Solomon, the Balfour Declaration is far into the game; a LOT of history happened before the Balfour Declaration.
Of course. The Balfour Declaration AND its inclusion in the Treaty of Sèvres (and subsequent treaties) is a good starting point for those who dispute the modern legitimacy of the return of Jews to the Promised Land.
I have already pointed you before to the BBC documentary (needs Real Player) which documents some of that history...If you are an open-minded Jew with conscience, you will understand after watching the documentary why so many people, including Jews, oppose Zionism and Israel.
If the video contains something of substance, why not write the salient points, proofs, and reasoning down here, rather than direct me to watch it? (Same goes for you, Arsenal6!)
It is a very well balanced documentary and actually has more pro-Israel interviewees than pro-Palestinian.
As if "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" are opposites!
As reporters in D.C. will confess when you corner them, "balance" can have little to do with truth. ("If you want truth, see a priest" is one saying reporters have.) For Western reporters the important thing is to gain and keep sources so you can gain and keep the eyeballs that boost ratings and circulation. They think they'd lose both access to sources and viewers/readers if they broadcast/publish anything too pro-Israel - or too uncomfortable for their Arab and Muslim viewers. Balance is tilted away from Israel because the Arab and Muslim market is much bigger.
The Arab and Muslim reporters I've talked to (including BBC) simply told me they conceived it their duty to be anti-Israel advocates.
If you are a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist then, of course, no amount of facts will change your mind.
Don't you think you're confusing the usual differences of opinion that exist in the West with the ironclad, black-and-white, proof of a written treaty?
Launching ad hominems at people who disagree with you does not help your credibility.
Questioning how people learned something is not a personal attack, but a process of discovery. Why do you claim otherwise?
It seems you are the one who ignores uncomfortable aspects of history to suit your prejudice.
I exist in a culture with a lot of free inquiry. You've read a lot of what I write and you know I can find sources to back me up, both in print and on the Internet.
On the other hand, in the opinion of the U.S. Library of Congress,
Pakistan...faces a serious shortage of authorship in humanities, philosophy, psychology, logic and ethics. It is doubtful the current economic and political climate will foster serious scholarship in these areas
and that as far as history goes the shelves of serious bookshops are dominated by
hagiographic accounts of the Prophet and the early Muslims, treatises on the ideological founders of Pakistan and the 'two-nation' theory
link
This seems to be an apt description of an intellectual culture that "ignores uncomfortable aspects of history to suit prejudice", doesn't it?
Can a student in Islamabad, Peshawar, Karachi, Quetta, or Lahore actually argue the incontestably pro-Zionist arguments I've presented, or would that student pay a price for doing so?
