Reply #39: not skeptical enough

[shira]

Forgive me but I'm an awfully skeptical sort of person....Do you, or do you not, have data to back up your claim?

with 3 conflicts for the UK within the last 2 decades, easily over a million dead, and you have reason to believe the UK is not responsible for at least 60,000 deaths?

no, I don't have data and neither do you (convenient for the UK, huh) but consider that the UK sent troops thousands of miles from their own shores to fight people who were no threat to UK citizens. Compared to Israel who fights an enemy that has been a CONTINUOUS threat to Israeli citizens, you think the damage, death, and destruction the UK has wrought in the past 20 years (and is still meting out with cluster munitions and white phosphorus in Iraq/Afghanistan) qualifies people of the UK to lecture and preach ethics to people of Israel?

By the way, are you in the UK or Cyprus?

They did?....Do you have historical facts to support your claim?

Sure, during the Ottoman days Jews did nothing illegal when purchasing land and immigrating. The Faisal-Weizmann deal was made with the internationally recognized leader of that region who succeeded the Turks. Of course if your argument is that the Ottomans and Faisal did not really represent the Palestinians, what would you have had Jewish leadership do in those days, call for a referendum - and who would participate (maybe all Arabs in Jordan)? Should Jews have called for some bogus Palestinian elections? There was no recognized Palestine then.

You seem to forget that is exactly what the Peel commission did offer the Jews of Palestine in 1937...and what did the 20th Zionist Congress declare?..."..the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable."

They were divided - ben Gurion for example was for it.

Of course I do...Just not in Palestine which was poor and over-crowded already.

Palestine was over-crowded before 1948? The population in that area now (Israel, Gaza, W.Bank) numbers around 10 million and it was just a fraction of that then. If it was over-crowded then, what does that make it now?

You should be damning the US, Argentina, Australia etc which had far more space than Palestine...Instead you pick on defenseless Palestinians under military occupation.

The same problem would exist according to you. Let's say all Jews could have moved into Montana and made that the Jewish state. Would Montana residents have a say in that decision 60-70 years ago? What if they voted like much of Europe who also hated Jews?

The US alone, could have taken in all the European Jews that wanted to emigrate, they could have offered them a homeland...Why are you not demanding that the US or even Australia (with a minuscule population density) cuts off just a small chunk of its vast hinterland for use as a Jewish homeland?

Jews have zero claim to the USA. The last sovereign nation that existed within the Palestine region was Israel 2000 years ago, and that little part of the middle-east has always had a Jewish presense (sometimes many Jews, sometimes less due to pogroms, crusades, etc.). Jews have a rightful claim there. Of course, the Arabs who lived there also have as good a claim to the land. I don't see why you think Jews have zero claim to any part of what is now Israel.

Let me ask you: Should the USA, in your opinion, give some states to native Indians, to do as they wish with them for their own homeland? Yes or No?

And are you going to attempt to answer me in other parts of these threads here?