All I have done is argue against the idea that the Jews somehow have more right to the land in any context you have claimed they do.
It had been under majority Muslim control for centuries prior to the immigration of the Jews in the early 20th century.
Control by the Ottoman Empire doesn't mean anything since the land was mostly a wilderness until the mid-19th century, had no national or even tribal identity and also had a continuous Jewish population
even since the days of the Roman Empire, although no doubt the Arabs were in the majority -- though all in widely scattered settlements or living as nomads.
You had claimed that Arabs migrated in large numbers to the area,
I showed it I didn't just claim it. The statistics are indisputable that Arabs moved into the area in great numbers in the mid-19th century.
based on the data I looked at, that may be true from 1922-1945 but it was alongside much higher Jewish immigration. It begs the question, were they responding to Jewish immigration to maintain their majority?
The study that showed greatly increased Arab immigration in the mid 19th century is very creditable. And your idea that the numbers can be reasonably compared with world statistics doesn't hold up at all because the circumstances in Palestine are totally different from normal population growth in the world. Arabs were drawn there specifically in the 19th century because of opportunities afforded by the British presence, and later the Israeli presence as well because of employment opportunities. There was nothing in Palestine comparable to world population growth. Nobody had any reason to be there before the British and Israeli presence.
If you are not basing the Arab claim to the land on ancient occupation of it, then is the McMahon letter or letters the reason for the claim?
Yes. Alongside the fact that Jewish claim to the land is based on nothing. The Balfour Declaration was fraudulent, the land wasn't Britains to promise to the zionists, as per the existing agreement with the Arabs.
Now you are raising a new subject and I have to wonder just how valid your opinion is. It could be argued for instance that a second agreement would supersede and nullify the first. I certainly agree, however, that it looks to me like Britain made a huge goof-up if nothing more malicious than that, and that the Arabs were defrauded in the process.
But also it appears that the Jews honestly took the Balfour declaration as their legal right to be there. You say it was fraudulent, I'm not sure, but even if it was fraudulent it was acted upon honestly and what can be done about it now anyway? What good does it do to keep trying to undermine Israel now that they are established there and honestly enough as far as I can tell.
Perhaps it's irrelevant to you but shouldn't it also be taken into account that Palestine is a tiny bit of land in comparison with the enormous extent of the Arab lands in general, so that there was no real Arab need for it though there was clearly a great need for the Jews to have a homeland? Again the amount of geography we are talking about is minuscule by comparison with the Arab lands in general. I agree the
McMahon Balfour promise defrauded the Arabs but I would think given the great need of the Jews to be there and hardly any need that I can see for Arab possession of that sliver of geography, that some kind of reparation should be made to the defrauded Arabs to settle the problem and leave Israel in peace. (I think it could possibly be argued that all the aid given to the Palestinian refugees to establish a state could be considered reparation but that's for further discussion.)
That's my current suggestion. What's your objection?
I'm not looking for a reason to "give the land back to the Indians" as it were, just trying to understand the confusions involved in the current situation and discuss ways to resolve the problems.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
