This is not the issue under debate. We all acknowledge that colonization and mass expulsions have happened throughout history. The land of Palestine has been home to Hittites, Babylonians, Syrians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabs and others throughout history. In all the examples you gave, in every other country on the planet, when the modern state was created, it belonged to the people physically present on the land at the time of creation. Even in Africa, when the colonial powers bestowed independence, they gave it to the people living there -- if those people wanted to realign themselves along ethnic lines, that was their own choice afterwards.
Israel is the only exception to this rule. It was created as a vacuum state, expecting its eventual population to be shipped in after its creation.
The central issue here is whether the creation of a "Jewish" state in Palestine at the turn of the 20th century was justified. It was not. By no stretch of the imagination can anybody justify creating a state for 3% of the population, expecting the remaining 97% to pack up and leave to make room for the eventual arrival of the "preferred" inhabitants.
Wrong analogy. Pakistan was created to encompass areas which were majority Muslim
at the time -- not three decads later, not in some future timeframe. The proper analogy is to declare India a Sikh state and expect all non-Sikhs to pack up and leave India.
No, sir. The Zionist manifesto, and the Balfour Declaration, both call for a "Jewish" state. A state where every Jew on the planet is automatically a citizen and non-Jews are expected to be a minority at best.
Ah, the Nazi canard again....
Let's review the history: Starting late 19th century, when the Zionist manifesto was devised, Jews start migrating to Palestine with the pre-determined aim of establishing a Jewish state. The Arabs, unaware of the ulterior motive, welcome the Jews and give them refuge from European persecution. Even through WW1, the Arabs haven't caught on the Zionists' plan. It is only after the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and massive Jewish migration coupled with Jewsih terrorist attacks on Arabs, that the Arabs finally realize they've been duped by the Zionsts. It is only at that point that the Arabs find cause with the common enemy.
Yet another Israeli lie. Even Israeli historian now acknowledge that the Arabs did not leave volunatarily, but were forcibly evicted from Israel.
1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel opened up part of its archives in the 1980s for investigation by historians [...] Pappé calls the exodus an ethnic cleansing and points at Zionist preparations in the preceding years and provides more details on the planning process by a group he calls the 'Consultancy'.[15] Morris also says that ethnic cleansing took place during the Palestinian exodus, though Morris considers that to have been justified. In an interview with Ari Shavit, Morris says that "there are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. … when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."
No, they are not allowed to return because this was the plan all along. They are not allowed, purely and simply, because they are not Jewish. Their return will destroy the Jewish nature of Israel, which has been the primary raison d'etre of Israel from day one.
But this begs the question in the first place: was there any justification for Isreal's creation in
Palestine? It was the Europeans who persecuted Jews' for centuries (and the Arabs who gave them refuge). It was the Germans who executed the Holocaust. It was the Americans who felt guilty about the whole thing. Any of these countries should carve out a piece of their land and give it to the Jews.
Why should the Palestinians pay the price for the Europeans' crimes and the Americans' guilt? It's easy to be compassionate when someone else is paying the price.
Nobody wants the Jews to stop breathing. They just want them to breathe somewhere else. As stated above, let the compassionate Europeans and Americans (and Indians) find some empty land for the poor, victimzed Jews.
This is a nonsensical statement. Just stringing together words does not make a sentence meaningful.
No, the big difference is that Muslims were already the majority in the lands that became Pakistan; they didn't have to be shipped in from elsewhere. Whatever migrations happened did so because of ethnic strife, not to rig the demographics
post facto.