Trumps view on Russian hostility more generally. He believes the West and America are to blame for Russia's adventurism in Ukraine. He has even said the U.S should legitimise Russia's occupation of Crimea. Once again, Thatcher and Reagan would be turning in their graves. But it just so happens Comrade Jeremy has said exactly the same thing quite recently.
The list goes on. Also look at his campaign against free trade and globalisation. Trump is against TTIP and the transatlantic free trade agreement generally
. Who else is? Cameron? No. May? No. Mitt Romney? No. Ah yes, of course, Saint Jeremy again!
Point here is that if you keep telling people over and over again that our political systems are "corrupt" and only work for the 1% etc, then eventually they are going to believe it and want radical change.
If you keep telling people over and over again that most of the worlds big problems are the fault of Western intervention or whatever, then they might eventually believe you, and vote for someone who brags about withdrawing from world affairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, and I have pointed this out too, in less eloquent posts.
Corbyn has also been anti-Eu most of his life.
The far left and far right also blame jews for world problems, such as international finance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But most of the world's problems ARE caused by "western intervention or whatever".
And the Palestine issue is a case in point.
posted on 14/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/11/16
It could be argued Palestine and Israel belong to the surrounding states rather than either Israelis or Palestinians.
..............................................
I'd argue that, as in the case absolutely everywhere else the land belongs to the people that live there.
....................................
It could be argued that the land itself is the spoils of an Imperialistic Ottoman empire, and that empire collapsed when it backed the wrong side in WW1, and this was compounded by the region backing Hitler in WW2. That Arabs have as much right to the land as the Romans have to Britain post fall.
..............................................
The people that lived there had more right to the land than people that didn't live there.
If the British government collapsed that wouldn't mean someone whose ancestor lived in Britain has as much right to your house as you......
That is madness.
Do you really believe that the British Government collapsing would mean someone whose ancestors lived in Britain thousands of years ago have as much right to your land and property as you?
Because quite honestly I don't think you or anyone else believes that for a second.
TBH I'm not sure the Ottoman Empire's support for Germany makes any difference what so ever, Britain has had some pretty nasty allies over the years.
I can't see that stopping you thinking your land and property being taken away and given to a foreign people is okay.
Look at the problems Britain has had from just a little immigration!!
Now imagine those people instead were coming here to steal your land, kick you out of your form and form their own country.
If you actually changed the Israeli's to a different name and the Palestinians to a different name absolutely nobody would try to justify it...
posted on 15/11/16
I'd like to second that Western influence is responsible for most of the worlds problems.
Or at least is plays a huge part in causing all the problems around the world.
posted on 15/11/16
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 15 minutes ago
It could be argued Palestine and Israel belong to the surrounding states rather than either Israelis or Palestinians.
..............................................
I'd argue that, as in the case absolutely everywhere else the land belongs to the people that live there.
....................................
It could be argued that the land itself is the spoils of an Imperialistic Ottoman empire, and that empire collapsed when it backed the wrong side in WW1, and this was compounded by the region backing Hitler in WW2. That Arabs have as much right to the land as the Romans have to Britain post fall.
..............................................
The people that lived there had more right to the land than people that didn't live there.
If the British government collapsed that wouldn't mean someone whose ancestor lived in Britain has as much right to your house as you......
That is madness.
Do you really believe that the British Government collapsing would mean someone whose ancestors lived in Britain thousands of years ago have as much right to your land and property as you?
Because quite honestly I don't think you or anyone else believes that for a second.
TBH I'm not sure the Ottoman Empire's support for Germany makes any difference what so ever, Britain has had some pretty nasty allies over the years.
I can't see that stopping you thinking your land and property being taken away and given to a foreign people is okay.
Look at the problems Britain has had from just a little immigration!!
Now imagine those people instead were coming here to steal your land, kick you out of your form and form their own country.
If you actually changed the Israeli's to a different name and the Palestinians to a different name absolutely nobody would try to justify it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was it ever really 'their' land?
Or did an imperialistic power take it as theirs? Once that empire fell, so did their claim on the land
It never being a Palestinian state in its own right prior to that, and a Palestinian national identity not existing until the 20th century.
The Romans retreated when Rome fell, and did not stay put. Should the Ottoman empire be allowed to keep land they claimed? Land which Jews were forcibly expelled from by the Assyrians.
Do the British have claims on Zimbabwe if so? Hong Kong?
posted on 15/11/16
Devil's advocate
posted on 15/11/16
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?
posted on 15/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/11/16
Was it ever really 'their' land?
................................
Yes!
They lived there!
We are not on about the poor Ottoman Empire losing land it once held.
We are on about the ordinary people who live on the land who live on houses in the land, whose parents and grandparents were born on the land.
Nobody cares about the Ottoman Empire losing land.
It makes no difference that the Romans ruled over the locals previously.
What is a big difference is the Israeli's aren't simply ruling over the locals, like the Romans did, like the British did or like the Ottoman Empire did.
They are kicking out the locals for their own people, like the Europeans/Americans did with the native Americans.
...............................
Do the British have claims on Zimbabwe if so? Hong Kong?
...............................
I think this sums up the problem...
This is nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire.
If somebody kicked you out of your house you wouldn't be tempted to just accept it if the British government had crumbled...
You wouldn't care, neither would Cal.
Kicking people out of their homes to make way for a foreign people is wrong regardless, mentioning that the area had a few different rulers in the past few thousands years doesn't really make a difference either, the locals had come and seen many rulers come and go...
Until a foreign people came along and kicked them off their land....
But that's okay apparently because you know the Romans owned it once...
posted on 15/11/16
Palestinians and their supporters are massive hypocrites
posted on 15/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/11/16
I'm saying that kicking a people wholesale off a land to move a foreign people in is very very wrong and not morally justifiable regardless of whether the ruling empire lost a war or the foreign people being moved in were mistreated by people nothing to do with the natives being kicked out.
posted on 15/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/11/16
?
Sorry maybe I am not making myself clear.
Kicking people off their land and moving a foreign people in is wrong, whoever does it.
If for example Britain and America in their recent Iraq adventure had moved the Iraqis out of Iraq and setup a new country for British and American people and continued to expand that country with their own people kicking out the natives...
That would be very wrong, just as wrong as Israel doing it.
In fact much like Apartheid South Africa the left would probably speak out more strongly because the crimes would be committed by our own in a way, that is to say White with a Christian background (though not necessarily Christian)
Or if say for example a Central European power in the middle of the twentieth century wanted to expand its living room at the expense of neighbouring countries....
Even if they weren't moving a foreign people in from another continent, that would be wrong...
In fact I think even though the people wouldn't really be foreign to the land and they would probably have a much better claim than Israel that the European powers would even be willing to start a massive war over it...
No it seems that kicking people off their to move a foreign people in is only acceptable when its done to Muslims.
posted on 15/11/16
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
?
Sorry maybe I am not making myself clear.
Kicking people off their land and moving a foreign people in is wrong, whoever does it.
If for example Britain and America in their recent Iraq adventure had moved the Iraqis out of Iraq and setup a new country for British and American people and continued to expand that country with their own people kicking out the natives...
That would be very wrong, just as wrong as Israel doing it.
In fact much like Apartheid South Africa the left would probably speak out more strongly because the crimes would be committed by our own in a way, that is to say White with a Christian background (though not necessarily Christian)
Or if say for example a Central European power in the middle of the twentieth century wanted to expand its living room at the expense of neighbouring countries....
Even if they weren't moving a foreign people in from another continent, that would be wrong...
In fact I think even though the people wouldn't really be foreign to the land and they would probably have a much better claim than Israel that the European powers would even be willing to start a massive war over it...
No it seems that kicking people off their to move a foreign people in is only acceptable when its done to Muslims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
here we go - I knew it would come down to this
you either agree on freedom of movement or you don't, Muslims are certainly moving to other parts of the world in big big numbers so not sure what you're issue is with Jews wanting to return to their holy land. hypocrite
posted on 15/11/16
Freedom of movement?
I think there is a slight difference between freedom of movement and kicking the natives off their land to setup a country.
Can't imagine you'd be too happy if a bunch of Muslims kicked everyone out of your local area to setup a Muslim country...
Hell the Sun and the Daily Mail starts ranting about Sharia law at even the hint of people holding onto some of their old customs, can you imagine the reaction to Muslims coming to Britain to kick people out of their homes and make a country?!
It would be war on the streets.
posted on 15/11/16
Can't imagine you'd be too happy if a bunch of Muslims kicked everyone out of your local area to setup a Muslim country...**
it's happening in many parts of Britain but you're okay with that right??
posted on 15/11/16
comment by Yes way Jose (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago
Freedom of movement?
I think there is a slight difference between freedom of movement and kicking the natives off their land to setup a country.
Can't imagine you'd be too happy if a bunch of Muslims kicked everyone out of your local area to setup a Muslim country...
Hell the Sun and the Daily Mail starts ranting about Sharia law at even the hint of people holding onto some of their old customs, can you imagine the reaction to Muslims coming to Britain to kick people out of their homes and make a country?!
It would be war on the streets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not just muslims home and you know it, thats the issue, you don't want the jews there because you're prejudiced towards them.
Page 32 of 45
33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37