Moving Israel to Europe

[Straybow]

The local immigration policies which allowed for the large influx of Jews were not created a government with legitimacy in Palestine, but by a foreign soverign thousands of miles away.

So? The expulsion which removed the Jews from Palestine two millennia earlier was not the impulse of a "government with legitimacy in Palestine, but by a foreign sovereign" in Rome.

The continuing policy of persecution and bar on the return of their descendants was not the product of a "government with legitimacy in Palestine," but by foreign rule from Arabia, Egypt, Syria, France, etc.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dis


should we also give back land to native americans? Such as New York city?

No, the white man paid for NY. It is the rest of today USA that the white man took from the indians without paiding it.

[Joseph]

England rule Ireland for 900 years and only gave back 3/4 of it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Joseph
No, the white man paid for NY. It is the rest of today USA that the white man took from the indians without paiding it.

yeah, but did they pay fair market value? I think not.

They probably paid with disease-ridden blankets

[Joseph]

Originally posted by GePap


The diffrence is simple. A set of democratic elections in most of the lands that were designated to Poland in the aftermath of the Collapse of both the German and Russian empires after WW1 would have led to the creation of an independent Polish state- the outcome east of the Curzon line is doubtfull given the large number of Ukranians and Belorussians, though of course Poland's eastern boundary was decided by warfar.

If elections and referendums had been held in the Ottoman province of Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, there certainly would have been no Zionist state there, since Jews made up a minority of the population.

The very simple injustice comes form the fact that the victors of WW1 assumed total and undemocratic control of the province of Palestine- imperial rule from Istandbul was replaced with Imperial rule from London, and the decision to eventually create a zionist state was made without the support of the vast majority of the local population at the time that decision was madeby London. The local immigration policies which allowed for the large influx of Jews were not created a government with legitimacy in Palestine, but by a foreign soverign thousands of miles away.

Would you not admit to the gross unfairness of the treatement of Arab populations after the 1st world war as compared to that of Europeans? Or is that injustice immaterial and insignificant?

I look at the unfair treatment of the Jew back in 67AD.
If the Romans had left Israel alone, today Israel would be the oldest country in the World.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sava


yeah, but did they pay fair market value? I think not.

They probably paid with disease-ridden blankets

I think is was about $26.00 in what year?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Joseph
I look at the unfair treatment of the Jew back in 67AD.
If the Romans had left Israel alone, today Israel would be the oldest country in the World.

I think this can all be traced back to around 20,000BC

if the Crogmactar tribe had left alone the Gaktifdot tribe, this whole mess could have been avoided

[Sava]

Originally posted by Joseph
I think is was about $26.00 in what year?

careful there, adjusted for inflation, and maybe if they invested that...

you could be talking about billions

[Nostromo]

Am I the only one here who thinks Iran's president is a ****ing moron?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by nostromo
Am I the only one here who thinks Iran's president is a ****ing moron?

No, I'm sure that some of us also believe he is.

[Sava]

Joseph's many personalities are undecided at the moment

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow

So? The expulsion which removed the Jews from Palestine two millennia earlier was not the impulse of a "government with legitimacy in Palestine, but by a foreign sovereign" in Rome.

So what? Beyind the simple "two wrongs don't make a right" principle (or have you never heard of that?), evets 200 years prior are irrelevant and meanigless. What the Romans did has no bearing on the issue.

The continuing policy of persecution and bar on the return of their descendants was not the product of a "government with legitimacy in Palestine," but by foreign rule from Arabia, Egypt, Syria, France, etc.

What are you babbling about? Immigration of Jews there was limited by a few factors, most important of which was the relative immobilioty of people's, specially once large multinational empires broke up.

Actually, why am I responsding to such irrelevant dribble???

[GePap]

Originally posted by Joseph
I look at the unfair treatment of the Jew back in 67AD.
If the Romans had left Israel alone, today Israel would be the oldest country in the World.

So the Romans did to the Jews what the Jews did to the Cannanites. Maybe the Romans were divine payback?

But as I told Straymind...I mean, bow, events in antiquity are utterly and beyond irrelevant to the fairness of what occured in 1918.

[Straybow]

What happened in 1918 can likewise be said to be immaterial today.

Get over it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
What happened in 1918 can likewise be said to be immaterial today.

Get over it.

There are people still alive who lived in 1918. There is certainly more of a connection.

BUt I forget you are one of these people who for some inane reason are unable to read what people post without utterly missing the point of the discussion- as in, this is not a discussion on whether Israel today should be moved or destroyed, but the morality of its creation.