Comments by "Sandy Tatham" (@sandytatham3592) on "Israel's Legal Founding | 5 Minute Video" video.

Those Arab families who CHOSE to accept life under Israeli rule today have equal rights with Jews and they comprise 21% of Israel's citizens. They "have the right to consent to the government of that land" alongside their Jewish neighbours. So what are you talking about? And tell me one nation which has allowed hostile people to return after they joined the side of those who ATTACKED that nation? Nowhere else in the world do we still question the "population exchanges" that occurred due to the formation of new nation states. Look at India-Pakistan and Turkey-Greece, for examples of the millions of people who were displaced over the last 120 years. It's only because the Jews are involved that people still give massive funding and publicity to the #victims, the co-called 'Palestinians'. All other "displaced peoples" were granted citizenship and integrated into their new countries long ago. It was the Arab League which forbade the Arab countries from accepting those who left the new nation state of Israel, keeping them as pawns in the game of Arab vs Jew.
1
@benrichards9259 : Do you understand that the decision to partition the British Mandate of Palestine was done by the international League of Nations? And that not every individual gets to consent to this? And that the Balfour Agreement, the San Remo agreement, and the agreement to partition Palestine included the provision that ALL people in the area would have equal rights under the law? If enough Arabs had remained in 1948, they could today have voted to change the government to a non-Jewish one!!! That was the first in a long line of very bad decisions by the Arab Muslims. The Ottoman Caliphate LOST their war of aggression against the Allied Powers in 1918. They did NOT get to choose what happened to the dismembered land of the Ottoman Empire. The international body of the League of Nations made decisions which were in the best interest of ALL people affected by WWI. Those who lived in 'historic Palestine' at that time had the choice to remain as equal citizens under Jewish rule, or they were free to move to any part of the 99+% of land that was granted by the League of Nations to the Arabs for their own self-determination (todays Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia). The Jews ancestral homeland comprised less than 1% of that land. As for your comment on 'ethnic cleansing', please note that around 850K Jews were coerced to leave their multi-generational homes in Arabs nations. Do they complain today about what they had to leave behind? I agree that reparations are probably a nice idea on both sides, but the Jews lost far far more than those Arabs who were displaced from 'historic Palestine', so I doubt if any Arab nation would agree to reparations. The majority of the Arabs displaced from Palestine had only recently moved to the region from surrounding countries such as Egypt, Iraq or Syria, because they believed they had the chance of a better life under the British Mandate. The dilemma for them is that their Islamic ideology discourages Muslims from living under Jewish rule.
1
@seattle0266 : Those Arabs who fought with the Ottoman Turks were on the side of the 'aggressors' in WWI. Sadly, not everyone gets to choose, or consent to what they want after a major world war. The Jewish people were acknowledged as indigenous to 'historic Palestine'. The Jews supported the Allied Powers, and were promised (in the Balfour Agreement of 1917) the right to self-determination in the Holy Land should the Allied Powers be lucky enough to win the war. The Arabs were granted more than 99% of the dismembered Ottoman Empire after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in 1918. If any Arab living in the British Mandate of Palestine was hostile to the Jews being granted self-determination on a tiny piece of land, which was their ancestral homeland, then they should have moved to one of the newly-founded Arab countries and been given citizenship. A good number chose to stay and they comprise 21% of Israeli Arab citizens today. They participate in all levels of Israel life, including in the Knesset, in the judiciary, government, education, medical and technology industries, and even in the security services. I don't see why one group in the world continues to be given refugee status, huge funding, and massive publicity, when all other displaced peoples are given asylum and resettled elsewhere by the UNHCR. Perpetuating the #victim status of 'Palestinians' doesn't help them, or anyone else.
1
@seattle0266 : The Arabs have been the 'aggressors' many times since WWI. Any Palestinian Arabs who fought on the side of the six Arab nations which invaded Israel in 1948, or who deserted in the hope of returning once the Jews had been obliterated, are also on the side of 'aggressors'.
1
@seattle0266 : The majority of Arabs did NOT want to revolt against the Ottomans, and they fought on the side of their Turkish rulers. The revolt and struggle for independence was mainly in the Hijaz, in Arabia. Valiant Arab troops fought against the Allied forces in Beersheba in 1917, to name just one important battle in Palestine. The Arabs wanted more control and better conditions from the Ottomans, but there was no wide movement for an Arab national homeland at that time. That concept is also against Islam. It's just not pragmatic that each individual's consent to be given to any action by the international community or by a country's government. I don't know what reality you are living in. The British or French were NOT under any legal obligation in 1918 to hand over any land once they had defeated the Ottoman Caliphate and the Germans, it being prior to international laws that we have today, such as the Geneva Conventions. But it was the ethical thing to do. The Balfour Agreement was 'sympathetic' to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. But nothing was to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Today the non-Jewish community have EQUAL rights under the law, and FREEDOM to practice their religions. What more do you want? The British ended up reneging on their promise of assisting in the creation of a Jewish homeland and they sided with the Arabs, but that's another story and it doesn't matter to me because the end result is that the Jewish state of Israel was founded and today it is thriving. The Jews are the indigenous people of the Holy Land. The fact that they had been ethnically cleansed and dispersed around the world, does not negate this reality. There is plenty of room for both Jews and Arabs in Israel, but a large number of Arab Muslims will never accept life under Jewish rule. It's against their supremacist ideology to live in what they see as 'subservience' to Jews. No borders are perfect. The Kurds should also have a homeland. As I said in an earlier comment, if more of the Arabs had remained and/or not fought against the Jews, by now they might have had a demographic majority so could change things considerably. But it's too late. Again, you seem to think that the global community should make special exceptions for 'displaced Palestinian Arabs' and that's just silly and discriminatory. Few countries want the Palestinians. Go anywhere in the Middle East and the locals will tell you that Palestinians are not welcome, that they cause trouble. This is especially true in Jordan where they attempted to overthrow the king in 1970, the 'Black September' conflict.
1
@seattle0266 : I don't see the point in continuing much of this discussion, but I have a couple of questions that you might like to answer: What is your personal connection to Palestine? What would you propose as a pragmatic solution to this issue?
1
@seattle0266 : I find this interesting "....the people of Palestine were politically irrelevant and should have no say in its future. In fact, Balfour himself said as much in 1921". Do you have a link to send me so I can research this statement?
1
@seattle0266 : As for asking about your personal connection, I find that all discussions are better when I know why people feel the way they do about something, or at least I can attempt to see things from their perspective. I also ask Israelis this question, and those Jews who don't live in Israel, nor support Zionism. I also ask people if they follow a religion. Most people are happy to share their personal stories with me.
1
@seattle0266 : I used to feel like you about the Palestinian 'cause' until I visited Israel in 1990, and again about ten years later at which time my daughter was living in Tel Aviv. I'm currently in South Sinai where I spend a lot of time. My New Zealand grandfather is buried in the British Military Cemetery near Jerusalem, having fought in the Palestine Campaign. I've also spent a lot of time in Jordan and Syria. I don't like any organised religion. I advocate for freedom of conscience. I'm appalled that in Egypt it's still not possible to convert openly out of Islam and get your new belief system noted on your ID, though the legal system is based on sharia so I am naive to expect anything different.
1
@seattle0266 : Thanks for this. It makes sense to me that they would not consult the wishes of the present inhabitants during wartime. And the British hadn't even won the war when Balfour made this quote, had they? [Edit: I see it was a couple of years after the Turks surrendered, so forget this comment.] Later we see that the British did modify their stance towards the Arabs. The Hashemite Kingdom was granted 77% of the British Mandate of Palestine. And if the Germans and Ottoman Empire had won this war, who do you think they would be consulting? I support indigenous people in having a voice and, where pragmatic, being granted self-determination. This is what Zionism is, isn't it? A homeland for the original inhabitants of the land, alongside those who agreed to live under Jewish rule. The Arabs are indigenous to Arabia. They were the invaders and occupiers of historic Palestine for most of the last 1400 years. And a large proportion of Arabs living in Palestine in 1947 were relatively recent arrivals.
1
@seattle0266 : Article 2 of Egypt's constitution says "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation." In the preamble it says "We are drafting a Constitution that paves the way to the future for us, and which is in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we took part in the drafting of and approved." We all know that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not compatible with Islamic Sharia so I don't know what's going on there. Sorry if I've missed responding to some of your questions. Many seemed to be going over the same ground, ie. why wasn't consent requested from the current inhabitants of Palestine to the Jewish people being granted self-determination over part of their ancestral land. The United Nations (which represented ALL people) put a resolution to a General Assembly in 1947 regarding the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, and the resolution was passed with 33 votes in favour, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The Arab community rejected it and subsequently attacked the new-founded state of Israel.
1
@seattle0266 : I hope I've understood your question. In 1920 things were fairly horrific, due to the first Great War that killed millions of people and brought tragedy to a countless number of families. There were no international agreements in place so things were not always done as 'ethically' as I might have liked. However, I do believe that the group who wins a war of defence (the Allied Powers in this case) have the right to put in place measures to ensure that the offensive warring parties (Germans, Ottomans) could not go to war against them again in the near future. If that meant that the indigenous Jewish people were 'installed' as caretakers of the Holy Land (which has strategic and ideological value to the West) then I think that's totally fair. So long as the non-Jews living there at the time are offered equal rights under the law, which they were. Today 21% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, Druze, Bedouins, etc. who have equal rights with Jews, including full voting rights. If we are talking about what should happen today, and things are relatively *peaceful*, then I definitely believe the current inhabitants should be consulted about their future. This can be done by referendum, by electing a government to represent them, or by a UN vote if it's an international conflict. But if they don't like the result of such consultation, and they refuse to abide by it, then they should not be allowed to resort to violence. They should accept efforts to resettle them elsewhere if they become 'displaced people' living with hostility in a situation which then becomes intolerable for everyone. They should not be held in camps as UNRWA does today with the Palestinians. There are legal precedents in place, and I think law professor Alan Dershowitz outlined them in this video, didn't he? Another video I recommend is also a short one by Prager U called "Does Israel Occupy the West Bank".
1
@seattle0266 : Just because an Islamic country doesn't implement sharia law in full (stoning of adulterers, killing of homosexuals, beheading of apostates and blasphemers, etc) it doesn't mean that they don't follow the principles of sharia. Just that they are not confident enough that they can get away with full implementation in the international arena. Egypt needs financial help from Western countries at the moment. But that could change. Just as we see with the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan. Lashing is back, and it probably won't be long before we see stoning, and chopping off of hands or heads. Having a fairly large Christian minority in Egypt also keeps things in check.
1
@seattle0266 : I understand that it was only a resolution, however the Jews were pragmatic and they chose to accept what seemed to be a fairly unfavourable offer. And the Arabs decided to settle things by attacking them, rather than by negotiation of borders that they were happier with. They lost the war, and they've lost all of the subsequent wars. The Arab nations didn't even want a land for the so-called 'Palestinians'. They wanted it all for themselves, with no Jews at all living there. What do you do with a party which has never agreed to the legitimacy of the Jewish people having any land at all? If the majority of Palestinians had stood their ground and remained, they would have had more power. But that chance has long gone. And the fact is that the Jews are the indigenous people of historic Palestine, and I would always support the rights of people to have sovereignty in their ancestral homeland.
1
@seattle0266 : Have you got nothing else to do? I've got a life and I can't keep answering your questions. You can do your own research on the internet. Today we treat indigenous people far better than back in the days of colonising. The world has become a more ethical place. And today's citizens are not responsible for what happened two hundred years ago. We all have to live together and make it work. Stop seeing some groups as perpetual #victims. And yes am very aware that the 'Arabs' of today are a very diverse group. That's because the Arabs of the Hijaz invaded and converted many different civilisations to their culture and language. Egyptians are Copts, Moroccans and Algerians are Berbers/Amazigh, Syrians are... etc. etc.
1