As I said to the other poster and reiterated in my last post here , the analogy is not meant , and never was meant , to encompass every nuance of the Palestine/ Israel conflict. The use of the term " imagination " should tell people that.
It sets out a scenario whereby an all powerful state ( though it could be a number of powerful states ) is instrumental in supporting the creation of a new state to be formed to accommodate recent immigrants that have arrived into that area . It goes on to posit the problems facing the neighbouring states when the locals are emptied out into their territory and the problems caused by the local states conflict with the nascent state.
If it's a real problem for other people I can always rehash it without using the names of modern day states. No problem. The essence of that post is a pretty accurate account of what befell the Arabs with the creation of Israel. Them paying the price , still ongoing , for European antisemitism.
Be honest with yourself , you don't want to talk about whether Europeans would have accepted what Europeans/ people of European origin dictated that the Arabs should accept
Either way , while we're talking of " inaccuracies " in peoples posts , you are not in a position to complain yourself............
A. Once again your ability to invent your own quotations from other peoples posts is evident. Nowhere in that post is the word " invaded " used , not once. Yet you have it ascribed to me in quotation marks. Correct ?
B. The Jewish people that emigrated to mandate Palestine before the state of Israel was created came, more or less entirely, from Europe/Eastern Europe........... not from " all around the world "
C. " British folk " never " occupied " Palestine. The British state did using it's army
That's just for starters too
