Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?

LOL.

Guess its not so easy after all.

 

Nah, Your argument that the side which accepted a UN resolution (which had passed overwhelmingly) was in the wrong and the side that rejected it and started a major war did the right thing falls on its face without any need to disprove such an obvious absurdity.

 

And you cant say why.

 

Indeed for something so obvious and so absurd, you cannot say why.

Why cant you explain it? Its obvious, because to explain it youd have to admit to a few things that you hold to.

 

Since you cant answer that one, lets try another;

Do you think the resolution that Israel accepted applies or doesnt apply?

 

Off Topic

I have just looked at the last five pages and not a single commentator is flying the American flag !!
I will bet good money that they are sitting at home googling Kurdland or poring over maps looking for this mythical biblical state , somewhere near Israel .
And they hate it when you tell them they are insular .
Just my sense of the absurd .

 

I was drawn by the ludicrous nature of the concept of someone "deserving" nationhood. How is such a state achieved, how do you qualify as "deserving"? Indeed what qualities make you undeserving of such a thing? Who is qualified to independently judge it? It's ridiculous.

 

Indeed its an amorphouse concept. All across the world indeed, yet humans consider that there do exist nations, states and peoples all over of varying different mixes and types.

The only true people who can judge are a majority of the people concerned. As such if Kurds have a lonstanding majority in the one place who are we to say they dont have a nationhood? Not me, not you.

 

Since our Borat cant answer these patently 'absurd' questions Im throwing it out to anyone that wishes to form an answer.

Anyone?

 

Don't confuse "can't" with "doesn't want to". You can play your sophistry games all you want, I have better things to do than disproving claims that the Earth is flat, that the side which accepted UN partition resoluton was in the wrong and the side that started a war did the right thing and similar obvious nonsense.

 

Ah yes, you say you could but you dont want to.

Your happy to spend lots of time here on many different subjects, but the heart of the one subject, the arab rejection of partition, your really interested in is something you dont want to entertain.

If you think its all so obvious then can or will you explain why so many people didnt think it was so obvious? What was it that they were missing about the arab rejection?

What was so abnormal about the arab rejection?

I suggest you stop responding to me at this point Borat. While I promise as usual to answer anything you care to ask, from this point on Ill be insisting on your obvious answer to this obvious question. Its only fair.

 

The world (represented by the UNGA) overwhelmingly decided to proceed with the partition. The arabs need to learn to compromise and accept decisions and rulings even if they disagree with them. That's how it works in the civilized world, the arab approach has always been 'their way or the highway', if they agree with a ruling,resolution or whatever then all is fine, if the ruling happens to be agaisnt them they start wars, intifadas, terror etc. Duh!

 

Why wouldnt they reject the partition?

 

Because rejecting UN resolutions is wrong (at least in the minds of people like you who believe in the legitimacy/moral superiority of the UN).


I mean, come on, these are obvious things, why should I have to explain that in civilized world a disagreement with a ruling is not a good enough reason to ignore it or worse become violent.

 

1/ Wait a minute, they rejected this idea long before there was even a vote. Theyd always objected to the idea. Again, why wouldnt they?

2/ And why is rejecting UN resolutions wrong if they breach the UN's own charter?

3/ You keep saying its all so obvious, if its so obvious then why did so many people agree with their viewpoint?

4/ And if that ruling both divides the lands of the majority population in favour of immigrants and puts 45% of palestinians under a jewish state then whats so obvious about not rejecting it?

5/ In fact, if the only choice was to accept the partition of their lands with an immigrant population then why were they asked at all? Why be asked if saying no is unacceptable?

 

LOL are you for real? They participated in the process, they fought (diplomatically) and lobbied and voted and when they lost they rejected the results and started an invasion.

Besides if you object to the idea of a court hearing before it takes place that does not mean you can reject its rulings, does it? I understand that the UN is not a court but the comparison is more than apt. Are you sure you are a Brit or they don't teach you the rule of law any more?

 

​

Seriously how many times do I need to answer the same question? The UN considered all arab objections, grievances and disagreements that you keep rehashing in each one of your posts, the UN considered the Jewish concerns, grievances and disagreements. The process was very detailed, deliberate and thorough, at the end of the day the UN did not find the Arab case to be strong enough and ruled in favor of the partition.

Case closed, don't tell me that I did not answer your question, I did and I have no interest in discussing each and every one of a million petty arab grievances that the UN reviewed and rejected in 1947.

 

Indeed are you talking of the surrounding arab powers or the palestinians themselves? Lets start with the palestinians.

They did not participate, if they had had actually participated their natural majority would long have held the day. They were asked their opinion long before any vote. They consistently said no.

Again, why wouldnt they?

As for the arab powers, how could they agree to something that contravened the UN charter and that the local majority had never ever agreed to?

How could they?

And as the local powers what choice but invasion did they have when so many palestinians were being removed and killed in palestine by the immigrant populace?

Why cant you reject its ruling? If the court is based on no representation and its decision contravenes its own charter why cant you?

Indeed Im British, and if you knew something about the British youd know that the law depends on more than what a judge says, but also what the basis of its jurisdiction is. The only reason law here has any sway is because weve fought repeated wars to make sure the absolute power of a few is contained - so again why wouldnt the palestinians or the arabs do the same?

The British, even the self appointed trustees of the land apparently, even abstained on the vote and refused to enforce the partition given that both sides had not agreed. So again why wouldnt any palestinian agree to paritition or agree to the UN ruling that contravened itts own charter?

Come on, Ill make it simple for you so you dont have to type much;

Just tell us why the palestinians shouldnt have ever rejected partition of their lands with an immigrant populace?

 

What? You pointedly refused to answer. Youve repeatedly told me its too obvious and is an absurd question. Now you ask me how many times you have to answer?

Now you again are not answering, youre telling me about the UN decision. Youre not even telling me exactly why they thought this way. Was it because they had sympathy with european jews and wished to give them them somewhere to live on their own after fighting their own european civil war?

Again, of course you did not answer the question. Again and again throughout these threads you love to tell us that the israelis accepted partition and the arabs rejected it therefore the arabs deserved whatever happened to them

So it should be so very very simple, so obvious its absurd right? - why wouldnt the palestinians object to the partition of their lands?​

 

The UN partition resolution was the answer. You don't like it - too bad but that was the only real valid answer, everything else is baseless theories and speculations. The UN (the only qualified and competent international body at the time) carefully reviewed all available information, listened to both sides and ruled in favor of the partition. It was not a ruling in favor of the Jews, it was a ruling in favor of a reasonable compromise. Case closed.

Nope, that's not what I am saying. What I am telling you is that the arabs were totally in the wrong when they rejected the partition and started wars. The arabs deserved whatever happened to them because they lost wars that they started and are still unable to come to grips with the reality and make peace.

Again you are distorting my words. I did not say the reasons why the arab objected to the partition were obvious, I said the side that rejected partition resolution and started a war was obviously in the wrong. I could not care less what motivated them (greed, cultural inability to comprimise, confidence that they could have the entire land to themselves, blatant disregard for the UN etc leap immediately to mind though).

 

Answer to what? The question Ive asked you repeatedly or some other question youd rather answer? It was considered by some as the answer to the problem of two communities with competing claims on the land.

It was and is not the answer to the very simple question;

why wouldnt the palestinians object to the partition of their lands?

Lol, which is exactly what ive just said about what you love to tell us. But hey...why were they wrong to reject partition? Its the same question.

Why was the side that rejected partition wrong to reject it? Indeed if giving a negative answer is itself wrong then why ask them in the first place?

And why wouldnt they object to the division of their lands with an immigrant minority?

Youve come up with a few speculations ( greed, cultural inability to comprimise, confidence that they could have the entire land to themselves, blatant disregard for the UN ) as to why they would reject the resolution, though you left the simple fact that they thought that the idea was unjust since they were a long standing vast majority in the land consistentlyy against the idea of dividing their lands up with an immigrant population, who were not responsible for events in europe.

So surely you can come up with a reason why they wouldnt reject the idea. Cant you?

 

Yawn, here you go again. The land did not belong to them and they needed to abide by UN resolutions. Aren't you a believer in the UN and the fairness of its resolutions?

Who cares? They still needed to abide by UN resolutions. Are you seriously suggesting that if a person feels a court ruling is unjust he does not have to abide by it? Are you seriously suggesting that if a country feels a UN resolution is unjust it's allowed to violate it? Wow, what an innovative look at the rule of law concept!

PS the Jews did not think the the partition was just either but they accepted the compromise. Do you see the difference?

 

It didnt belong to them? Theyd been the people living there longer than anyone living could remember, theyd built the cities and tilled the land. Why on earth wouldnt they think the land belonged to them? Because the british had the guns?

And why did they need to abide by anything? They didnt even have a vote.

Why on earth would I believe in the fairness of all UN resolutions especially when the majority population has never, while it being evidently quite possible, been asked??

Why would they need to do that? Thered never ever been a vote on the politics of palestine so why would they require to take account of those who refuse to take account of them?

If a court system is based on a dictat from powers with big guns what possible moral bearing could it have? Go on tell us, this should be good.

Exactly what basis does this 'rule of law' you refer to lie?

Um no, theres no difference. The Jewish were mostly an immigrant population, any land they could get would be a start.

Not being the native majority any actual vote in palestine was bound to be a loser for them while any vote by various involved european powers not involving the local majority could well be a winner - therefore accepting both the balfour declaration and the UN resolution without even one plebescite of the people if palestine was both acceptable to them even if it was of course morally wrong as you yourself would admit.

So.... surely you can come up with a reason why they wouldnt reject the idea. Cant you?

eating popcorn, waiting an entertaining response

 

All this nonsense was presented to the UN in 1947-1948 by the Arabs and their supporters, together with the Jewish arguments and views. After careful consideration the UN ruled in favor of a compromise - partitioning the land between two peoples populating it. Your disagreement with the UN ruling is important...to you and perhaps to your cat, for the rest of the world the decision was made by the only qualified and authorized international organization at the time and those who chose not to abide by it did it at their own peril and have no one to blame by themselves for the consequences.

 

What nonsense?

And still you wont answer the singular question Ive asked you again and again. In which case Im going to assume you cant answer because the answer as to why they wouldnt reject partition is obvious - they had to, as any other human always has and always will reject partition with an immigrant minority.

But yes of course, South America and Europe, being alot of countries all agreed to partition while the Middle east and Asia didnt. The result was 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions, including the imperial power involved that started it all.
You could indeed say the arabs should then have accepted what they never had, because of the vote and throw away 50 + years of consistent and reasonable opposition.

But why should they have? Indeed what authority does the UN have to breach its own charter? If the UN decided black was the new white would anyone be required to agree?

The fact is, the UN's decisions in the absence of any plebescite where reasonable and possible is illegitimate and it always will be. Its simply not authorised to give credibility to an imperial imposition of a group of immigrants committed to making their own state.

The thing is you know all this, therefore theres nothing further you can add except to repeat to me that the UN decision should have been both final and enough for the palestinians who had always been the majority and had always opposed it - you cant say why or how but you can definitely repeat it..