What's new

“Israel is an illegal creation of the United Kingdom!”

Pehaps without Yasir Arafat the whole thing will be more uncomplicated.
In my view Arafat was a self-interest person pretending care for interests of palestinian.

Are u for real??

That man gave his whole life for the cause of palestinians..just becoz he does not support the murderous ways of Hamas and co. U are asking for him to be removed.Tell me who the heck is a self-centered now?
 
Well, they need be back to the UN resolution to have a two states solution there.

None can deny the existence of the other one. Balance will be broken sooner or later.

Either the Middle East accepts Israel's right to exist, or Israel denies the Middle-East's right to exist.

Pretty much the Samson option in a nutshell.
 
Are u for real??

That man gave his whole life for the cause of palestinians..just becoz he does not support the murderous ways of Hamas and co. U are asking for him to be removed.Tell me who the heck is a self-centered now?

You do realize that Arafat was a firm support of suicide bombings right? This is what I love about you guys, you'll argue about the colour of an orange if it is with an Chinese person.
 
Not really. When most modern countries were formed, they belonged to the people actually living on the land at the time.

Not even close. The entirety of the America's were conquered by western nations and their original inhabitants genocidaly massacred. Mass migrations and genocide followed the creation of many states in Africa after the colonial powers left. The mass movements that followed the creation of India and Pakistan don't need to be belabored by me. Suffice to say, moving in and killing all the locals has a long, long, history, stretching back to before imperial Rome.

In the case of Israel, its future inhabitants were shipped in after the state was proposed in 1917. To give an analogy, it would be like declaring India to be a Sikh state (3% population) and then gradually terrorizing the non-Sikh population out of India over the next few decades.

Umm not really, it would be more like declaring in the 40's that a certain region comprising mostly of one religion or another be separated from the surrounding land and given autonomy. Then, following that, wars and general uncertainty caused mass migrations and displacement.....Wait a second....That sounds exactly like the creation of another state we might have both heard of!?

I don't really approve of Israel, or many of its current tactics, but if I were in their shoes I would have done most of the same things. It was originally 40% of its current size, with only a small majority of Jewish citizens. The mandate called for an independent democratic state, the result may have been a "Jewish" state, but it was just as likely to be secular. The problem is that all the surrounding states (Which had just so happened to side with the genocidal NAZIS in the recent war) decided the new state was a cancer, and decided to launch another genocidal conflict, since ya know, the world had not seen enough of that lately. The Palestinians decided (Wisely) to avoid the war zone, hoping the war would be over fairly quickly. Unfortunate for the Palestinians, the Arab armies were incompetent and unaware of it, and they lost. The Israelis decided (cruelly, but wisely) to not let floods of armed and angry refugees back in. The rest as they say, is history.

So, let me put it this way to you. Let us assume you are the citizen in a newly created tiny dot of a state in the center of a vast desert. Recently, your ethnic group barely survived a concerted attempt to destroy it. When faced with an eminent and existential threat do you A) Put your hands up and go back to the concentration camp to finish off what Hitler started, or B) Put up a fight, and hold onto whatever comes your way during the fight?

I am just trying to be logical. Like I said, I don't approve of many of the things Israel does. I don't like its Illegal settlements, or the way it ignores collateral damage, or the way it assumes it can do whatever it damn well pleases in neighboring countries. But do you really expect to win any sympathy with the "They have no right to continue breathing" argument though? If Israel is an illegal state because the neighboring countries don't like it's existence, than Pakistan is an illegal state because India does not approve of it's existence. You can make similar arguments about the various Hindu and Muslim refugees that immigrated from both countries.

The big difference between Israel-Arab and Pakistan-India divisions, is that in the case of India and Pakistan, the refugees had a pretty good idea they were not going back to their former homes, and made new homes in the new countries. The Palestinians on the other hand, were rejected by both Israel and their Arab neighbors... I feel sorry for them, but I think the blame is as easy to assign to the surrounding nations as it is to Israel itself.
 
Perhaps I can politely point out that, contrary to some of the posts, Palestine was never a British colony. It was of course part of the Ottoman Empire and fell into British hands in 1918. The British then ran the territory as a mandate created by the League of Nations. There was already a Jewish population living in Palestine (there had been immigration in the 19th century under the Turkish rule) and immigration continued in the 1920s-30s, accelerating after 1933 once Nazi Germany began suppressing its Jewish population. This was opposed by the Arab population and led to attacks on Israeli immigrants.

The British were in a difficult position since they were under intense international political and moral pressure to allow Jews to flee a very anti-Semitic Europe. During World War II the British 'benefited' from (American) Jewish financial support and Jewish Palestine volunteers who were prepared to fight the Germans. This was especially crucial given the British weakness in the Middle East between 1940-42 (after the fall of France). By the mid-1940s the Jews who had been trained by the British (Irgun, Stern Gang, etc) turned on them, determined to force the British out and create an independent Zionist state, regardless of the views of the Arab majority. We then see a vicious terrorist campaign by the Jews against the British in 1946-47, linked to attempts by the British to stop any further flow of immigrant Jews from war-torn Europe. The British had been bankrupted by the war and were economically dependent on the USA for financial support (Marshall Plan, etc). It was American pressure both directly and via the United Nations that forced the British to pull out of Palestine, even though many in Britain opposed the betrayal of the Arabs.

The Americans were well aware that the better organized Jews were likely to triumph in the resulting conflict, which of course they did in 1948. I am afraid that saying the British were to blame for the creation of Palestine is about as useful as saying that the British were entirely to blame for the separation of India and Pakistan. There were overwhelming historical forces and external pressures that ensured this; the British in their weakened state simply could not have stopped Israel's creation without the support and agreement of the USA. And we all know which side the USA supported then and ever since. Israel may be morally illegal, but its creation was agreed by the United Nations (including the Soviet Union) and has a legal existence in its original limited form. The British can hardly be blamed for the massive territorial expansion outside the initial boundaries seen in 1948 and 1967.
 
Either the Middle East accepts Israel's right to exist, or Israel denies the Middle-East's right to exist.

Pretty much the Samson option in a nutshell.
Israel is still stealing MORE Palestinian lands as we speak. It is Israel that has never accepted a Palestinian state, it is Israel that is an illegal and extremely aggressive entity. Your lies don't work anymore.
 
The Americans were well aware that the better organized Jews were likely to triumph in the resulting conflict, which of course they did in 1948. I am afraid that saying the British were to blame for the creation of Palestine is about as useful as saying that the British were entirely to blame for the separation of India and Pakistan. There were overwhelming historical forces and external pressures that ensured this; the British in their weakened state simply could not have stopped Israel's creation without the support and agreement of the USA. And we all know which side the USA supported then and ever since. Israel may be morally illegal, but its creation was agreed by the United Nations (including the Soviet Union) and has a legal existence in its original limited form. The British can hardly be blamed for the massive territorial expansion outside the initial boundaries seen in 1948 and 1967.

I might argue that no-one was certain who would prevail in the conflict that followed the creation of Israel. Due to British restrictions in 1947 Israel had no aircraft or armor to speak of, limited anti-armor and anti-air capabilities, and was outnumbered at least 4 to 1 in overall military strength, if not in fielded units.
"On 12 May, David Ben-Gurion was told by his chief military advisers, "who over-estimated the size of the Arab armies and the numbers and efficiency of the troops who would be committed", that Israel's chances of winning a war against the Arab states were only about even." This of course changed as the civil war progressed and the larger war launched fully in 1948, with Israel gaining access to more arms and ammunition. The expansion was funded by American Jews and bought from cash strapped western Europe.
 
Also, the US did NOT support the partition plan. Despite voting for it with the rest of the UN, the US retracted it's support for the plan in early February of 1948 in response to rising violence and Arab migration.
 
Either the Middle East accepts Israel's right to exist, or Israel denies the Middle-East's right to exist.

Pretty much the Samson option in a nutshell.

get out of your cage and look how minute israel to the middle is...
 
Aussie4ever...Aren't most countries british or colonial made

Wow at you!
If british attacks invades a nation you made it british land?
No Arab lands are long established and has a long history. Just because someone invades it doesn't become the land of the nation that is occupier.
Take the example of Australia itself..british came here established relations with indigenous people and over took as they've done before in the whole world so does it make Australia part of british land? i

Israelis too

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merneptah_Israel_Stele_Cairo.JPG


The first record of the name Israel

Hasmoneese_rijk.PNG


Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel

502px-Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg.png


Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

394px-Kingdom_of_Israel_1020_map.svg.png


United Kingdom of Israel and Judah
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom