This is a very unbiased perspective of the history of the Middle East. It is not easy giving a good perspective of this historical event because it is fraught with great internal individual emotion. But overall, the Arabs had many nations and the Jews had nothing. And the British recognized this fact. Now the Arabs would rather that the Jews have no nation at all. And naturally while that is obviously unfair, most rational, non-emotional and detached people will comply and agree with the giving of a nation to the Jews by the British.Those Arabs who are not rational and detached will naturally argue that the British were wrong in their action. But for most people who have a sense of fair play, the Balfour Declaration will be seen as a most honorable action and of great credit to the British people and shows a great sense of good common sense. And a very wise and well thought out analysis by Dr. Moore.
What about the European Romani or "gypsy" people, shouldn't they (like the European Jews) have been given a state, but in British controlled India? The fact is nobody should be awarded land on the simple basis of "I appreciate it more than the other guy" or "my ancestors descended from there". Sure, its true that many European Jews rightfully purchased land from Arab speaking landowners - however, if the collective Jewish intention at Israel's founding was to build a unified state WITH the local Arab speaking (who are ethnically and religiously diverse) people, instead of WITHOUT them, then maybe the situation wouldn't have turned so politically violent. A common holy site like he Cave of the Patriarchs would not exist today if it were not for the respect and reverence from the local Arab speaking population (i.e. the "Palestinians").
This is a very unbiased perspective of the history of the Middle East. It is not easy giving a good perspective of this historical event because it is fraught with great internal individual emotion. But overall, the Arabs had many nations and the Jews had nothing. And the British recognized this fact. Now the Arabs would rather that the Jews have no nation at all. And naturally while that is obviously unfair, most rational, non-emotional and detached people will comply and agree with the giving of a nation to the Jews by the British.Those Arabs who are not rational and detached will naturally argue that the British were wrong in their action. But for most people who have a sense of fair play, the Balfour Declaration will be seen as a most honorable action and of great credit to the British people and shows a great sense of good common sense. And a very wise and well thought out analysis by Dr. Moore.
What about the European Romani or "gypsy" people, shouldn't they (like the European Jews) have been given a state, but in British controlled India?
The fact is nobody should be awarded land on the simple basis of "I appreciate it more than the other guy" or "my ancestors descended from there". Sure, its true that many European Jews rightfully purchased land from Arab speaking landowners - however, if the collective Jewish intention at Israel's founding was to build a unified state WITH the local Arab speaking (who are ethnically and religiously diverse) people, instead of WITHOUT them, then maybe the situation wouldn't have turned so politically violent. A common holy site like he Cave of the Patriarchs would not exist today if it were not for the respect and reverence from the local Arab speaking population (i.e. the "Palestinians").
So should the remaining Mon people of South East Asia be given a state across Burma and Thailand because they have historic connections to the land?
the Zionist state is not the Israel of the bible.
British colonialist terrorists giving what doesn't belong to them isn't betrayal? wow, with "historians" like that!
Repulsive. Unsubbed.