Of course. The Balfour Declaration AND its inclusion in the Treaty of Sèvres (and subsequent treaties) is a good starting point for those who dispute the modern legitimacy of the return of Jews to the Promised Land.
The Balfour Declaration is used by both sides, usually Zionists, to promote their arguments. However, as I stated, the treaty is a remnant of colonialism and, like many things from that era, is more about military force than legitimacy. It is, essentially, the colonial British imposing their view on the weaker Arabs without their consent or input. In fact, it goes directly against the British promise to the Arabs for a pan-Arab homeland in return for their help against the Ottoman Turks.
If the video contains something of substance, why not write the salient points, proofs, and reasoning down here, rather than direct me to watch it?
Because you would dismiss anything I say as 'unsubstantiated'.
Would you believe me if I wrote that the Balfour Declaration was actually an attempt by the British to appease the Russian Bolsheviks, whom they thought were mostly Jewish?
Or if I pointed out that the chief of the Haganah himself validates the claim of many Israeli Jewish historians that targetted massacres to instigate terror was the primary method of evicting Arab residents from Palestine?
How about the fact that the documentary completely trashes your repeated assertion that most Palestinian land was legitimately bought by Jewish migrants?
As if "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" are opposites!
Given that the two sides are locked in mortal conflict, it is certainly the case.
"If you want truth, see a priest" is one saying reporters have.
Precisely!
Reporters offer opinions, not truth; a fact that is grossly exploited by Israel given that the Western media is utterly dominated by pro-Zionist 'reporters'.
For Western reporters the important thing is to gain and keep sources so you can gain and keep the eyeballs that boost ratings and circulation.
Yeah, there's a big market in the West for pro-Arab reporting.
They think they'd lose both access to sources and viewers/readers if they broadcast/publish anything too pro-Israel - or too uncomfortable for their Arab and Muslim viewers. Balance is tilted away from Israel because the Arab and Muslim market is much bigger.
We are talking about the global media in general and Western media in particular. Neither of those gives a da*n about Arab/Muslim sensibilities.
The Arab and Muslim reporters I've talked to (including BBC) simply told me they conceived it their duty to be anti-Israel advocates.
You mean they thought it was right to present the other point of view, which is ignored by 99.9% of the Western media?
Don't you think you're confusing the usual differences of opinion that exist in the West with the ironclad, black-and-white, proof of a written treaty?
Differences of opinion on Israle are not entertained very well in the Western media; the coverage is predominantly pro-Israel. Do you think it is even conceivable that any other country would be able to get away with blatant apartheid the way Israel does?
Nelson Mandela equated the Israeli government's policies to those in South Africa. And he would know.
Questioning how people learned something is not a personal attack, but a process of discovery. Why do you claim otherwise?
It was the sarcastic phrasing of your question. Don't try to be coy.
I exist in a culture with a lot of free inquiry. You've read a lot of what I write and you know I can find sources to back me up, both in print and on the Internet.
I am sure you can find lots of opinion pieces and revisionist history to back up your claims, which is why I recommended you to watch that BBC documentary. It has first-hand interviews with people who were actually involved in key decisions. Interviews which utterly invalidate most of the pro-Zionist literature floating around on the internet and in print.
On the other hand, in the opinion of the U.S. Library of Congress,
The US Library of Congress does not write books or articles; people do. So you quote an
opinion piece by someone. Big deal!
and that as far as history goes the shelves of serious bookshops are dominated by
History bookshelves of any country are dominated by its own cultural history so, again, what's the big deal? Western bookshelves are mostly lined with Western history books; whatever variation exists is directly proportional to the size of immigrant populations. American bookshelves have a few books on Mexican and South American history; Australian bookshelves are few books on East and South Asian history/culture.
Worse still, books on Islam in the West are mostly written by anti-Muslim bigots who present a selective, revisionist nad highly opinionated view of Islamic history. Very few Westeners have read books on Islam by actual Muslims.
This seems to be an apt description of an intellectual culture that "ignores uncomfortable aspects of history to suit prejudice", doesn't it?
You are resorting to gross generalizations against entire countries and cultures. I can point out similar assessments comparing right-wing Israeli culture to Nazi Germany by none other than Israeli peace activists and even Jewish members of the Knesset.
I think we can have a more meaningful discussion if we stay away from gross generalizations and character attacks.
Can a student in Islamabad, Peshawar, Karachi, Quetta, or Lahore actually argue the incontestably pro-Zionist arguments I've presented, or would that student pay a price for doing so?
Why would anyone want to defend the indefensible? Would you want someone defending racism or apartheid? Why do you suppose so many Jews, including Orthodox rabbis, are opposed to Israel?
