The fact that you see no rational or even moral issues in systematically expelling an entire people from the land they had inhabited for time immemorial just demonstrated your own level or moral bankruptcy. That is repugnant and vile act, no matter who commits it.
What an utterly asinine analogy. I wouldn’t have expected something this far-fetched and ridiculous, even from you.
Have Muslims formed organizations with the sole, explicitly expressed purpose to purchase land and foster illegal immigration to France or Belgium, with the ultimate goal of building up a demographic majority and establishing an Islamic state? Have Muslims cooked up an entire political ideology claiming a long lost homeland in the Netherlands?
Outside of your schizophrenic reality, the majority of Muslim immigrants to these countries are economic migrants from the very same colonies that these European nations raped and plundered for years. They do not constitute more than 8% of the population of any Western European nation, and most of these countries can (and have) successfully enacted legislation to restrict immigration without much controversy. I don’t think anyone disputes a nation’s right to restrict immigration as they see fit - it’s only when they start stripping people of citizenship due to ethnicity (as the UK did in the 60’s, or as the French temporarily did more recently) or severely curtailing the rights of religious/ethnic minorities that people complain of racism.
And again, that would not have been possible in a democratic system. Arabs would have formed a 51% majority in the Zionist state gerrymandered out of Palestine according to the UN’s original partition plans. Even after those plans were modified to reduce the Bedouin population in the Zionist state, Arabs would still have accounted for nearly half of the population, and legally owned even more of the land - which is to say, they had enough of a population bloc that their representatives could have effectively blocked legislation on further Jewish immigration in a democratic system.
Even within the parameters of the UN partition plan, the act of building a state that was characteristically Jewish with a demographically insignificant Arab population would have essentially required the disenfranchisement of the Arab population (at the very least).
The fact that its official census data.
Here’s your link.
I’m only following Israeli precedent. After the '67 War, Israel drafted legislation allowing all Jews who were expelled to go back and reclaim lost properties in East Jerusalem…a right that even internally displaced Arab citizens of Israel can’t claim.
In any case, Jordan’s actions when it occupied East Jerusalem were indeed in contravention of international law, and its declaration of East Jerusalem as its “second capital” was not recognized by the international community for the same reason why no nation maintains its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem today.
Perhaps the reason people speak of illegal Israeli settlements and Arab refugees is because of the gross numerical asymmetry of it all - the '48 war resulted in the expulsion of 750,000 Arab civilians. On the other hand, there were fewer than 10,000 Jews in the entire proposed Arab state before 1948 (much of which ended up in Israel anyways). Today there are over 350,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank alone. I haven’t seen any estimates of the number of Jews expelled from East Jerusalem (which, as I understand, was mostly comprised of the Arab dominated areas of the city anyways) - and even though the number was without a doubt a small fraction of the number of Palestinians expelled from Israeli territory, it was a war crime nonetheless.
“Further still, Resolution 181 gave the most fertile lands to the Zionists and left infertile soil to the Palestinians.”
“Moreover, the territory allocated to the Jewish State included the coastal plain extending from Akka to Ashdod and other fertile lands,
while the Palestinians, an agricultural people, were left mainly with mountainous and arid regions.”
Source:
http://world-ice.com/Articles/Inequity.pdf
I see. So according to you the British were the legitimate authority in the region when they agreed to create a Jewish state (something you yourself have argued in the past), but were illegal occupiers when they restricted Jewish immigration. What convenient logic!
Incorrect. This was not immigration and dispossession. The native peoples of the Middle East and North Africa were gradually Arabized after being ruled over by an Arabic-speaking elite (who were themselves, generally speaking, not originally from the Arabian peninsula) for centuries.
Yet another asinine analogy.
Which were primarily comprised of unsettled land with sporadic tribal settlements, and with no formal concept of nation-states, when they were colonized by the Europeans. Still, historians today freely recognize the fact that the ethnic cleansing of the native peoples of the Americas was a heinous, criminal act (rationalizing the massacres, as you attempt to do with the Palestinians, is generally looked upon very poorly in academic circles here). And, in the end, the native peoples were ultimately offered full citizenship in these nations - even when it meant that white descendants of European colonists would lose control of the government to the natives, as it did in much of South and Central America.
Also, if you’re going to use the dominant mores of the middle ages and the imperialist era as examples to justify Israel’s actions today, in the era of the Geneva Conventions, then don’t wince when people call you barbarians.
And now you’re mentioning “nations” that aren’t even recognized in most of the world.
As justified as the illegal immigration of Andalucian Arabs to southern Spain, with the expressed purpose of establishing a Morisco homeland.
You speak about illegal Israeli settlement as if it is some distant past process…when it is in fact ongoing, and the Israeli govenment and Zionists like yourself become belligerent when questioned about it. Those Israelis who continue to volunteer to establish settlements on what they fully realize is stolen land, do so because they want to be on the forefront of the movement to seize Palestinian land and to ensure that it becomes impossible to establish a viable Palestinian state in the region.
As for those who were born and brought up in the settlements - I would point out that the (often distant) descendants of Holocaust victims have the established right to reclaim plundered artwork and other valuable assets from the** descendants **of people who purchased them, or from musems that acquired them much later on from second or third line buyers. “They did not purchase or steal anything, they just happened to inherit the wrong item.” Still, they frequently lose assets worth tens of millions of dollars. Hell, the law in many countries even allows descendants of Holocaust victims to reclaim objects that their ancestors legitimately sold, because we cannot say that they were not sold under duress.
I’m sure you have no problem with any of that though.
Go reread my post. I clearly stated that those who wish to stay certainly should be offered full citizenship in the Palestinian state (though I don’t think many would want it), and that they should even keep their current homes after some arrangement had been made to locate and compensate the original owners of the land on which they live.
