But they don't have their own sovereign homeland. Should they have one?
I don't see why not. and it has nothing to do with god given right. eventually all of each you mentioned recognize as a group of people who share same believe. and they need a place where they can live and practice their believe without disturbance.
Surely secular and liberal democratic constitutions should be sufficent. Most people can practice their beliefs in the US without disturbance.
is there an international law that object that religious group have their sovereign homeland?
No, but where are these homelands going to be? There is no area/territory in the world where these minority religions are a
unanimous majority that would be
sufficently large to sustain a soverign state. The same was the case with Jews in 1948.
historically speaking the Jews were subjected to that conditions. Jews deserve and have a right to a sovereign nation just as any nation.
Do British Muslims have the right to a soverign nation out of, say, Tower Hamlets?
just because Jews have the historical right that is not a valid requirement to regain the land back.
But you've raised this issue of historical/religious connection with land a number of times to support your stance, yet you say it is not valid. So why raise it?
aside the historical right there are other considerations that cannot be ignored.
What considerations? (and you've already said historical right is not a valid, so why are you now prefixing this with "aside with..." implying that is has some degree of validity)
I don't deny Indians have more right to American soil than other inhabitants. but considering the reality as it shaped it is unrealistic acquirement to claim back the land.
Why is it unrealistic?
pre war when the Zionist movement sought to establish Jewish homeland in Palestine/Israel by affinity to the land from historical attachment (right)....
A "right" that you believe was invalid.
.....they recognize that historical right cannot be bind the people who already lived there. they understood it has to be kosher. thus through legal means and that is by purchase. in result of the conflicts initiated by Arabs, Jews became violent.
That's bullshit. Arabs in the territory were having their territorial soverignty violated by Jewish immigrants where were trying to carve up a Jewish State from the territory. If Muslims in Britain started trying to carve out an Islamic state out of the territory, I'd sure as hell resist it. Is that unreasonable? Was it unreasonable that Arabs in the territory resisted the carving out of a Jewish State from their territory?
"history" is not a person, and is merely a recount of events. Recognition is done by a person/people. So again, regognition by whom?
recognition by us. that religion was used as an excuse.
So there's no universal ethics in your stance. Its basically that some Jews believe they have a right to this land, so this mean they should have it. What would happen if the whole world worked by this ethic? There would be no rule of law, no peace, no rights. Your argument is pathetic.
Yes, but they stole large tracts of land in 1948. I am not arguing against the events preceding this.
So, if I, a pre-Judaism pagan, buys a house legally in Israel but have a belief that I have a right to the land of Israel, do I have a right to declare the rest of the territory of Israel mine, and steal it, drive the Israelis out, and call them terrorists if they resist and try and get it back?
If Muslims come to Britain, then buy property legally in Tower Hamlets or Leicester, and then decide they want to form Islamic republics of Leicester and Tower Hamlets, steal the property of the kaffirs within these areas and force them out, is this okay by your ethics?
Also, if you believe it should be kosher, should the stolen land be returned, and the Arabs and their decendants who were pushed off their land be allowed to return?
1948 was the consequence of war that enforce upon the Jews.
Because they were trying to carve up the territory and form a Jewish State. Its hardly suprising that many Gentiles resisted this. This war was not enforced upon Jews, but a war
caused by those Jews.
tho the violent conflicts started earlier in 1920. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is the person that responsible for the conflicts that continues till this day.
The conflict came about because of some fanatics believing they can carve up territories to form a Jewish state. Don't lay the blame at the door of the resisting gentile population.
So again yglag, if I, as a pre-Judaism pagan, claim large tracts of land in Israel as rightfully mine, and get billions of pounds of military aid, would I be allowed to occupy Israel, drive out its inhabitants at will, and label all Israelis attempting to fight for their land as terrorists?
is the claim based historically to recognize your connection to it?
Yes.
get billions of pounds of military aid is immaterial. a lot done that why not you? after all, years will pass by and you will be recognized a legal state just as USA and other countries and even future palestine.
So it would be okay for me, as a pre-Judaism pagan to steal large tracts of land in Israel, and drive the Israelis out?
to my knowledge there is no historical account how did the Jews appeared in the land pre Judaism.
So you don't know they they aquired the land legally.
But why can the background of the events in history possibly be used in any way to justify a moral stance?
IMO that depends on ability of background of the events in history to justify a moral stance.
There is no abillity. An action is moral/ethicial based on principles not history.
You say the religious Zionists wanted a Jewish state in the territory of Israel because of religious attatchment to the land. You say you don't agree with this. Yes you use the existence of these religious groups and their demands as justifying the need for a Jewish state. This is ridiculous.
don't agree with the use the excuse god given right. unless god intervenes by himself.
So why you keep on raising the god given right to support your stance?
among other reasons. we recognize religious attachment of Muslims to a mosque. Christians to a church and Jews to synagogue.
Because the ownership of the land under the religious building is presumed to be owned by members of the respective community (yes there are disputes, as you know all to well). So your point is completely irrelevent.
not only houses of worships but also cities that are by nature religious.
Jerusalem?
it is not base on god given right. but it is the status of the places. religious attachment can be comprehensible.
So what's your point?
Topic: Isrealis attack Aid Convoy ships