Reply #140: Well, the Arabs DO have S.D. I'm not sure your point supports your argument. [View All]

Quite true, but what you seem to be forgetting is that even when part of the Ottoman Empire, there was most definitely an ARAB identity in much the same way as there was an Indian and Burmese identity under the British Empire......Why should the Arabs not have the absolute right to self-determination in the Middle East, just like the Indians and Burmese had?.......There were probably a dozen or more different ethnicities in India and Burma too.

Quite the opposite actually. I think this argument very much supports my POV over yours. You think that the formation of Israel was immoral while India's is an example to be lauded. Yet I think the differences you are pointing out are imaginary.

It is the inverse of your argument thus far... that the Palestinians should have been granted similar rights as a state, thus differentiating them from the surrounding Arab states. But first let's look at India.

India's partition was determined largely by the British, who decided where the borders would be and what state went to India versus Pakistan. The fact that only two countries were formed out of India is due to the political strength of Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru, not because of any inherent "morality." It was no different than what happened in the Middle East. Exactly the same in this regard.

Now consider Bangladesh, which was then East Pakistan. It lay thousands of miles away from West Pakistan, it spoke an entirely different language and had a totally different culture. Aside from being mostly Muslim, it was just like Bengal. And once it became part of Pakistan it was subjugated until a bloody civil war won it independence. This is your idea of ethical self-determination? Why is it wrong for a Jewish person from Egypt to move to Paletine but it is fine for an entire state to be governed by an equally different people, who live thousands of miles away?

Millions of people fled across the India/Pakistan border during Partition in a bloody population transfer that eventually saw up to a million civilians killed. (And untold lost property and possessions by the survivors.) Consider that... a MILLION PEOPLE. In the many decades of the horrible I/P conflict, only 60,000 people have died. That's 6% of the people who died during India's creation.

Since then there has been an unending conflict over Kashmir resulting in many wars. You previously stated that Zionism was immoral if only because it led to so many wars and deaths. Yet India's history since claiming independence has been FAR worse, yet it is held up as a positive example to contrast Israel's "failure" against.

SO... how is this scenario preferable, or more ethical, than Israel's? And why have I NEVER heard that Indian independence was a horrible mistake, like I do with Israel every day?

Beyond that, let's consider the idea of the Middle East being generally Arab in character. I don't disagree with this premise, which is essentially Pan-Arab nationalism... a popular movement at the time and one that was supported in Palestine. In this scenario we would have seen the success of King Faisal and the enforcement of the agreement he made with the Zionists.

Under this concept, you have to explain why it is ethically superior for the Arabs to gain control over the ENTIRE middle east, while denying even a sliver of land to the Jews, who otherwise faced persecution and death. Merely because they form a majority there do they have an ethical responsibility to deny self-determination to anyone else? I would argue the opposite. That by claiming Arab nationality and sovereignty over the whole middle east they also gain a responsibility to see that the minority ethnicities have their rights equally met and supported. Just because they are greater in number should not imbue any one ethnicity with greater rights over all others.