You know, I was reading this article just now from the goyim about Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/world/europe/29iht-letter.html?_r=1
I find the statement striking, "Neither the United States nor the rest of the world has ever recognized Israel’s claim to the territories — including East Jerusalem, which is mostly Arab — that it captured after its victory in the 1967 Middle East war." That's funny. It seems to me the UK which is part of the rest of the world was the last one to have ownership of Israel, not the Palestinians.
Britain gave Israel to the Jews in November of 1917 with the Balfour Declarations. End of story. It's our land.
It's like I come into your house and tell you which chairs you may and may not sit on. I mean your 5 year old wants to sit there AND I TOLD YOU TO MOVE NOW MOVE!!! WHAT? It's YOUR house? Me and my friends have been telling you to move out of that chair, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
ReplyDeleteThat's not the end of the story at all!
ReplyDeleteBritain did NOT give Israel to the Jews in 1917. The text of the Balfour Declaration just states that the British government "views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
As you can see, from the text of the Balfour Declaration, it's pretty clear that the British intended to be pretty vague. They never even said they would grant independence or even autonomy to this 'Jewish home", or what concrete steps they would take to let it happen. The British also recognized that there was an already existing non-Jewish population in Palestine which already considered Palestine their home.
Additionally, there is an argument to be made that the British offered the area including Israel to Arab governance during the Hussein-McMahon correspondence (1915-1916), a year before the Balfour Declaration.
Moreover, the British never "owned" Palestine. After the Ottoman Empire's collapse in World War I, the League of Nations entrusted Palestine to the British, to be governed by them (and, thus, not as a colonial possession) until they were ready for self-government. Even if the British wanted to give the Jews a state of their own, they could no more declare this than any other country. At the time of the Balfour Declaration, the British were not even in possession of Palestine. That would be like the United States promising Iraq to the Sunnis in 1999, well before the 2003 invasion. And, again, as I have already said, the British never gave the Jews Israel.
The 1947 Partition Plan was created by the United Nations, and not the United Kingdom, and did not include any of Jerusalem or the West Bank. In 1948, Israel annexed West Jerusalem. In 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. No country has recognized Israel's right to this land, not even Israel really, as Israel never formally annexed this territory. Indeed the United Nations has issued numerous resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw, and Israel has agreed to some of them, and, pursuant to its signings of the Oslo Accords, has agreed to a future Palestinian state on at least part of the West Bank.
Therefore, the NYT article is completely correct.
Well, now that you mention it, All of us Americans should give our land back to the Native American Indians. Although, Manhattan was sold to the white man. So, people who live there can stay.
ReplyDeleteI guess now I'm homeless.
So can we fire missiles at the Arabs like the Arabs did to us?
ReplyDelete>Well, now that you mention it, All of us Americans should give our land back to the Native American Indians. Although, Manhattan was sold to the white man. So, people who live there can stay.
ReplyDeleteIs that really your argument? Are you then arguing that when the white settlers practically wiped out the Native Americans in conquering what later became the United States they did the right thing? That there was nothing morally reprehensible in such expansion?
Or, would you admit, that such action was indeed immoral?
If you admit to the second (which I hope you do), then the fact that America has not returned the land to Native Americans is not a mark of the righteousness of such inaction. It is more a product of various factors, not least among them, there are practically no more Native Americans alive today. In a country of 300 million people, they number less than 1%. Practically speaking, how would such a transaction occur? And how could people born in this country be legally evicted from it? And, practically speaking, who could force the United States to do it?
None of this is the situation in Israel today. The Arab population between the Jordan and Mediterranean is almost equal to that of the Jewish, and growing more every day. Additionally, the Arab populace is, for the most part, concentrated in a segregated part of this territory. It would be relatively easy for such a transaction to occur. Additionally, the Arab population, unlike the Native Americans, have been putting up a consistent and violent barrage, intended to exert pressure on the Jewish population. Even if you don't want to give in to terrorism, world opinion favors the establishment of a separate Palestinian state, as does a large percentage of the Israeli Jewish population.
Or, perhaps you want to argue, that what the Americans did was fine, and that "finders keepers, losers weepers" means that any population that exists in a territory, no matter if they weren't there first, is automatically entitled to it. In which case, you would agree, I am sure, that the Palestinians are entitled to Palestine because they are there, despite the fact that the Jews were there originally.
Either way, it's not a very good argument.
>So can we fire missiles at the Arabs like the Arabs did to us?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your question is, but, in point of fact, we do fire missiles at the Arabs. Quite a lot in fact. Remember Operation Cast Lead this winter? We've killed much more Palestinians, by an order of magnitude, than they have killed of us.
Yeah, so maybe Hashem looks out for his people.
ReplyDeleteVox,
ReplyDeleteYou know that's perfect. Let's give the land in question back to the people who had it before the Arabs... hmmmmm.... I wonder who EVER that could be.
"Is that really your argument? Are you then arguing that when the white settlers practically wiped out the Native Americans in conquering what later became the United States they did the right thing? That there was nothing morally reprehensible in such expansion?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that's how the Arabs took the land from the Jews in the first place.
Incidentally, this growing Arab population, where are they coming from?
ReplyDeleteI don't suppose you realize that that teeny tiny sliver of land is the only Jewish homeland. Whereas, the Arabs have the rest of the Middle East as home land.