To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

[Sausagenbacon]

www.thejc.com/news/uk/gazan-family-refugee-status-asylum-rejection-gwsq2c8b

Your faux naivety isn't washing. I saw what you did in that post. Don't engage. I saw your engagement with another poster whose foul posts were rightly removed.

Excuse me. Which foul posts? Faux naievity?

Jewish people also have a right to self-determination and they don't have to be thankful to the UN for anything. That's quite laughable the idea that guit played a part in 'rehoming' Jews. More recently, they do have cause to be fearful of the UN though.

“Britain giving Palestinian land to create the state of Israel” is a common but misleading simplification. There was no independent sovereign Palestinian Arab state in 1947–48. The land was Ottoman, then British Mandate territory (internationally recognized). The Mandate explicitly included the Balfour commitment to a Jewish national home.

The idea that the UN/British decision was purely “colonial injustice with no thought for Palestinians” ignores that Britain proposed earlier partitions (e.g., Peel Commission 1937 rejected by Arabs) and that Arab leadership also bears responsibility for rejecting compromise plans that would have given them a state.

Colonialism vs. national movements: The Middle East’s borders are full of colonial legacies. Singling out Israel ignores similar issues in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria. Jews were often fleeing persecution, not acting as classic colonial settlers.

Well said.

I understand your points @LadyEleanorRosalindWhitethorn. However, it still relies on the colonial premise that Palestine was Britain's /the United Nations to give away. I did highlight other colonial legacies by mentioning Sykes Picot. Around 1920, Arabs outnumbered Jews in Palestine 11 to 1. It was an Arab majority state by a long, long way. Why should they have been forced to make concessions proposed by Peel? Jews continued to come to Palestine so that by 1947 Palestine was 2/3 Arab and 1/3 Jewish. Could you imagine if something like that happened today and we just expected a population to roll over and secede land?

Anyway, this whole back and forth has come from the fact that I stated that Britain played a roll in the current Israel/Palestine conflict. Nobody has actually convinced me otherwise.

No one “forced” Arabs to accept Peel in 1937. They chose rejection and violence over sharing the land with a Jewish minority that had strong historical claims and faced existential threats. The same choice was repeated in 1947. Demographic majorities matter, but they do not grant an absolute veto over another people’s right to self-determination in a disputed territory with layered history.

👏 👏

Sorry, it was time to leave it about 20 years ago when they published an article about a non-EU foreigner (forgot, but somewhere from Central America?) who was granted asylum here because 'he and his partner had an established family - they had a cat'. I kid you not.

Everyone has a right to self determination, but it seems like the Palestinian's right to self determination comes second in the eyes of many. The state of Israel exists today and that isn't going to change, nor should it, but they way it was done reflects the racist, colonial attitudes of that era and very few people on a certain side of the debate seem to wish to admit this.

The way you say that they chose violence to criticise them. Violence was the modus operandi of the time, and sadly it still is in many parts of the world.

What would you call staging a war against Israel, who were busy building an infrastructure?

Anyway, the thread has been derailed enough.

@Firetreev wasn't up to Britain to pass over the decision to the United Nations.

Britain ceded control of Palestine to the United Nations due to a confluence of factors, primarily stemming from escalating violence and political instability in the region, compounded by the immense economic and human costs sustained in the aftermath of World War II; therefore, Britain sought to end its increasingly untenable Mandate and to pass the issue to the UN was its attempt to find a peaceful resolution to a seemingly insoluble problem

Incidentally, when it came to vote Britain abstained so you can't say they had a dog in that fight.

😆

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland

The partition of Ireland was not a smooth one, no surprises there. Eventually Northern Ireland became a six county Country, with open borders because to include the province of Ulster would have meant a Catholic majority. And that wouldn't do. As a consequence, Catholics faced unassailable discrimination which hugely impacted their daily lives. This is why the ECHR should remain.

Dear OP (and Kemi, and Nigel, and all the other twotsit-head politicians) we can't leave the EHCR as it would breach the Good Friday agreement.

Many Westminster politicians seem incapable of fulfilling their obligations towards Northern Ireland but this is one promise they can bloody well keep in my view.

That had nothing to do with the Convention and everything to do with the stupid judge.

And this has continued with the Arabs refusing a two state solution at least 6 times.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of record. From the United Nations to Israeli governments of the left, centre, and right, proposals for a two-state solution have been tabled, debated, and rejected. The pattern is consistent: the offers are made, the compromises are proposed, and the answer is always “no.”

The latest "Peace to Prosperity Plan" brokered by Trump = Palestinian state with $50B investment, land swaps, security guarantees; conditional on disarming terror groups and recognizing Israel as Jewish state.
The Palestinian Authority rejected it outright; and refused even to engage.

This just shows that the Arabs/Palestinians don't want any solution that allows Israel to even exist.
They'd sooner attack Israel and when Israel retaliates they cry "foul !". They are milking the 'victim' narrative for all it's worth.

It does not "Breach the Good Friday Agreement" and I've posted the rationale for this upthread.

Except you posted two links to a legal possible bypass that would require years of negotiation and two referendums, one in Northern Ireland and the other in Ireland to ratify the change. It's not as simple as just leaving.

I never said it was.