Let's do the "valid" bit first:
# Did the British make similar promises to Arab peoples including the same ground which is now occupied by Israel? Before/after/does it matter - the promise to the foreigners?
# More importantly, what right did Britain, who only held a mandate to govern on behalf of the resident peoples (exact reference available), have to promise these people's ancestral ground to a foreign third party group who had no significant presence in the area for almost 2000 years (in other words I am questioning the legal validity of that promise to certain representatives of international Jewry)?
# Validity of the two promises? [of course we all know what happened historically. You were talking about validity. I am more interested in justice]

1) You ask why there is a difference between the creation of Jordan and that of Israel? Well, Jordan was ultimately given to a people who had been living there for over 10 000 years. Israel was given to people who hadn’t lived there for almost 2000 years in defiance of the rights of those who had. See the difference?
2) Where did you get the statistic that 99% of the Ottoman empire was given to the Arabs? Reference please.
3) Are you saying that because the Jews only got a small percentage of the entire Ottoman empire, that the promise is therefore valid? Like if the front corner of your plot was given to an Indigenous American family is OK and legal, because the Local City Admin feels guilty because of an Iriquois pogrom only 150 years ago?

Same problem as above - I didn’t omit it; it is simply not relevant to our discussion of the creation of the State of Israel. You cannot call giving land to people who have occupied it for dozens of millennia annexation. With the creation of Jordan that land remained in the hands of a people who had always lived there. With the creation of the State of Israel, that land was taken away from them and given to someone else. See the difference?


I allow no such thing. I allow that Jews bought parcels of real estate legally. But to conclude from that that the creation of the State of Israel was legal and fully respected the rights of the ancestral residents, that I do NOT agree to. You are correct about the United Nations. At the time it was a very immature organisation PLUS, the West was suffering collective guilt over the holocaust tragedy. Does this make the decision just?

So here is my bottom line Injustice to the ancestral residents or not, turning back the clock to 1917 or 1948 is not practical nor just towards the Jewish people. But this does NOT mean that it was just and fair towards the historical residents who are now called Palestinans. Therefore, given this debacle of land alienation based on collective guilt more than on any established international legal norms, given that they lost very important territory because a bunch of third parties gave away their ground to provide a home for foreigners who lives on other continents, should these ancestral residents who had nothing to do with the Holocaust be subjected to yet further injustices?

And THAT is where we neatly link back to the theme of this thread – UNSC resolution 242. Capiche?