Originally Posted by Del Boy

This is just a hurried note, I can see that you guys still have no idea of the rights of Israel's claim to their homeland.

So you've finally twigged have you, there is no claim. Just as i have no claim to my hereditary homeland(s)

Much, much greater than that of any European arrivals and their descendants in Australia or New Zealand.

How so? And the same rules go for me, If you start quoting fairy stories from the "Bobble" you've effectively departed from rationality and thereby lost any credibility.

What if your indigenous peoples told you to clear off - what would you do? .

Well,... not being in charge here, I have little idea, I guess you'll have to ask the Gummint of the day and big industry. I dunno why, but neither of them have been listening to me much lately,... Good Luck!

However, I don't worry about it greatly, as I know that other than a certain power hungry few probably numbering less than 100 persons, who only want the power so they can exploit their own people, the vast majority of our indigenous people realise that it would be economic and physical suicide for them, unless they could get another nation to come and support them,... which in all events would most probably end up being our closest neighbours to the North, and they are very much aware of what that would mean for them. Back to a lifestyle pre the arrival of white man. Yep, the vocal minority carry on a bit at times, but even they would shrink if what you suggest, actually happened. What they want, is not Indigenous Rights, but "a bite of the apple" that our politicians presently enjoy, and their own people are very aware of this. Where ever we have allowed Aborignals to run their own affairs there has been scandal, tribalism and inter clan rivalry with only the immediate families of the person controlling the money getting any benefits. This has often resulted in spearings, inter clan warfare and murder.

Also, we have a record of consistently improving our relationships with and the conditions of, our indigenous people. Too slowly ?,... maybe, but never the less things are far better today than they were ten years ago, and they have been getting better for at least a century. This is not hard to understand when one realises the our people were a Stone age society less than 200 years ago, very unlike those persons who inhabited Palestine prior to the influx of European Jews.

There is effectively no comparison between the two groups.

Actually I was referring to more of a hypothetical scenario.
If indeed it was the case, where the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand refound their sense of "nationalism" and decided that they would kick out the "White Man" at all costs, where would you stand then?

I see that there are many of you who do NOT know the history of the lands you say that the Palestinians have a claim to.

A common miscomception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.
The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.


So to say that Israelis are interlopers, is a tissue of lies that is told every time the Palestinians talk about claims to Israel. The Jewish claim to that corner of the world goes much further back than the Palestinian claims.

As far as why they don't have a homeland, it's because they turned down offers of land for a homeland on more than one occasion ... and ... JUST MAYBE ... because of their continuing terrorist activities. Israel and other countries, are less likely to cede land to a people who's people think that terrorist activities against innocent people is okay.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Del Boy's got a point too.

I know it's not the case but what IF the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand demanded that the "Whites" "go back to where they came from"? I've heard the argument that the Maoris are so mixed now it hardly matters but what if it wasn't the case? What if these indigenous people started blowing things up in downtown Sydney and launched rockets into the suburbs from their reservations?
What would you do?
There are now generations of Israelis who know no other country for a home other than Israel just as there are Australians and New Zealanders who know no other country other than their own. Granted, the number of generations that have lived in that land are different but you can see the similarities as well.

What was that song by Midnight Oil? Beds are burning?

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Del Boy's got a point too.

I know it's not the case but what IF the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand demanded that the "Whites" "go back to where they came from"? I've heard the argument that the Maoris are so mixed now it hardly matters but what if it wasn't the case? What if these indigenous people started blowing things up in downtown Sydney and launched rockets into the suburbs from their reservations?
What would you do?
There are now generations of Israelis who know no other country for a home other than Israel just as there are Australians and New Zealanders who know no other country other than their own. Granted, the number of generations that have lived in that land are different but you can see the similarities as well.

There are a couple of problems with this argument:
1) The Maori are indigenous only by political correctness as their own history says they arrived by boat the same as everyone else.

2) There is no separation any longer (there wasn't at the time of colonisation really) Maori and European in New Zealand have lived together relatively peacefully (yes there were a couple of wars but nothing major).

3) Who would we give the land back to?
We are a very intermingled country for example I can claim about 4 different passports plus Maori ancestry and my situation is not uncommon.

4) We don't have reservations.

We could also make the claim that Israel/Palestine is Christian Lands stolen by conquest by Moslems. Also the rulers of Jordan had been the rulers of the Arabian Peninsula untill pushed out by the Saudi clan.

Originally Posted by MontyB

There are a couple of problems with this argument:
1) The Maori are indigenous only by political correctness as their own history says they arrived by boat the same as everyone else.

2) There is no separation any longer (there wasn't at the time of colonisation really) Maori and European in New Zealand have lived together relatively peacefully (yes there were a couple of wars but nothing major).

3) Who would we give the land back to?
We are a very intermingled country for example I can claim about 4 different passports plus Maori ancestry and my situation is not uncommon.

4) We don't have reservations.

Yeah the Maoris don't have reservations.
The Maori may have arrived by boat, but the Arabs had to have come from somewhere also.
Just saying, I think the more hypothetical scenario drawn up in my later post works a bit better.
Either way, you're talking to a guy who thinks the creation of the state of Israel was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. A Jewish state should have been created somewhere far away where there were very few locals.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yeah the Maoris don't have reservations.
The Maori may have arrived by boat, but the Arabs had to have come from somewhere also.
Just saying, I think the more hypothetical scenario drawn up in my later post works a bit better.
Either way, you're talking to a guy who thinks the creation of the state of Israel was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. A Jewish state should have been created somewhere far away where there were very few locals.

Why do you feel that the Jews are entitled to a state of their own? Would it be right for me to insist that we who emigrated from the England are entitled to a state of our own back in England?

Jews being targeted and killed in Europe happened several times over and each time they had a problem in that there wasn't anywhere to go. At each time of need, countries would turn the refugees back. In case such an event happens again, a Jewish state that will not turn them back is a pretty good idea. The West is not without guilt in this as over a millenia various folks in Europe have killed Jews for a variety of reasons and even times when they were not killed, they were certainly discriminated against. Even in Shakespeare's comedy, the Merchant of Venice, the joke is that they made a fool (and a Christian) out of a Jew. THAT was the joke!

That's a bit of a departure from just thinking you'd move back with a group of folks and claim a country in England. It misses a lot of things that had led up to that decision making process. Maybe if you guys were forced out of England for being a different "nationality," only to get slaughtered in Australia several times over for the reason of being what you are and when not slaughtered, discriminated against badly, then maybe you DO have a case. You'll tell the British government that your people were forced into exile and in the new land (Australia) your group was subject to untold miseries because of it.

It's not without precedence either. Liberia was formed as a country that freed American Blacks could move "back" to. The ordeal that the slaves had gone through justified the creation of a state for them in the continent they had come from.

Having said that, the location of the creation of the Jewish State was a huge mistake.

I'm a little confused. They could of had one in 1947 with the partition but they rejected it. They could of had one in 2000, but arafat rejected it. And reportedly, abbas rejected olmert's offer which was basically all of the west bank (with some territorial swaps), half of jerusalem, and even letting some palestinians settle back in israel.

And what about between 48 and 67? The Egyptians controlled the gaza strip and the Jordanians controlled the West bank. Why didn't they establish for the palestinians a state then? why was there no cry for a palestinian state then?

just imagine if the kurds were offered a state....they'd take it in a heartbeat and be overjoyed that the international community finally gave a damn about them

I think they are defending their land, such as any nation..