The Holocaust and WWII among other things. I would've preferred a part of Germany but alas it was Palestine.
Why does this tragedy justify the creation of a Jewish state? Create a state for Gypsies? Bahai?
Why should they have been flexible? When al-Muhajiroun demands that Britain become an Islamic state, should the British people be flexible and allow Tower Hamlets become an Islamic state?
Well you make a good point but the difference is that Palestine was not a sovereign state at the time.
Am not entirely sure how this is relevant. So Palestinian are punished twice; first for having their sovereignty violated by British colonists, then then having that lack of soverignty used as a reason for them to have their land stolen.
To start, the colonialism was illegitimate, therefore their lack of sovereinty was illigitimate, and it is therefore not a legitimate reason to justify Jewish immigrants' carving up of the territory.
And the Jews had already legally purchased vast amount of property. A better analogy would be Kurdish independence from Iraq which I would support under the right circumstances.
I don't think it is a better analogy, because the Kurdish indepdendance issue is a issue of national liberation and self determination of a region from central government. Israel was created out of Arab territory to be flooded with Jewish immigrants. Hardly comparable to the issue facing Iraqi Kurds.
A better analogy of the Iraq/Kurdistan situation to Israel/Palestine would be the creation of an Arab state from the city of Mosul.
And who/what determine's feasibility? Whatever happened to the rule of law?
What is the incentive for Israel to concede any of their (illigitimatly acheived) gains, if this vague and flexible notion of "feasibility" seems to trump all. After all, its the Israelis themselves that seem to determine what is feasible, and what is not.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying the territorial expansion of '67 was legitimate. It's just that with the current state of affairs, '67 borders is the best thing the Palestinians can get.
And again, who/what determine's this feasibility of what the best Palestinians can get?
Again I'm trying to come up with an implementable solution to the Palestinians.
And who is making the just solutions unimplementable?
]When it comes to international law and human rights, the full right of return is probably the only just solution.
And what is preventing this just solution from being realised?
East Jerusalem was occupied in '67 ......
Erm, the land of the State of Irael was occupied in 1948. How is that any different from the aquisition of land in 1967
......and is still considered an occupied territory under international law
Under international law or international legal opinion?
The UN does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Whereas the "other parts" of Israel are within the '48 borders and are under full Israeli sovereignty.
But is the UN an authorative voice on legal judgements? The UN doesn't recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan, even though it's justification for soveriegnty is less dubious than Israel's
Topic: Isrealis attack Aid Convoy ships