The shift became two-sided fairly quickly, certainly by 1920 there was native reaction to the threat ... had Balfour never sent that letter to Rothschild, or sent a more equitable one, the threat would have been lessened in intensity, ditto the reaction .... the Nadines will always tell you that it was all the mufti's fault, when they say that take note, that for all his failings the mufti was not collecting up a gang to go invade Europe, it was all about european zionists invading Palestine en masse, many of them with a clearly expressed plan to dispossess the indigenous, there are dozens of zionist statements to this effect
Funny about 'country', something must have changed in the US since my dictionary got printed ... i'll try to remember this in the future when speaking to US nationals ... while it's often used here as synonymous with state or nation-state [not 'nation' alone as the PC du jour here calls indians 'first nations', also the quebecois call themselves a nation, there are other similar uses], 'country' does not necessarily mean nation-state .... you can have a nation-state without a country, look at the Vatican, just a bunch of buildings and recognition as a state, but no country ... look at Israel, recognised as a state by many, yet without a country, they're squatting mostly on somebody else's country .... you can have a nation of people, self-regarded as such, and with a country to live in, yet with no state, i'm thinking here of the lacondón of Chiapas, who say no, our country is not México and we don't want what you people call a 'state' thank you, we're just fine, go away and leave us alone .... also another group not far away, i had a lot to do with them, they took the same attitude for years, until they discovered the black art of lawyering, and found that by rejoining the mexicano tribe the mexicanos would pay for the lawyers, they have some beautiful country, small region of smooth foothills, sort of, in between rougher sierra
' The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 (as well as other human rights documents) maintains this right, stating: "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." (emphasis added). There is disagreement as to what this actually means in practice as well as whether country refers to a state or a specific area of land. In addition, the change from State to country from the first sentence to the second clouds the issue.'
en.wikipedia.org
The last sentence there is wrong, imho -those two sentences from the declaration make good sense to me, appear well and carefully written, because it is a good idea to widen the area of freedom from 'state' to that of 'country', as with country you get intra-state freedom as well ... e.g. you as a US national would have the right to move from the country around you now to say the wine country of California, or the alpine country of Colorado .... unless zionists were to come along and claim those countries, of course, then you would have no rights at all, and maybe no country either. |
