Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[CMike]

What's the difference if it was a modern state or not?

They still had two previous Jewish states in that land.

Well no difference, same goes for Palestine - that there was no Palestinian state makes no difference whatsoever.

You missed the point.

There was no independent muslim palestinian state ever.

There is no a Jewish state, and there were two previous Jewish states within that land.

So if you want to play the who had it first game, the Jews win.

 

[CMike]

My belief is that the Palestinian claim to statehood is exactly as legitimate as that of Israel - the Balfour declaration.

And they have their state...in Jordan.

 

[CMike]

It's one way I feel two ways on. On the one hand, there have been times when Jews needed to go somewhere to be safe.

On the other, it's restricting immigration to members of a certain religious group.

How would it go down if all immigrants to the USA had to convert to Christianity first?

Not a good analogy.

Israel has Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and non religious immigrants.

 

[Kirran]

So if you want to play the who had it first game, the Jews win.

Don't think anyone here wants to play that game. It doesn't matter who had it first.

And they have their state...in Jordan.

So they should all be kicked out of their homes and sent to Jordan?

Not a good analogy.

Israel has Jewish, Christian, Muslim, non religious immigrants.

All living under an explicitly-Jewish government. That fact alone marginalises non-Jews.

 

[LuisDantas]

All countries are pretty much "deliberate constructs". Brazil is a "deliberate construct", as is the U.S., Syria, etc.

I don't think so.

Brazil is very much an accident, at least.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah defending yourself is obviously bad. We get it.

In case you forgot it, Israel was attacked by every neighbour it had. It did not declare this war, its neighbours did.
I'll enjoy reading your back paddling




Yeah we get it you don't like Nationalism. Now grow up.




You are suffering because of the Israeli-Arab conflict?

Please share your immense suffering with us.

You are really set on convincing anyone who might be on the fence, aren't you?

 

[Kirran]

I don't think so.

Brazil is very much an accident, at least.

Aw man, I spilled a Brazil, ah whatever, I'll clean it up later.

 

[Flankerl]

You are really set on convincing anyone who might be on the fence, aren't you?

Well according to your ingenious logic one is at fault for a war the other side started aka attacked you.

Which is just marvellous.

 

[Kirran]

Well according to your ingenious logic one is at fault for a war the other side started aka attacked you.

Which is just marvellous.

Has this glitched? I didn't say that

 

[Flankerl]

Has this glitched? I didn't say that

fixd

All living under an explicitly-Jewish government. That fact alone marginalises non-Jews.

Okay I'll bite. Whats an "explicitly-Jewish government"?

 

[Kirran]

Okay I'll bite. Whats an "explicitly-Jewish government"?

The government of a state which proclaims itself a 'Jewish state'.

 

[Lyndon]

Actually as to who started it, the Jews started an ethnic cleansing campaign soon after most of them got there, in 1948. Who gave them the right to emigrate there, certainly not the native people, but rather the invading British.

 

[metis]

I don't think so.

Brazil is very much an accident, at least.

If you don't think so, how do you think boundaries got established? From a satellite in space looking down, there are no boundaries.

 

[metis]

Actually as to who started it, the Jews started an ethnic cleansing campaign soon after most of them got there, in 1948. Who gave them the right to emigrate there, certainly not the native people, but rather the invading British.

Nice fabrication, but the reality is different. There are roughly 1 & 1/2 million Palestinians living in Israel proper, not including the WB or GS, so how do you think they got there? Why is it that they're not leaving whereas they're free to do so? Why is it that they have more democratic freedom and a higher standard of living than their neighbors in the region?

Secondly, do you have any clue of what happened in 1948? How many countries attacked Israel? Do you have any clue about the persecution of Jews there prior to 1948?

You're Australian, so what about the Europeans who came and took over from the Aborigines and persecuted them even up to a couple of decades ago? If you avatar is a picture of you, it appears that you're European, so why don't you leave and go back to your heritage in Europe with others of European descent and leave "Australia" to the Aborigines? If you're unwilling to do so, then you're just being hypocritical.

 

[metis]

The government of a state which proclaims itself a 'Jewish state'.

According to the the 2/3 U.N. vote.

BTW, France is for the French, Spain is for the Spanish, so what's the problem of Israel being for the Jews as this is the reason why it was created by the U.N. as a smaller partition (1/6) of "Palestine".

Should your country exist? Why?

 

[gsa]

According to the the 2/3 U.N. vote.

BTW, France is for the French, Spain is for the Spanish, so what's the problem of Israel being for the Jews as this is the reason why it was created by the U.N. as a smaller partition (1/6) of "Palestine".

Should your country exist? Why?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this analogy.

If you move to France, you’re expected to learn the language and, at least in public, pay certain deference to secular customs. You do not need to convert to Catholicism in order to enjoy the full benefits of French citizenship. Ecclesiastical courts do not have control over domestic access to marriage, requiring secular or interreligious couples to go to Spain to secure a civil license. Whatever equivalent there is to the "law of return" does not allow people to convert to being French and returning, while excluding an indigenous population that predated the formation of the French state. No religious conversion process is tied in with citizenship. I mean I could go on.

I get it: Israel wants to be a Jewish state. That means privileging Judaism, and Jews, and maintaining the demographic majority that prevents the democratic undoing of that status. But can we please not talk falsely about Europe, as though this was equivalent to France? It isn’t, no one believes it is and the history demonstrates all sorts of holes in the argument that Israel is free of de jure　religious discrimination, much less de facto　discrimination.

Israel can be a sectarian state that promotes a form of ethnic nationalism that is far, far less oppressive than its neighbors, it can even put forward arguments that this is necessary or that the non-ethnic forms of secular liberal democracy are insufficient for the Jewish homeland, but it cannot claim to be the equivalent of the great secular republics.

 

[columbus]

Actually as to who started it, the Jews started an ethnic cleansing campaign soon after most of them got there, in 1948. Who gave them the right to emigrate there, certainly not the native people, but rather the invading British.

Actually, it largely was the natives. When Israel was recognized by the UN the majority of the real estate had been purchased by the Jewish people from the Arab Muslim owners. Muslims mostly ignore this.

Tom

 

[rosends]

Egypt and Jordan do not need to be in the mandate to have an effect on the area. Both were legal states without any major issues which Israeli and Palestine had in 48 with recongization. My point is people are playing word games when it comes to what a state is or is not. Neither Israeli nor Palestine were recognized states prior to the war, just declared states by the belligerents during a time of war. The Mandate for a Jewish homeland is moot since it was never ratified before the war. It becomes merely a useless document that failed to be passed or do what it was intended to do. The UK refused to implement both the League of Nations and UN partition plans as the "Arab" refused it. Also the UN partition was the primary solution which voided previous mandates and partitions. Gaza at this point was "Arab" thus Israeli had no right to the land unless you ignore decades of policies going back even before the Balfour declaration. As this declaration had parameters in which the local population could not have a state forced on to them, it was the choice of the locals.

If Jordan illegally occupied land which had no nation-state Israeli's occupation is also illegal as there is no nation-state formed prior to occupation. A large percentage of the WB was never part of the partition plan so Israeli has no claims to the lands. Also Gaza post-war was conceded to Egypt by the post-war Israeli nation. Also large parts of the interior which is now part of Israeli were not part of the partition plan. If you are going to claim Israeli has a right to territory according to different policies then you must also concede that Israeli is illegally occupying land with is part of the Arab partition.

I love the amount of double standard people invoke in order to justify occupation while omitting the same source material granting rights and land to Palestine.

My understanding is that the partition, as a recommendation, required the buy in of both involved parties. Since that never happened, to say that the mandate was voided does not follow. As such, using the partition map to determine what was the land that "was" Israel and therefore what could be occupied by any party seems silly.

Anyway, to be precise, a large part of the WB was under the partition. It was to be set aside for an Arab state. Since the partition was rejected, it belonged to no state. That would make it later disputed territory vis-a-vis both Jordan's and Israel's presence there. Also, the Mandate was ratified by the League of Nations in 1923 IIRC.

 

[rosends]

Actually as to who started it, the Jews started an ethnic cleansing campaign soon after most of them got there, in 1948. Who gave them the right to emigrate there, certainly not the native people, but rather the invading British.

What?
You should research the various aliyah movements well before 1948, and check out the violence against the Jewish population from well before as well. By the way, do native people in an area generally make immigration law, or does the government of an area?

 

[Flankerl]

The government of a state which proclaims itself a 'Jewish state'.

Having Jewish state holidays and a Jewish calender must be tough.

I can't imagine how it must be for a people to live under a foreign calender and holidays.

....oh wait I can.