| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:An ageing student writes | |
| Posted by: | David Ainsworth | |
| Date/Time: | 11/09/25 00:12:00 |
| But if "it is surely legitimate for Israel to eliminate its mortal enemies in Gaza", why is it not surely legitimate for Palestinians to eliminate their mortal enemies in Israel? "If it was legitimate for the Britain to declare war on Nazi Germany" (as a result of Germany's invasion and occupation of Poland), why is Palestinian resistance illegitimate when it is against an enemy from Europe which has invaded (and occupied) Palestine? Who on earth can legitimately decide to give more than half of a land, with an ancient and established population, to a much smaller group of recent migrants? "The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (Resolution 181) allocated more than half (approximately 56.47%) of historic Palestine to the proposed Jewish State. This occurred despite the Palestinian Arab population being twice the size of the Jewish population at the time, leading to strong opposition from Arab leaders who considered the plan pro-Zionist and unfair. Details of the UN Partition Plan: Territorial Allocation: Land Allocation: The Jewish state received 56.47% of the territory. Arab State: The Arab state was to receive 42.88% of the territory, with the remaining 0.65% (including Jerusalem and Bethlehem) becoming an international zone." (AI) Would Britain ever accept such treatment permanently? Who would advocate that we should accept it? This treatment comes from a previous age of racial hierarchies. |