@Avi12311 Right...sorry about that. Got side-tracked. Back now if you're still around?
@Avi12311 The suggestion was that Britain somehow 'owned' the region at the time and was prepared to give that up to create the new state. >
-
-
@Avi12311 But the question became; what right did Britain have to give away someone else's land? No answer was offered. What would you say? -
@C7RKY So, here we are today with them claiming they want it back after almost 70 years and we want it back when we have been here all along -
@Avi12311 I understood (rightly/wrongly) that both people jointly lived there in harmony for many 100s of years? Why the need for change? -
@C7RKY our Aliyahs had started back in the 19th century. They simply picked up a truckload when things started getting ugly in Europe. -
@Avi12311 Right...ok. So it does sound like it was integrated to some degree, before the post WWII actions, but then it became segregated? > -
@C7RKY to know what they were thinking. -
@Avi12311 But is that the same group of people who were moved off the land to create a new state? I try to imagine myself in the position > -
@C7RKY Things get a bit lost in a thread on twitter. Could you clarify which of my comments that's about. :( - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@C7RKY Based on the way things went, technically, San Remo's breaking up was perfectly legal. The UN's 1947 partition plan was actually inThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@C7RKY That seems tricky. I mean, how does one consider the land the British Empire was holding at various times in its history? Not sureThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.