2. The Ottomans settled Bosnian Muslims expatriates in Palestine after Austro-Hungary captured Bosnia. Likewise, they settled Circassians and Tatars there who were refugees from Russia. I feel for these people, but they have no historical ties as settlers. The Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews who came to Palestine do.
Do you want to compare post WWII migrations of Americans to different states to Mexican immigration to this country?
Why would I?
Few Mexicans lived in territories acquired by the US. The native peoples were not Mexican anyway.
Gee, how about returning the Pacific Southwest to Mexico? That would still leave us with 3/4ths of our country.
Non sequitor. See above.
I focused on the Pre WWI period in my response...and it actually began around the time of the first aliyah, just after Mark Twain's visit.
During the war immigration came to a halt, obviously.
I don't know what happened during the inter-war period 1920-1940...except that Jewish immigration was severely curtailed by the British.
Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire, which ended in 1919, came to take advantage of new infrastructure and development, most of which was built by the Zionists
That's right...but it doesn't change the realities that they were citizens of the Empire and the Zionists were not. Doesn't change the realities that they were Arab-speaking Muslims and the Zionists were not.
These people have no historical ties. They are opportunists, who later participated in attempts to steal land from (dead) Jews.
You couldn't be more wrong. Some may not have had specific ties to Palestine but all had very strong ties to their culture and way of life. So Zhabotinsky said in 1923 and I value his opinion far, far more than I do yours. He was there, after all, his credentials are much, much better than yours, and history has shown him to have been correct.
The Ottomans settled Bosnian Muslims expatriates in Palestine after Austro-Hungary captured Bosnia. Likewise, they settled Circassians and Tatars there who were refugees from Russia
Yeah? So where are they? If they were settled in numbers where are their descendants? I never hear of them.
I feel for these people, but they have no historical ties as settlers. The Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews who came to Palestine do.
Arabs certainly do. Arabs who have been inhabitants of the land for generations, Arabs who had been there for only 50 or 60 years, Arabs who had never been there. All of them do. The Bosnians and Circassians also if they were refugees from other places. You're just flat-out wrong. Think about how first or second generation Americans feel about this country.
I'm pro-Israel and pro-greater Israel but, quite frankly, people with your opinions embarrass me.
Few Mexicans lived in territories acquired by the US. The native peoples were not Mexican anyway.
Even fewer Americans lived in those territories before acquisition and we had even less connection to the aboriginal inhabitants.
But that wasn't my point.
Migration of citizens of the Ottoman empire, or of citizens of any country, is very different from immigration of non-citizens...even if those non-citizens had some tenuous connection to peoples who had lived in the land 2000 years prior.
Non sequitor. See above
Nope. Again you fail to understand. People of any country are loath to relinquish title to any part of it for any reason. It's not that we wouldn't want to return the Pacific Southwest to Mexicans. We wouldn't return it to descendents of the original inhabitants. Not willingly.