British Jews

[Mailman]

So 'with our legal hats on', do we apply this to any territory that any people wish to claim off another? And remember, we've got our legal hats on here.

Actually not even that considering Israel HOLDS the land that is in question. So there really isnt any arguement...apart from that being fuelled by arabs for their own internal political purposes (ie. its easier staying in power when you can use a bogeyman to distract peoples attention from the real issues they should be focusing on, like health care, corruption, education etc).

Mailman

[Old Greg]

Eh, but where is this zionist title deed? Is it just some lines in the old testemant? What If im not christian or religious and think of the bible as a work of fiction?

I think the argument is that the Jewish people lived in an area approximating with modern Israel until they were expelled by the Romans. Try applying that logic to other movements of people.

[Chico]

I think the argument is that the Jewish people lived in an area approximating with modern Israel until they were expelled by the Romans. Try applying that logic to other movements of people.

In the absence of a legitimate bill of sale how else do you determine the rightful owner of a disputed piece of land without considering who has the oldest legitimate claim? Is it in dispute that that Jews have the oldest legitimate or have you bought into the Jihadist mantra that once Muslims occupy a land whether legitmately or otherwise it is forever known as "Muslim lands"? I see our good friend Trevor Brooks tried to pull that one in Leytonstone. Do not remember the lefty pinko Jew haters agreeing with him on that one so then why agree with the Jihadists on the so-called occupied territories?

[pickle]

[QUOTE=Chico]In the absence of a legitimate bill of sale how else do you determine the rightful owner of a disputed piece of land without considering who has the oldest legitimate claim? Is it in dispute that that Jews have the oldest legitimate [QUOTE]

I would say that it is. You cant seriously expect us to go back to Roman times FFS? Otherwise the welsh would have a legal claim to england and be able to kick out all of us non-ancient-britons from london, manchester, birmingham etc, just becasue the welsh anscestors were kicked over Offas dyke thousands of years ago by the Romans.

Im thinking post WW1 is slightly more relevant.

[Old Greg]

In thje absence of a legitimate bill of sale how else do you determine the rightful owner of a disputed piece of land without considering who has the oldest legitimate claim? Is it in dispute here that that Jews have the oldest legitimate or have you bought into the Jihadist mantra that once Muslims occupy a land whether legitmately or otherwise it is forever know as "Muslim lands". I see our good friend trevor Brooks tried to pull that one in Leytonstone. Do not remember the lefty pinko Jew haters agreeing with him on that one so then why agree with the Jihadists for gthe so-called occupied territories?

Are you really saying that the law (international law is this?) means that a people can make a claim to reoccupy a land that their ancestors occupied 2000 (ish) years ago?

Will we apply this to the Welsh, Cornish and Breton reoccupation of England?

Can the Greeks have Istanbul back?

Can all indigenous peoples in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand throw out people of European stock?

[Old Greg]

[QUOTE=pickle][QUOTE=Chico]In the absence of a legitimate bill of sale how else do you determine the rightful owner of a disputed piece of land without considering who has the oldest legitimate claim? Is it in dispute that that Jews have the oldest legitimate

I would say that it is. You cant seriously expect us to go back to Roman times FFS? Otherwise the welsh would have a legal claim to england and be able to kick out all of us non-ancient-britons from london, manchester, birmingham etc, just becasue the welsh anscestors were kicked over Offas dyke thousands of years ago by the Romans.

Im thinking post WW1 is slightly more relevant.

Great minds (but Offa's Dyke post-dates the Romans).

[Old Greg]

Indeed.

Lucifer Box: the Author of Confusion...

Oh, the naughty boy.

[pickle]

(but Offa's Dyke post-dates the Romans).

Well, whoever built it, it was a great idea.

[Chico]

[QUOTE=Old Greg][QUOTE=pickle]

In the absence of a legitimate bill of sale how else do you determine the rightful owner of a disputed piece of land without considering who has the oldest legitimate claim? Is it in dispute that that Jews have the oldest legitimate
Great minds (but Offa's Dyke post-dates the Romans).

So by your logic , The Native Americans have no claim whatsoever on their land or the Aborigines have no claim on their land, why then have their respective governments compensated them? And the last time I check Wales and England formally agreed to form the United Kngdom where is the land dispute?

[Old Greg]

[QUOTE=Chico][QUOTE=Old Greg]

So by your logic , The Native Americans have no claim whatsoever on their land or the Aborigines have no claim on their land, why then have their respective governments compensated them? And the last time I check Wales and England formally agreed to form the United Kngdom where is the land dispute?

I believe that Aborigines and Native Americans don't have the right to kick out people of European descent.

Apart from your slight historical error - United Kingdom was formed by union between Great Britain and Ireland (subsequently Northern Ireland), I'd be interested as to how you believe the Welsh, Cornish and Breton people ever agreed to give up a claim (under the terms of your argument) to England.