@Rajk999 saidThat is what people say who care and want others to think you don't.
Who cares, except people like you.
@Rajk999 saidLike I said earlier, you are using the timeline as a legal excuse.
Like I said. .. you are suffering from Presentism. See my earlier post. It appears that you are unable to distinguish between moral standards now vs the past. So we have two situations:
1. UN deciding on self-determination in 1960 and all countries were in agreement that people should have the right to set up, run and manage their own country, without a colonial power. ...[text shortened]... ons with the Jews. Instead they made war... Big mistake. Do you think they will learn? I doubt it.
My question has always been whether it was MORALLY right for the British to partition what is not theirs.
To which your answer is that the world's moral compass changed to the opposite from 1948 to 1960, in a period of 12 years??
The idea of independent nation states existed as early as the 19th century. The nationalist/freedom movements in Asia and Africa had started well before 1948. It's lame to argue that the British were not aware of these sentiments, when they had already succumbed to an Indian freedom struggle by then.
@Philokalia saidA very bad analogy. Palestine changed hands over the last 2000 years. Never once was it ever owned by Arab Palestinians. The last owner before the Jews were the British.
Who is the rightful owner of your car?
- You.
- A thief.
If a thief offers you a ride-sharing program and says he will get it all weekend but he will carpool with you to and from work on weekdays, is that a deal you would be interested in?
@Philokalia saidNot possible. Do you have any realistic suggestions that can work?
So what about a scenario where they just end the murderous Zionist government, and allow the Jews remain as part of a new, democratic government?
Is that "possible?"
(There is a lot more wrong with your post, but I am just trying to broaden the discussion and make some points.)
There is no murderous Zionist govt. Nobody can take control of Israel apart from Jews. Right now there are Arab Muslims in the Knesset. These represent the some 2 million Arabs in Israel.
Muslims cannot take control of Israel. That would not be allowed.
@Philokalia saidYou are ignoring the facts of the case, and using dramatic language hoping it will strengthen your point.
So it is justifiable for Jews to move en masse to a specific region in the Middle East and ethnically cleanse the land because it is sensible for them to not trust the locals, who they just kicked off their land?
This is perfect logic for any colonialism.
"We've suffered and we are tired, and now that we have shown up and begun displacing you, I assure you ...[text shortened]... you are certain you would face punishment if you came forward, and ... [i]that would be unfair.
The Ottoman Empire owned Palestine up to 1915.
The British Empire owned Palestine from 1915 to 1948.
The British Empire with the full agreement of the UN aka the world, partitioned Palestine and gave the two warring parties roughly half of Palestine each,
The Jews accepted their lot and built up their nation
The Arabs [and surrounding Arab nations] refused the partition and declared war on the Jews.
That is the truth in a nutshell.
Unfortunately for the Arabs, because they made war over the years, they lost much of their allotted portion. Sadly for them there is no going back to 1948 partition, and even worse there no scenario where a 2-state solution will work.
Palestinian Arabs are now without a state and will eventually be brough in under Israel and remain a failed subdued nation.
They made poor decisions over the last 75 years.
@sameeh saidDiscussing the morality of a previous era when standards were totally different is a useless exercise, and one in which I will not engage. You are not seeing how 'presentism' has destroyed your ability to understand these historical events. Emotional attachment to this Palestinian cause is reason for your irrational conclusions.
Like I said earlier, you are using the timeline as a legal excuse.
My question has always been whether it was MORALLY right for the British to partition what is not theirs.
To which your answer is that the world's moral compass changed to the opposite from 1948 to 1960, in a period of 12 years??
The idea of independent nation states existed as early as the 19th century. T ...[text shortened]... ot aware of these sentiments, when they had already succumbed to an Indian freedom struggle by then.
I would not waste my time discussing the morality of slavery, or child labour. Colonialism falls in the same category. These were the order of the day and was part of life in those times.
Also get your facts correct. It was not 12 years. .. read the following carefully ..
It was in 1915 the British Empire took over the Ottoman Empire. In 1917 the British issued the Balfour Declaration that Palestine is to be a homeland for the Jews. It was in 1960 the UN issued its proposal for member nation to discuss, regarding self-determination. From 1948 to 1999 British colonies were gradually granted independence from colonial rule. It was in 1999 the world saw the last of British colonialism, when HongKong was returned to China. This is almost a century it took to change from colonial rule to self-determination.
It is the nature of colonial rule. It was morally right at that time. There is no requirement to for a colonial power to care what people think in conquered lands, and whether or not they want independence. Conquered lands in those times belonged to the Queen. You want it back you have to fight for it. That was the nature of life in those times.
@Rajk999 saidSince you seen to duck the question of morality altogether, let me ask you a different question.
Discussing the morality of a previous era when standards were totally different is a useless exercise, and one in which I will not engage. You are not seeing how 'presentism' has destroyed your ability to understand these historical events. Emotional attachment to this Palestinian cause is reason for your irrational conclusions.
I would not waste my time discussing the mo ...[text shortened]... the Queen. You want it back you have to fight for it. That was the nature of life in those times.
Supposing, as you say, the British did have the right to make the call to partition and accommodate the Jews in 1914. If so, why do you think they took that decision? If you were a British citizen at the time of the balfour declaration, would you have been supportive of it or opposed to it? And what would the reasons have been for your decision then?
1 edit
@sameeh saidI did not duck the question. I said that it is not my call to judge people's morality 100 years ago and I still cannot answer for a British citizen 100 years ago at the time of the Balfour Declaration. That is a done deal never to be reversed. I will give you some answers for me at this present time, in the light of what is likely to happen in Israel in the next few years...
Since you seen to duck the question of morality altogether, let me ask you a different question.
Supposing, as you say, the British did have the right to make the call to partition and accommodate the Jews in 1914. If so, why do you think they took that decision? If you were a British citizen at the time of the balfour declaration, would you have been supportive of it or opposed to it? And what would the reasons have been for your decision then?
1. The Jews [with the help of other Arab nations] are going to rebuild Gaza and take control of it so that Hamas or any other terrorist group will not be able to operate.
2. West Bank will be fully annexed and controlled.
3 AlAsqa mosque is going to be destroyed [the Jews will claim it was a mistake] and Solomons Temple rebuilt
4. Israel will be one unified nation - both Jews and Muslims - under an Israeli govt.
5. There will finally be peace.
I support all of these things and the faster it happens the better.
@Rajk999 saidWhen you wax eloquent about the arabs having persecuted the Jews and the jizya, but you fail to answer as to why the balfour declaration made sense, that is ducking my question indeed 🙂
I did not duck the question. I said that it is not my call to judge people's morality 100 years ago and I still cannot answer for a British citizen 100 years ago at the time of the Balfour Declaration. That is a done deal never to be reversed. I will give you some answers for me at this present time, in the light of what is likely to happen in Israel in the next few years... ...[text shortened]... There will finally be peace.
I support all of these things and the faster it happens the better.
I don't care what you think about the present day, unless you answer my question on why do you think the british supported return of Jews to palestine in early 20th century . Surely you must have a view on the same and are not ignorant about the reasons?
@sameeh saidThe first one - Arabs persecuting the Jews - is a matter of historical fact. The second one - why the Balfour Declaration was done- requires guess work. So I did not duck . I declined because in retrospect the 'why' is irrelevant.
When you wax eloquent about the arabs having persecuted the Jews and the jizya, but you fail to answer as to why the balfour declaration made sense, that is ducking my question indeed 🙂
I don't care what you think about the present day, unless you answer my question on why do you think the british supported return of Jews to palestine in early 20th century . Surely you must have a view on the same and are not ignorant about the reasons?
It could have been any one of a dozen reasons why the British decided to side with the Jews. Probably the most important is that the Jewish lobby is a powerful force in any country. The Jews have been able to make friends of people all over the world. In contrast the typical Arab or Muslim have some kind of probllem being socialble and friendly. I dont really know for sure and Im guessing.
Maybe you can ask that question ... why is it that some people make allies and some do not.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidPlease.. let's not trivialise this as a secret real estate deal closed between powerful friends behind closed doors. There was a clear rationale publicized and discussed in public then, that the Jews deserved Israel due to their ancestral connections, and their right to exist as a nation. Agree?
The first one - Arabs persecuting the Jews - is a matter of historical fact. The second one - why the Balfour Declaration was done- requires guess work. So I did not duck . I declined because in retrospect the 'why' is irrelevant.
It could have been any one of a dozen reasons why the British decided to side with the Jews. Probably the most important is that the Jewish l ...[text shortened]... ing.
Maybe you can ask that question ... why is it that some people make allies and some do not.
My question to you is, had you been a British citizen at that time, what would your stand have been towards the same argument. And please don't tell me you wouldn't have cared and consider only the outcome as important. You cared enough about the events in October 2023 to complain, so you do see a moral angle to all of this for sure. So please, humor me, and transport yourself to early 20th century and tell me what you think.
@AThousandYoung saidI. What displacement in Britain?
What’s the statute of limitations on this sort of thing?
I mean, I’ve never heard you criticize the English or the Turks for their conquest and displacement in Britain and Constantinople for example so I’m guessing after 500 years we can stop worrying about it?
Israel is willing to wait.
II. I am an Orthodox Christian and would have loved to have seen Istanbul returned to Orthodoxy. This is still relevant to some people, but it seems so improbable as to be silly.
III. Israel, of course, is a remarkably young country, and there are many people alive who all have valid claims to that land.
I will see what you have to say in the next message before I dive into some other narrative on this.
@AThousandYoung saidThe word 'Arab' is similar to the word 'European.' There are Arabs of many stripes, and they are genetically distinct from one another. The language of Arabic is also just a language family. There's a few continuums upon which they all speak that are quite unrelated.
If the “Muslim Arab Palestinians” want to call themselves Jews and begin speaking Hebrew I’ll encourage Israel to take them in.
Unfortunately for them being Arabs and Palestinians (who are known ethnic groups which are NOT Jews) seems more important.
My recommendation is for them to let go of the whole “Arab” angle and embrace being Palestinians. Then they should ...[text shortened]... lis) including Ashdod and Ashkelon.
But nobody cares what I think about it and why should tney?
For instance, all the Maghrebi Arabic languages are distinct from even the Egyptian Arabic (Masri), and the Jordanians, Palestinians, and Lebanese speak on something of a continuum. Iraqi Arabic is completely distinct, and the various Gulf Arab langauges are also distinct to some degree, I am not sure.
I also know that Sudanese Arabic is very distinct.
All these peoples are also distinct.
If we were to do it like the Arabs do, we would have been able to say something like "There are five languages in Europe - Germanic, Latin, Slavic, Finnic, and Basque," or something like this.
The Palestinians are a real, distinct people, and they are a Semitic people who speak the Arabic language and have an influence from surrounding Arab population, just like the Jews used to have.
@Rajk999 saidWould it count as ownershiup by Palestinians if some of the local Arab rulers who were entitled to the fiefdoms were ethnic Palestinians..?
A very bad analogy. Palestine changed hands over the last 2000 years. Never once was it ever owned by Arab Palestinians. The last owner before the Jews were the British.
I wouldn't know where to begin to find lists of early Islamic rulers and post-Crusades rulers, lol, but I think it is not absurd at all to suggest that there were Palestinians ruling beneath the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Usmans (Ottomans).
@Rajk999 saidThat would not be allowed...?
Not possible. Do you have any realistic suggestions that can work?
There is no murderous Zionist govt. Nobody can take control of Israel apart from Jews. Right now there are Arab Muslims in the Knesset. These represent the some 2 million Arabs in Israel.
Muslims cannot take control of Israel. That would not be allowed.
Who is not allowing it?
Are you saying that HASHEM would not allow this? Are you giving us religious proclamations at this point, and introducing them into an ethical debate about Israel?