Surely secular and liberal democratic constitutions should be sufficent. Most people can practice their beliefs in the US without disturbance.
all states in the world are secular and liberal democratic?
No, but many are. In fact the country with the most number of Jews in it is the US not Israel. This sort of proves the fact that a Jewish homeland was not, and it not nessesary.
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.
it is immaterial. what matters is that no objection exist for a group of people to establish state with religious or any other concept they see it fit to their view.
You're right in that regard. However, where your argument completely falls down is that if to establish this state you have to force people from their homes, steal their land and banish them from returning, then this is a problem. For Israel to have been created, this ethnic cleansing was nessesary. And there is a huge objection to ethnic cleansing. A Jewish homeland would have been impossible to establish without these actions. And these actions are wrong. Simple.
Do British Muslims have the right to a soverign nation out of, say, Tower Hamlets?
I do not know what is the status of Tower Hamlets nor I know anything about it to answer the question.
Tower Hamlets is a region of East London with a very large Muslim population. Do these Muslims have the right to form a sovereign nation out of Tower Hamlets?
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)
in concern historical right. means it's understood from historical view that is a Jewish land occupied by foreign entity. but the entity won't take it as valid for it's own reasons. hence it's not valid from that aspect. despite the leaders of that entity knows this fact. the religious connection in form of the status of the places
How exactly is the land "Jewish"?
the symbols the historical scrips proves the Jewish sovereignty existed. to establish a home in our ancestral land was for us natural. you may disagree with that.
Key word is "existed". You have no evidence that an individual Jew can trace his lineage back to a specific piece of land in Israel, nor can you provide evidence that Jewish owned land was comprehensively stolen over the centuries. Therefore there is not claimsworthy evidence for what you're saying at all.
Why is it unrealistic?
what do you suggest for the Indians to do in face of reality they are living?
So you support the claims of Jews whose land was allegedly stolen over the past 2 millenia from the territory of modern day Israel. Do you support the claims of Native Americans who land was stolen over the past 400 years?
A "right" that you believe was invalid.
invalid to use not invalid to acknowledge.
What is the point of acknowedging it if you admit it is worthless in terms of determining a "right"?
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?
they were having their territorial soverignty? the land was under Ottoman and then by British mandate there was no Arab territorial sovereignty.
The Palastine Mandate existed as a territory under colonial rule of the British. The sovereignty (as violated by the British, and Ottomans before them) lay with the inhabitants. The influx of Jewish immigrants intent of carving up the territory was the second violation of the inhabitants sovereignty.
What you seem to be saying is that because the inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate had their soverignty violated by the British, they must be doubly punished and have their sovereignty violated by Zionists. Your stance doesn't make sense.
and I have provided with historical details that verifies until 1947 the lands held by israel are legal.
I have never disputed this. What I dispute is the equivalence with legally buying land and illegially violating a territory's soverienty. Just because land was bought legally, doesn't give the owners the right to carve up the territory and violate it's sovereignty.
Do British Muslims have the right to declare Tower Hamlets an Islamic state?
Does a paedophile have the right to declare his legally owned home a sovereign state?
furthermore majority of arabs at that time became not due the birth but by immigarntion.
And your supporting evidence?
I can provide with details over massacre by Muslims in Islamic countries throughout history. there was no jewish hoemland then. the enmity the Muslims hold against the Jews goes way back to 7 century.
Minorities often become scapegoats. It has little to do with religious belief, and more to do with archaic notions of identity (which Jews and Muslims alike insist on maintaining). Christianss have perseuted Jews (possibly much more so than Muslims). Likewise, there are many examples of Muslims offering safe havens to Jews in times of crisis. So you silly simplistic outlook on history is clearly misleading you.
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.
we convinced we have the right to this land.
You convinced yourself wrong. You do not have a "right" to this land at all. This has been well demonstrated to you.
we are the last people you should preach about universal ethics.
Why are you the last "people"? I think people like yourself are in most need of it, since you entertain racist and supremist ideas of being Gods chosen people with rules for others that do not appear to apply to yourself.
Judging from your posts, you have little concept of universal ethics.
Yes, but they stole large tracts of land in 1948. I am not arguing against the events preceding this.
oh no my dear. we won it.
So you believe that ownership of private property is determined by the might of those who seek it? Your statement show the dire need for an understanding of ethics.
Are you able to separate the idea that land owned by individual Arabs remained the property of individual Arabs irrespectively of the wars between the
Arab state and Jewish state and the respective boundry changes? This is a basic concept in international law and is rooted in basic ethics.
Did Nazis win the right to plunder Jewish property in territory they occupied? Did Isreal win the right to plunder Arab property in territory they occupied?
if we lost would you have preached universal ethics to the arabs?
Yes. I believe that the plundering of Mizrahi land by Arab states is wrong, and it should be handed back. Do you?
Do you believe that Jewish property stolen by the Nazis should have been handed back or kept by those who'd stolen it?
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?
but britian is an established state. different scenario.
Identical senario. The Palestine Mandate was an established territory with the full functionings of a state, albeit under the colonial governence of London. So it is an identical senario. Just because the inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate had had their soverienty violated doesn't mean that they soverignty did not rightfully lie with them.
So is it alright for these British Muslims to establish an Islamic state?
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?
there is no stolen land. when a man gambles and loses should the casino return him the money? would the man if won return the money he won from the casino?
But there was no gambling. There was war between the Arab and Jewish states. Individual Arabs' land remained theirs irrespective of the outcome. Why should civilians be punished for this war? Was it right that Nazis plundered Jewish property in territory they occupied?
[quoteMrSilly]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.
legaly. why not? appeal to popularity? [/quote]
Given that you couldn't respond to what I said, I presume you agree that the war was caused by Jews. Thanks, al least with agree on something.
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.
resisting a state legally acquired, where muslims have not done the same.
Not legally aquired. Large tracts of the territory of Israel did not belong to Jews. So how exactly was it legal?
if it yours it ain't stealing it is liberating.
I agree, but it wasn't theirs, so it was stealing. How exactly was the Negev "theirs"? How exactly was the land of current day Haifa, Ashkelon, Bersheeba and Sderot "theirs"? It belonged to other people who were driven out, and the land was then stolen by the Israeli State. That's criminal by international legal standards.
if it yours again it would not be stealing. you're fighting for what is rightly yours.
But yglag, how was the land that had not been legally aquired belonging to Jews?
I did not say that god given right is moral. I merely point out that was the norm.
What has the "norm" got to do with anything? You admit it is not moral, so where is its place in the debate? You know it is just mythology and inhabits the minds of the superstitious. So why is is relevent to the debate?
So why you keep on raising the god given right to support your stance?
religious connection and god given right are two different things.
Okay, I'll agree with you on that one.
So how does religious connection support your stance? Muslim have a religious connection. I, as a pre-Judaism pagan have a connection. Where do al these religious connections fit in?
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.
I said "among other reasons." also I said "religious attachment can be comprehensible."
whether Israel establish from religious reasons immaterial. eventually it would be judge by the means it established. no? why irrelevent?
None of what you write makes any sense.
how do you regard gifts that your parents give you?
I take it as a form of inheritance.
Topic: Isrealis attack Aid Convoy ships