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.
Last time I checked, regardless of any intent of the Jews to create a Jewish state beforehand, Isreal was planned and voted into existence in 1947 by the UN, on a sliver of land where they enjoyed a small majority.
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.
Nope, plenty of people of various ethnicity in Palestine at the time of the creation of Israel. In fact the area under consideration was just slightly more Jewish than Arab. (499,000 Jews and 438,000 Arabs)
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.
Justified? Maybe, Maybe not, the ensuing violence by both parties was most certainly not however. I have no idea why you keep bringing up this 97% and 3% stuff, which were the numbers in place years before immigration started, and nothing close to the numbers in place when the British and Arabs finally got around to trying to stop Jewish immigration. Personally, writing from a nation comprised of immigrants, I don't have much sympathy for the "They didn't have the right to move" argument. There was certainly enough space...
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.
Right, again, 1947, in a small region of what is now Israel, the Jews were the majority.
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.
Yep, that sure is Zionism, never said I was a proponent of it.
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.
The Zionist cause was fairly clear, I don't know which terrorists attacks on Arabs you are talking about, going to have to cite instances there.
Yet another Israeli lie. Even Israeli historian now acknowledge that the Arabs did not leave volunatarily, but were forcibly evicted from Israel.
A matter of some debate, does anyone leave a war zone "Voluntarily"? I would suppose not, but which of the belligerents bear the responsibility for this? Unless you can show that one side or the other rounded people up and put them on trucks, it is pure speculation.
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.
Not going to disagree with you on that point, if you think about it, the end result is the exact same as what I suggested.
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.
I can assure you that neither the US , the USSR, or Britain felt a spec of guilt over the Holocaust. There decisions at the time were based on logic. The Jews as you said had long planned to establish themselves in Palestine, and carried out the migrations against the desires of all the major players involved. In order to avoid ethnic cleansing (which ended up happening anyway) the UN passed resolution 181. Of course, the Jews were not happy with the borders, and the Arabs were incensed over the existence of any primary Jewish state in the middle east.
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.
Right, and the world is supposed to let an established nation of 7 million people disappear to be replaced by a state run by terrorists?
This is a nonsensical statement. Just stringing together words does not make a sentence meaningful. (Emphasis Mine)
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.
Right, same situation applied in 1947, if not 1917.
