Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what? That gives the Burmese the right to kick them out after a 100+ years!?
Well, the Jews are from Europe, and not from Palestine.Did I say that?
A lot of Muslims say that the Jews entered Palestine illegally.
At the same time, they think the Rohingyan presence in Myanmar is legal.
What is the difference?
Hypocrites don't care.
In reality, the difference is that Rohingyan are Muslims, and must be supported
regardless if the are right or wrong, and Jews are non-Muslims and must
therefore be opposed in any conflicts with Muslims.
Well, the Jews are from Europe, and not from Palestine.
I know, those lands were Ottoman, not many Jews lived there. trust me. lol
Yes, but not many, and guess what happened to them? They went to Europe.... not long after arriving.In 16th century Jews came Turkey from Spain.
I'm a minority myself.. So you're barking up the wrong tree mate
Legitimate grievances are one thing and unfair separatist demands based on flimsy grounds due to colonial misadventures is another, Two seperate things
If sections of the population refuse to assimilate with the wider society of a nation, While keeping thier own identity intact, They dont belong to that nation
Yes, but not many, and guess what happened to them? They went to Europe.... not long after arriving.
Rohingyas were denied citizenship and the right to their property. Their movement were restricted and cant travel outside of their own townships. You are blaming them from assimilation? Besides its not some Joe who found job in Australia and having difficulties in assimilation but its the duty of the government to protect the culture and heritage of the marginalized population instead of assimilating them (Indigenous Australian, ring the bell?)
Did I say that?
A lot of Muslims say that the Jews entered Palestine illegally.
At the same time, they think the Rohingyan presence in Myanmar is legal.
What is the difference?
Hypocrites don't care.
In reality, the difference is that Rohingyan are Muslims, and must be supported
regardless if the are right or wrong, and Jews are non-Muslims and must
therefore be opposed in any conflicts with Muslims.
Not really not a single muslim country supported Indonesia in E. Timur. Muslims are in the receiving end so it looks like that all muslim countries are ganged together. None of the Muslim country are super power or have enough power to become a policing state like USA or Russia or even China.
The reason is British divided us by the divide and rules policy . They know if Muslims get together again as they were before , Muslims will be superpower. So they injected in our vain , democracy and nationalism concept . Just if one country call for unity who is self-sufficient, that is enough for other countries. All will be together again.
Rohingyas were denied citizenship and the right to their property. Their movement were restricted and cant travel outside of their own townships. You are blaming them from assimilation? Besides its not some Joe who found job in Australia and having difficulties in assimilation but its the duty of the government to protect the culture and heritage of the marginalized population instead of assimilating them (Indigenous Australian, ring the bell?)
I dont think British had that in mind while leaving sub continent. They were very happy with the Muslim for world war support and that is why they faught against India to curve out some land from India and gave to Muslim. After the ottoman defeat in first world war Muslim were no threat to them.
With this kind of attitude from the majority I dont blame Tamils for raising arms.
Arakan was an independent kingdom for thousands of year which extended up to current Chittagong division. There were movement of people all throughout history. That is the reason we have sizable burmese and rakhine people living in Bangladesh. Its is not only the Rohingyas who found shelters in Bangladesh but entire race of Chakmas were driven out from Buram who now call Chittagong Hill Tracts as their home. Same happend to Rakhine and they settled as far as Barishal in Bangladesh. This is a contiguous land and the more you go south the less Rohingyas you will find in Arakan.
You can write good poetry.
It was more to do kicking out Palestininas from their own home and take away their belongings and property. Legal?
Jews were treated fairly after the defeat of the crusaders. Why will it be any different now?
In a war ravaged country nobody is treated fairly.
Until the creation of Israel, "kicking out" consisted of buying land from rich Arabs, and terminating
leases by Arab farmers. That is legal.
During the War of Independence,
Arab armies asked Palestinians to evacuate, causing a lot to leave.
A few incidents from Israeli terror organisations helped them on their way.
Those arabs that remained afterwards have more or less been integrated.
After the occupation of the West Bank, a lot of land has been confiscated
based on the Ottoman laws of "dead land", so the argument for legality goes.
The West Bank is a legal mess, and even if all International Expertise
could come up with something, the end result would hardly be fair.