- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,602
- 5,503
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Interesting stance you take here. I made no assertions about ownership of land or territory, though there may be many that might be made. My asserting related to those who were living on/in/upon the land.No...you made assertions about who that land belonged to....right?
We're going over who that land belonged to.
You may not want to admit it, you may not want to acknowledge it, but it's still the truth.
My view is that the locals gave their control over the land to the Ottomans. The Ottomans in turn gave it over to the British.
This isn't a matter of my opinion, or my perspective.....this is what actually happened. These are the facts.
They are far far more than your mere beliefs.
Indeed the British pretended to make undertakings to Faisal (and I guess Lawrence) and used the Palestinians (Arabs) to help defeat the Turkish, whilst the dealings were indeed duplicitous and were not undertakings they intended to honour, ever.
My problem is not that you make an assertion, but that you choose not to take into account a wider view, as that might challenge your simple solutions. Law is quite good a dealing with property and appalling at dealing with people. Law is good, however, it is not everything.
You can read all sorts of partial histories and come to all sorts of chosen conclusions, and indeed if you have reached those conclusions before examining history then that will help determine what you regard as important as history, to which you will assert the dubious honour of being described as facts.
Upvote
0