Am I a anti-semitist?

[Ned]

Ethelred, I believe your bottom line is that GB, which liberated Palestine, had no right to permit Jewish immigration without a vote (consent) of the local inhabitants, all of them voting as one, majority vote to decide.

However, I keep getting caught up with your term "Arab" lands. The "Arabs" were Feisal, Abdullah and their father Hussein, all "shieks" from Mecca and Medina. The people of Palestine were not under the rule of these shieks, nor did these shieks have an automatic right to rule Palestine just because their ancestors did ages ago. Nor did they have a right to rule Palestine because they were allies of the British.

The local inhabitants of Palestine were mixtures of Arabic speaking muslims, christians and Jews. The land was not "Arab," unless, of course you implicity subscribe to the notion that the shieks of Arabia had a divine right to be reinstalled as soon as the Brits liberated Palestine.

The crucial point, is therefor, whether the Brits had to get the consent of the "other" residents of Palestine when the Balfour declaration itself provided that Jewish immigration could not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

I still believe that the answer that does not presume "Arab" sovereignity is, yes. I do not believe the Brits had to get the consent of the other residents because of the reservation. The Brits, as far as I know, did not take away the civil or religious or any other rights of the local non Jewish inhabitants.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, I believe your bottom line is that GB, which liberated Palestine, had no right to permit Jewish immigration without a vote (consent) of the local inhabitants, all of them voting as one, majority vote to decide.

No, just local control. However it came about. There was only British control though.

However, I keep getting caught up with your term "Arab" lands.

More like you try to avoid the concept.

The "Arabs" were Feisal, Abdullah and their father Hussein, all "shieks" from Mecca and Medina. The people of Palestine were not under the rule of these shieks, nor did these shieks have an automatic right to rule Palestine just because their ancestors did ages ago. Nor did they have a right to rule Palestine because they were allies of the British.

See your still playing who rules games. I am and have been talking about the inhabitants.

The local inhabitants of Palestine were mixtures of Arabic speaking muslims, christians and Jews. The land was not "Arab," unless, of course you implicity subscribe to the notion that the shieks of Arabia had a divine right to be reinstalled as soon as the Brits liberated Palestine.

Evasion. The Jews were a small minority even in 1922, five years after the Brits started encouraging imigration. The main inhabitants were non-Jewish Semites and the Jews that were there were already heavily European.

The crucial point, is therefor, whether the Brits had to get the consent of the "other" residents of Palestine when the Balfour declaration itself provided that Jewish immigration could not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Of course the Declaration made two mutualy exclusive promises. As such even if had a legal value it contradicts itself. It HAS no legal value in the first place. It was a purely colonial action intended to aid the Brits. The British wanted a state that would be their ally. If you don't think so take another look at the war in '56. In an amazing piece of duplicitous diplomacy the Brits and the French got the Israelis to attack the Egyptians so they would have an excuse to take over the Suez to 'protect' it.

I still believe that the answer that does not presume "Arab" sovereignity is, yes. I do not believe the Brits had to get the consent of the other residents because of the reservation. The Brits, as far as I know, did not take away the civil or religious or any other rights of the local non Jewish inhabitants.

Well thats wrong on two counts. The Brits didn't have any right to make the Balfour Declaration. They didn't own the territory. It wasn't theirs to give. Plus they definitly did take away the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants. The locals had every right to rule themselves. The French and the English carved it up among themselves and used the League to put a false stamp of legitimacy on their actions.

Even when the UN was involved there was NO representation by the Arabs. The Arabs had allready made it clear they didn't wan't a Jewish state in their land. They were ignored. That a rights violation. Don't play games by bring up a bunch of guys from the Arabian peninsula. If you feel that had no business ruling then the Brits certainly had far less.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Then I still think your position presumes the outcome and denies the Jews the right to live in their own separate state. Just because long ago they were conquered by the Roman, then by the Arabs, then by the Crusaders, then by the Turks does not mean that when finally they are free from the Turks that they again have to put back under the yoke and chains of Arab slavery.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Then I still think your position presumes the outcome and denies the Jews the right to live in their own separate state. Just because long ago they were conquered by the Roman, then by the Arabs, then by the Crusaders, then by the Turks does not mean that when finally they are free from the Turks that they again have to put back under the yoke and chains of Arab slavery.

Ned

Speaking of presuming the outcome.

For the Jews to have a right to a seperate state they would have to have a LAND of their own. They did not have that in 1917 or even 1948. It was Arabs not Jews that were conquered by the Turks. That you said it was the Jews shows you aren't dealing with the reality that the Middle East had not had many Jews since the Romans kicked them out. It was non-Jewish christian semites that were conquered by the Moslems. Same for the Crusaders. The city Jerusalem was mostly Arab when the Crusaders came not Jewish.

[Ned]

Ethelred, I don't think we will ever agree. So let's just agree to disagree. But just let me say that after our conversation, I more firmly believe than ever in the so-called right of self-determination. One people should not be forced to live under the rule of a completely different people. They should be given self government. They should be given their freedom, the famous last words of William Wallace. Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, I don't think we will ever agree.

Well that is because you don't want to accept the idea that the Jews had no justification for creating the state of Israel on someone elses land.

So let's just agree to disagree. But just let me say that after our conversation, I more firmly believe than ever in the so-called right of self-determination. One people should not be forced to live under the rule of a completely different people. They should be given self government. They should be given their freedom, the famous last words of William Wallace. Ned

That fits the Palestinians anyway. The Jews are not one people, haven't been that for a very long time. There are Chinese(really one town on the old Silk Road) Jews, African Jews, European(Ashkenazy) Jews from and still mostly living in many countries, and Middle Eastern and North African(Sephardic) Jews. Only a small percentage of the Sephardic Jews lived in the area that now constitutes Israel for most of the last 1800 years.

There a more Jews living in the US than in Israel. They have a country, the US.

Long term the idea of seperate nations for seperate peoples is not a good idea. Its just a way to slow the killing instead of stopping the hate. The EU is a nice start on curing this hate. Tolerance is the answer not seperate states.

[Kropotkin]

I strongly agree with ethelred in theory. Creating states for all nations is in the long run not a good solution. In the long run nationalism creates more conflicts than it solves imho.

However, we must be realistic. In hindsight the creation of the Israeli state was probably a mistake both as an idea and the way it was conducted but at the time a jewish state as a solution must have looked as a good idea for mostly everyone (who had a say) at the time. Sometimes national states is a necessity, just look at east timor. Talking with the indonesian state about tolerance would be pointless.

Also, talking about tolerance to both arafat and sharon is probably futile. We have to hope that the next generation of leaders are a bit more mature, constructive and less violent.

Creating a palestinian state to make up for the errors made in the creation of the state of Israel is a less than perfect solution for everyone but we can't go back in time and create a state not based on ethnicity and religion as it was probably not even possible then.

[Az]

There a more Jews living in the US than in Israel. They have a country, the US

this is a stupid argument. It's like me saying there are more spaniards in south america than in spain. and they all know spanish , as their native language. most traditions remain. So what, now we should abolish spain?

I strongly agree with ethelred in theory. Creating states for all nations is in the long run not a good solution. In the long run nationalism creates more conflicts than it solves imho.

why should Israeli jews be ****ed up then , when other nation-states exist? it's easy to talk when you have a nation-state protecting you.

[Az]

That fits the Palestinians anyway. The Jews are not one people, haven't been that for a very long time. There are Chinese(really one town on the old Silk Road) Jews, African Jews, European(Ashkenazy) Jews from and still mostly living in many countries, and Middle Eastern and North African(Sephardic) Jews. Only a small percentage of the Sephardic Jews lived in the area that now constitutes Israel for most of the last 1800 years.

so then ethnicity is the definition of nationality? says who? and if so , Palestinians are not a nationality. neither are arabs.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
this is a stupid argument. It's like me saying there are more spaniards in south america than in spain. and they all know spanish , as their native language. most traditions remain. So what, now we should abolish spain?

That would be stupid because its not true. First they aren't Spaniards any more that I am Irish because I have some Irish ancestors. Second NOT ONE BLOODY SINGLE TIME HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE PRESENT STATE OF ISRAEL SHOULD BE DESTROYED. Now stick that in your brain. I defy you or anyone else to show where I said such a thing.

I am sick and tired of being attacked for things I never said.

why should Israeli jews be ****ed up then , when other nation-states exist? it's easy to talk when you have a nation-state protecting you.

American-Jews have a nation-state. Its called the United States of America.

You don't get the picture at all. The whole thing is about one close minded Israeli on here making the ridiculous claim that if you don't think Jews had a right to a state in the Middle East you are automaticly anti-semetic. Which is complete nonsense. Jews did not have a right to a state in the Middle East when the country was founded.

What gave a bunch of European Jews the right to found a state on someones elses land? Besides might that is.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
so then ethnicity is the definition of nationality? says who?

Its one definition but its not a good one however I didn't say it in any case. I was pointing the Jews are not single group. Nationanalities usually are. Try and find a definition of nationality that will fit all those different people into it. The main connecting factor is religion. Secondary is that some their anscestors were most likely Jewish Semites. Again some of my anscestors were Irish Catholic. That doen't make me either Catholic or Irish.

and if so , Palestinians are not a nationality. neither are arabs.

I have not been the one claiming nationality for anyone. The Palestinians are Arabs by language, mostly Moslem by religion and Semetic by anscestory. They were up untill the 1948 the still the main inhabitants of what is now Israel. They were the vast majority of the area prior to 1917. What right did anyone have to take it from them? Again besides might.

[Az]

What gave a bunch of European Jews the right to found a state on someones elses land? Besides might that is.

well , many lands were owned by jews, purchased from palestinians. no jews were living on palestinian owned land.
jews arrived to the land , and were a third of it's population at the time. they didn't rule the land at that point.

Its one definition but its not a good one however I didn't say it in any case. I was pointing the Jews are not single group. Nationanalities usually are. Try and find a definition of nationality that will fit all those different people into it. The main connecting factor is religion. Secondary is that some their anscestors were most likely Jewish Semites. Again some of my anscestors were Irish Catholic. That doen't make me either Catholic or Irish.

it's more than religion, it's also oral tradition, and culture. jews in both east and west have a culture unique of their neighbours, and similar between themselves.

neither can you unite the palestinians as members of the same "race" . they have different colours of skins, for example. facial features of some are european , while others look more like the inhabitants of northen africa, which are also , european , but differ. There are people that one could ethnically consider arab, persian , european. It's not quite as clear, as with any other nation. Russians for example.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
well , many lands were owned by jews, purchased from palestinians. no jews were living on palestinian owned land.
jews arrived to the land , and were a third of it's population at the time. they didn't rule the land at that point.

Jews owned about twenty percent and non-jews owned about 45 percent. It was 30% which nowhere near the majority and all those numbers are from 1948 not 1917 when the main effort to form a Jewish state began.

Also that is evasion in any case. I asked a question and you gave this which is not an answer. Are you claiming that a recently imigrated minority had the right to form a state and the majority of the locals didn't have any say in it? And what about the case in 1917 when the main effort began although it had gotten started in the 1880's.

it's more than religion, it's also oral tradition, and culture. jews in both east and west have a culture unique of their neighbours, and similar between themselves.

Not the same as a Nationality though. The oral tradition is mostly based on religion.

neither can you unite the palestinians as members of the same "race" . they have different colours of skins, for example. facial features of some are european , while others look more like the inhabitants of northen africa, which are also , european , but differ. There are people that one could ethnically consider arab, persian , european. It's not quite as clear, as with any other nation. Russians for example.

I am not the one harping on nationality. I have only pointed out the Jews aren't a nationality in the same sense as anyother nationality. Most of the Palestinians are of primarily semetic descent, more so than the average European Jew. The Middle East is the route between Eurasia and Afric. Its not suprising that the local people have often mixed with invaders.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
why should Israeli jews be ****ed up then , when other nation-states exist? it's easy to talk when you have a nation-state protecting you.

I'm not supporting the nation-state in theory but I can hardly do anything about history. The state of Israel is included in history... Don't drag the debate down to chris62's level.

There's nothing that says that you have to live in a nation-state to be protected (or that a nation state will protect you). Look at Switzerland for example; they've managed to create a open and comperatively tolerant society without nation as a foundation for it's legitimcy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Look at Switzerland for example; they've managed to create a open and comperatively tolerant society without nation as a foundation for it's legitimcy.

IIRC, Switzerland is a nation-state.