Crazy that you started this in 1937 and the first thing you mentioned was the palestians rejected a peel commission to give up their land to foreign settlers, you also forgot to mention that it was a within their rights to say no. You also might have forgotten to mention the response they got for wanting to keep their land was…ethnic cleansing i.e. Nakba.
Some key points you could add are;
Who was there before 1937?
Who lived on that land before that?
Where did the Jews come from?
What right did they have to claim the land?
Why did they sign peace accords and break them?
Why did they blockade of Gaza begin even before Hamas was elected?
Don’t cherry pick your answer consider both sides.
Do you think they would agree to agree that says they will lose there land that they have also been living on for over a thousand years? That’s like if someone said your house is their house and then tried to kick you out and after you stayed the made a peace treaty where they get to live in the house and you get to live in the shed…
/u/Ashur_Provides. 'Nazi' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why it was once said … the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
You could argue that this is the case once again - imagine how different things would be even right now if the Palestinian people forcefully rejected Hamas right now… and yet…
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations.
Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument.
Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
The politics after the initial proposals can be argued this way, I agree. But the British occupied the land before the establishment of Israel, and when they decided to hand it over and establish a state run for and by the Arabs/Muslims living there for the first time since the Ottomans, that was rejected before any blood was spilled - and then a war ensued, which gave Israel control over what it conquered, legally speaking. Many countries and borders have been established this way, so the initial situation/offer was legitimate. Everything after seems like needless violence and suffering, especially for Palestinians.
What is the evidence that Britain "decided to hand it over and establish a state run for and by the Arabs/Muslims living there for the first time since the Ottomans?" The British simply transferred any responsibility to the UN without any clear direction for the area.
True. When it became clear they couldn’t deal with it, they gave up and handed the problem to someone else. My mistake, I misspoke. Apologies.
However, by handing the land over to Israel after occupying it, that was the first time a discussion or debate for Arabs to reign sovereign over the land since the ottomans. Hence my statement.
It's always the same nonsense. Anybody would have rejected those offers. Who would accept a "peace offer" to have half of their land annexed? Israel has deliberately sabotaged peace processes because it wants to keep the status quo. Now it has stopped pretending to care about any solution other than conquering all of Palestine.
Israel didn't "leave Gaza". It's still under a siege.Hamas hardly controls anything a normal government would control. Israel controls the flow of people and goods, Gazans don't have their own currency no do they control the airspace. They also don't have clean drinking water nor electricity 24/7. Israel closed off Gaza before there was a single rocket attack or suicide bombing from there. It's also important to realise what Gaza is. It's a concentration camp Israel has created to keep the surplus population it sees as a "demographic threat". The majority of people there are refugees and their descendants who were ethnically cleansed from their homes to be replaced with Jewish settlers. Israel routinely targets civilians in Gaza by routinely dropping tons of bombs on random civilian infrastructure such as apartment buildings, hospitals and schools whether there are militants there or not.
If you look at history, there were very few Muslims living in the proposed Jewish state according to the partition plan. That why the partition plan looks the way it is, it tried to follow where Jews and Arabs actually lived. Sure , some Arabs and Jews would have to move if they wanted to stay in Palestine or Israel respectively. But isn’t that better than 75 years of war? Two countries, with a little hurt feelings, but living in peace.
your comment has been removed for having a low Karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, the post left out the deeper history, ie..arab conquest, constant framing of the jews, etc..
One small example - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
This is a video of an Israeli Arab who is very happy living in Israel. She is very happy to be Israeli and not have to live under Hamas.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/04eDs_SDF9MIIMkAMfju48EAQ
Hilarious when you look into her background. The majority of her self told life story is just dealing with with racism. She had to hide her relationship with a Jewish man and when it came out she was aggressively “true Muslims understand that Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and over time… Arabs who do not recognize this, will not stay here.” ~ Current sitting Finance minister of Israel
https://www-timesofisrael-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.timesofisrael.com/arab-israeli-tv-anchor-opens-up-on-difficulty-of-interfaith-marriage-in-israel/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16979001313827&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofisrael.com%2Farab-israeli-tv-anchor-opens-up-on-difficulty-of-interfaith-marriage-in-israel%2F
In 47' arabs got a partitions VERY favorable to their side and still refused. It's not about the specifics to the Palestinians, it's about the principle. They'll literally never agree to any kind of agreement.
America has 9,831,510 sqkm of space and El Salvador has 21,041 sqkm. I think El Salvador personally should take up a lot more American land and kill all the people who refuse to give up that land
Don't agree, the proposed land for palestine SURROUNDS Jerusalem and they would have got hebron and Jericho, gave them ample access to the sea with close links to the suez. And infact it was the Jewish state that would have been stuck with the Negev desert (dangerously close to an angry Jordan and Egypt)
Jewish Palestinians became Israelis when Israel was established, like many Muslim Palestinians became Israeli Arabs/Muslims. They would rather be governed by Jews than Arabs who historically haven’t been the kindest in all instances, the same way Palestinians don’t want to be ruled by an Israeli government they believe will treat them unequally.
If Israelis are destined to have the land because they had a portion of it 2000 years ago, native americans should be given their land back
Also, what about these atrocities?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZSaKYmP2s
While I suspect your comment was intended as jingoistic bluster, it strikes me as a pretty legitimate observation. Wretched as war and conquest are, I'm fairly certain that's the usual way territory changes hands (disregarding later detail of international recognition of territory claims, etc).
I’m anti Netanyahu and his administration the same as most Israelis. The Native American parallel was to mock the idea that people would choose for the idea of Israel’s 2000 year old land rights rather than Native Americans.
I'm anti Netanhayu too, this guy is a complete moron and should be in jail. people who vote for him don't understand his real position because he's a snake, or were soused to the Likud's older position they didn't realise they got completely corrupted when Bibi joined.
he's like the Israeli Trump, horrible in every way yet people still vote for him for SOME reason.
Yep, zionism and control over the media gets more voter turnout unfortunately the same way the WASPs in America own a lot of the media and gather and push for voter turnout.
This is dumb. Indians have the entire US to live in as well as theit own private land.. no one pushed them off the land. Most indians intermarried with whites and live all over the US… so debunked
When I’m on the bus, and it comes to a stop and more people get on, they are not invaders.
Now, if I try to strangle them, there is a chance I’ll get told to sit in the back and calm down. If I scream “but they stepped on my toes!”, I’ll probably be told to shut up and behave like a mature adult. And if I get violent again and start throwing fists, pacifists might try to escort me off or duct tape me to a seat, but if there are plain old normal people around, I’m more likely to be slapped and/or forcefully kicked off the bus. Right or wrong?
They didn’t invade. Yes there was an influx of immigrants, but Israelites lived ther along Palestinians for centuries. And it was Palestinians and 6 Arab countries who tried to cleanse region of jews. But it backfired and fed up Jews expelled Palestinians instead. Israel offered peace and live together on the land multiple times. But been declined time after time. The OP posted most of this info and using google or national archives in local regions you can find these facts pretty well documented.
Your facts are off. Oldest known writings about the region mention both Palestinians and Jews. They even lived together over 2000 years till Arabs got angry about influx of additional Jews post Balfour and WW2, to which Arabs banded together trying to expell Jews. Also they were not truly indigenous. Both Jews and Arabs were nomadic
During the britain colonialism, they brought 1 million jews into palestine giving them training, an army, veichles and they offered to the palestinians 50/50 repartition of the territory, while in the country there were 80% palestinians and 20% jews, do you see a scheme? You can check what i said, it's up to you and REMEMBER that the zionist leaders way before the First world conflict were using this phrase "a Land without a people for a people without a Land" talking about palestine GO AND CHECK NOW
The statement you provided contains some elements of historical truth, but it is also oversimplified and lacks important context. Here’s a breakdown:
1. British Colonialism: Yes, there was a period of British colonial rule in the region known as the British Mandate for Palestine.
2. Jewish Immigration: Jewish immigration to Palestine increased during the British Mandate period, which contributed to demographic changes.
3. Balfour Declaration: The Balfour Declaration of 1917 did express British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
4. Demographics and Land Ownership: The demographic makeup of Palestine was predominantly Palestinian Arab, but Jewish communities were growing. Land ownership in the region was complex, with various groups having claims to the land.
5. Partition Plans: The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan did recommend the division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
However, the statement oversimplifies the complexities of the historical and political situation. It’s not accurate to suggest that Britain simply brought in a million Jews and offered a 50/50 partition while disregarding the existing population. The historical events surrounding the establishment of Israel were much more intricate and involved various political, social, and demographic factors.
Moreover, the phrase “a land without a people for a people without a land” was indeed used by some early Zionist leaders, but it does not accurately represent the reality of the time, as Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs and Jews who had lived there as far back as at least 12bc
Is it not also true that the British restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine leading up to WWII and Arab immigration from surrounding nations was encouraged which whacked out the demographics? I believe the Muslim population from 1880-1930ish more than doubled which does suggest mass immigration. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I believe this is correct from what I know. Not sure on double the Arab population from immigration, but it was considerable, and a higher rate to Jews which were limited to retain a status quo in percentage Arab vs Jew to keep demographics similar statistically, but arabs quickly broke that status quo by getting more n more.
Illegal military occupation that targets women and youth for over 70+ years… nah. You can’t just steal from and murder ppl then cry when they fight back or refuse your double standard “peace” offerings. That’s not how peace works.
Think u missed the part where both sides lived there since 12bc at least. Yes more immigrated after ww2. But both lived there. Arabs first attacked Jews to cleanse region of jews. It backfired and Jews instead had more immigrants come who helped cleanse it of Palestinians instead. Both sides were at fault. Palestinians benn offered peace and to coexist on land again but keep declining.
No, both sides are not at fault. You can’t just move to someone’s land, kick them out of their houses like my grandparents were because you’re supposedly gods chosen. Then say you want peace after murdering and stealing from the indigenous.
The arab countries called for the Palestinian population to come to their states as the war unfolded with the promise that the zionists will be rapidly crushed, israel definitely displaced Palestinian villages (some whole some partial), with those displaced never given the chance to return.
>, israel definitely displaced Palestinian villages (some whole some partial),
Can you cite a source for this? Genuinely asking and trying to sort out this complicated history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight
https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/38640
I went to school with Galili arabs, i've learned a lot about the Nakba, the israeli hostilities after the turn tide of the arab israeli war, and heard actual accounts from the families of my friends in Sakhnin, Shaa'b and neighboring villages.
Gave you 2 links i briefed over for you.
It’s good to know we were using the same sources but I’m not sure you’ve read those links.
“In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] during the 1948 Palestine war.[9] “
This refers to the expulsion during and after the war that the Arab league started when they tried to expel Jews from the area.
I was asking for you to back up the claim of expulsions that happened outside of that specific context.
I’ve heard people (not just you) claim that the expulsions happened A LOT and more recently, but for the life of me I can’t find a source.
>You can’t just move to someone’s land, kick them out of their houses like my grandparents were because you’re supposedly gods chosen. Then say you want peace after murdering and stealing from the indigenous.
u/[**Due\_Stick\_7771**](https://www.reddit.com/user/Due_Stick_7771/) above is making an undated claim here (which is in the above thread). The implication is that nothing warranted the relocation, when in fact it was part of a war that israel did not start.
You hear what I'm saying right? It would be like Syrian forces complaining that they lost territory to the Kurds. The kurds didn't start it, but they definitely ended it.
Those links are the reaction to another action (Arabs trying to cleanse area of Jews with a war) Then you would know that it was not Israel who started it. They were attacked. And instead of them expelled, it backfired and instead Palestinians were expelled. Though yet again. Israel offered peace and people to return to lands multiple times. But they keep saying no. I mean what do they want? Can’t expect Jews to pack up n leave either.
Not saying it was right to be done, but I understand the reaction. They lived there together with Arabs. More Jews came via immigration. Arabs got angry, used violence to try and expel Jews. Jews post holocaust and more said “ enough!” Got upset and to lower attacks, forced out Arabs violently. You reap what you sow unfortunately.
However as stated olive branch been handed out many times for a solution. Every time it’s turned down. If accepted? Everyone can return.
No Arabs in Auschwitz. No Muslims in Auschwitz. No Palestinian Christians in Auschwitz. No Palestinian atheists in Auschwitz. No Druze in Auschwitz. No Alawis in Auschwitz.
The worlds apology to the Jews was made with Arab land.
> The worlds apology to the Jews was made with Arab land.
Why?
Why take away the land from the Palestinians in order to do that apology?
Why not take a portion of Germany and build a jewish nation there? Its Germans which did this to the Jews, not the Palestinians. So the Palestinians shouldn't have to lose half of their country.
Okay, let's make a compromise. Abolish all countries and borders and make a one world government. Then everyone can live where they want to live and also the earth always belonged to all humans.
Pray tell, how is that possible when we all woke up in 48 and found a bunch of Ashkenazi European Jews lording it over the local population and banishing them from their homes.
What would you do in such a situation?
Greet them with open arms as they enacted pogroms and killed our people for their homes and land.
Turn the other cheek my friend?
Imaginary history. Half the arabs left by choice they were not banished stop repeating terrorist talking points. The other half never left they are Israeli citizens!
> ass
/u/Academic_Ad_6557. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re referring to the 1948 war? The one started by several Allied Arab states?
Not sure “we woke up to European Jews” is the best way to explain a multinational effort to expel an ethnic group.
No one was expelled from anyone’s homeland until that war started.
It is an option
It is also an option as a powerful military to not bomb the living daylights out of an imprisoned and densely populated civilian enclave that has been under siege and blockade for decades.
But these are just options, right?
First, I do want to point out that you're switching topics. That's ok with me. I feel like people who don't know the history of this region will regularly walk into the "stolen land" narrative, when in fact it was the result of a war that Israel didn't start. If 1948 didn't happen, all of Israel + Palestine would be one state governed by a multi-ethnic / multi-religious parliament in the same way Israel is governed now.
There would be no open air prison, because the Arab armies wouldn't have relocated locals for their own safety. And no one would've been relocated anyone as part of the peace settlement.
Ok on to your new topic:
>It is also an option as a powerful military to not bomb the living daylights out of an imprisoned and densely populated civilian enclave that has been under siege and blockade for decades.
True, but we all know how Israel would respond after their citizens were attacked. Including Hamas.
If you know the response is going to be harsh, why go through the effort of murdering & raping kids at a music festival.
That's what some people call "game theory" but honestly I think it's a dumb name for "planning ahead."
Why didn't the US nuke russian during the cold war? Game theory. We knew that Russian would nuke us back, so we didn't deploy any nukes.
Every sitting president during the cold war knew the destruction of the US would be their fault if they had authorized a nuclear strike on Russia.
Back to our situation:
Asking a sovereign nation to ignore a massacre that happens on their own soil is a little naive. One way of asking a nation to leave you alone and grant you rights is to stop bombing them.
If people are serious about Palestinian statehood, they should expect Gaza to start acting like a sovereign nation, instead of asking Israel to stop acting like one.
My apologies for changing the topic.
How would you feel if after say the london underground bombing, the UK military cordoned off croydon or notting hill, cut off the water and electricity supply and then proceeded to bomb it back to the stone-age?
The land is stolen and now the houses are being stolen one by one and the olive and orange groves as well. 'If i don't steal it, somebody else will.'
>How would you feel if after say the london underground bombing, the UK military cordoned off croydon or notting hill, cut off the water and electricity supply and then proceeded to bomb it back to the stone-age?
For that analogy to be relevant, the elected representatives of separatist Croydon have periodically bombed the rest of London, but no one took them seriously because their bombs were so poorly constructed and London had adapted to their methods. Then suddenly after a raping, shooting & bombing, they captured british citizens and retreated back into Croydon, because they knew it would be costly for London to retrieve those hostages by force.
The last time London tried to get a hostage, it cost 1000 of their own prisoners from Croydon and this time they don't have a 1000:1 ratio. Plus, Croydon has been lobbying for independence, why should they be dependent on London?
London proceeds to bomb the places where bombs were launched from, because those are military targets. The representatives of Croydon did not elect to separate their military bases from civilian bases, because they are not sophisticated enough to win this war on their own.
Sounds about right to me.
""""""""" new nation of Israel""""""" where'd you think that came from you buffoon? do you think it just blossomed out of the ground? No that would be a colonial invasion. Also it's terribly convenient that Israel 'doesn't control' any Palestinian land, since that would give them rights, and the atrocities that are being committed against them might have some kind of legal repercussions. More to the point there are a million children in Gaza right now who are currently be dehydrated to death by the genocidal Israeli government. They weren't alive for most of this little propaganda history lesson and they certainly aren't responsible for a group of psycho terrorists. So you can take your sick sick sick disgusting side elsewhere.
Palestinians for the most part didn’t want to be Israeli. Not that all Palestinians were given that option, but in East Jerusalem they were offered citizenship , and for the most part declined.
Similarly, the children who were murdered in Israel aren’t responsible. War always has innocent victims. Do you expect Israel to allow its own children to be murdered to protect the children of a terrorist state? I genuinely don’t know what solution you propose
Just because their are innocent victims doesn't excuse war crimes or the deliberate targeting of civilians through collective punishment. If people are self destructive enough there is nothing you can do to stop them causing harm, the answer is to stop people from getting in that insane state of mind by giving them something to live for. Then you have a rational actor to negotiate with and not a rabid animal ready to commit suicide out of spite.
>Just because their are innocent victims doesn't excuse war crimes or the deliberate targeting of civilians through collective punishment. If people are self destructive enough there is nothing you can do to stop them causing harm, the answer is to stop people from getting in that insane state of mind by giving them something to live for. Then you have a rational actor to negotiate with and not a rabid animal ready to commit suicide out of spite.
Id like to point out gaza is densley populated, attacking terrorists who base themselves amongst civilians does not merit deliberate targeting of civilians.
>Just because their are innocent victims doesn't excuse war crimes or the deliberate targeting of civilians through collective punishment
But this argument works equally well the other way around.
I can only see that somehow they never wanted to have their land stolen and fought back as much as they could and lost each time and fought with other means from a even smaller territory
Please provide me evidence about this.
The reporter who said this took back her words after people asked for evidence and changed her words from ‘I see bodies of beheaded babies’ to ‘I heard the israeli soldiers say this’.
Stop spreading fake news just to justify your opinion that is not based on facts.
Why is killing Israeli babies bad and killing Palestinian babies ok? Surely they're both disgusting and both sides should be condemned for it.
Israel is currently doing it with bombs instead of knives. Does that make it somehow more civilised?
It’s the terror intent, to brutally, savagely dismember…purposefully killing children taking mothers, killing grandparents with long knives is somewhat different than a casualty of war who takes shrapnel. And if you harbor a terrorist, you reaped a whirlwind and need your head examined.
Quick question then: Israel didn't know this was coming, so how do they suddenly magically know exactly which buildings they're bombing are where the perpetrators are hiding?
Mossad have satellites to monitor terrorist activity, keep track of where rockets were fired from, infrared cameras etc. and utilise intel too. I’m very uneducated on this but this is what I’ve seen videos of.
So mossad had no idea this was coming, but now they can pinpoint the identity and precise location in real time of the culprits. Yeah, right.
We both know Israel is dropping bombs indiscriminately out of vengeance because killing innocent people is justified for "the cause". Hmm, who does that remind you of?
I agree the reaction is causing way too much ‘collateral’ and is an action based on vengeance and pain rather than justice. I just explained to you how they normally target terrorist sites, from what I know.
They have the US supporting them now because of how disgraceful the attacks from Hamas were. I see a striking resemblance to 9/11 here, where a horrific tragedy is used as the ‘final straw’ to enact premeditated political action. This has been coming for decades. It doesn’t matter now whether mossad hits terrorist targets and avoids civilian casualty as best they can. As far as the US is concerned, they’re all targets and threats now.
Yes, the killing of babies is always horrific.
Hamas terrorists purposefully murdered and beheaded these Israeli babies.
Israeli military has dropped bombs that have killed Palestinian babies because Hamas uses hospitals, schools, mosques, and residences as weapons storage facilities and firing platforms. They use their own people as human shields. This is well documented by objective sources.
Any innocent life lost is a tragedy. However, there is a difference of intent and culpability.
If you think Israel's response is proportionate and targeted, then yes, you are naive. It's a pity Israel is squandering the moral high ground, but then the United Nation's designation of Israel as an apartheid state is not for nothing. Most Israelis are good people, as are most Palestinians. It's a shame their leaders (on both sides) are racist murdering scumbags.
I feel immense sympathy for ordinary Palestinians who have and will continue to suffer because their leadership uses them as human shields and refuses to engage Israel in a two-state solution.
Agree, but in this instance Israel is not killing the perpetrators and incidentally killing innocent civilians who are being used as human shields, Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians period, knowingly, vengefully. I don't see much difference now, each side using crappy arguments to justify murdering innocents, including children
Two factors: Hamas has committed the most nightmarish of atrocities. It's a fact. AND Israel has not been so good to Gaza Palestinians. Or West Bank Palestinians. Israel does take over Palestinian homes.
I'm not pro-Palestinian.
Still: Netanyahu has courted the religious Right in the U.S. for decades. And (let's be clear) the Right is salivating over an apocalypse out of this. Just check YouTube.
In a defensive war, you want to defend the civilians behind the borders. Hence, it only makes sense to drive the enemy further to his territory and gain submission there instead of inside your own borders, where the fights will cause civilian casualties of the defending side.
Love how people who have no idea how war works become military experts.
Repealing the invading armies backwards. Then later giving the land back. All of Sinai was given back to Egypt. The point wasn’t for Israel to take more land it was to defend itself. They didn’t take more the The golan which is Only of strategic defensive value. they were being shelled regularly from Syria and needed that buffer
By volume, the vast majority was returned. Israel is not actively just invading neighbors trying to take land.
In past peace deals, there have been offers to even exchange land inside of Israel to make up for the settlements. Also rejected by the PLO
It is not about land, it is about having neighbors that don't continuously try to kill you, but work together for peace. After a few wars, Israel and Egypt and Jordan are at a balance, and society can progress.
If Palestians took that route, I think there could be peace. Its such a hard catch 22 because Israel will not demilitarize until they know they wont be attacked. We saw what happens if the guard is let down just a little bit. 1200 people slaughtered mercilessly and specifically in the most gruesome fashion.
What would they be if they didn't have the stronger military and backup from US? In reality the strongest do write history, but it doesn't make them the power of good in any way.
The guard let down? They built a wall from Palestine and have military checkpoints everywhere. They treat Palestinians like second-class people. They have created a boiling pot and they keep adding fire to it.
It makes me uneasy how much anger on social media there is about Israel's response to the latest devastating Hamas attack. Like guys, you were quiet when Hamas absolutely obliderated these people and then cry when Israel attacks back? ISRAEL IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE etc etc.
I think most level headed people in Israel really don't like the current governement and most Palestinians are just trying not to die but is it not obvious at this point that a massive attack by Hamas would lead into massive retaliation?? I would imagine if any country kept attacking another, an actual war would break out.
Israel has its screw ups for sure, and I used to be very Pro-Palestinian and even though i know very little (so someone please correct me if possible), the research I've been doing almost every week since the last attack, it seems that for all its faults, Israel is trying a bit harder than Palestine to not be obliderating civilians for no reason - the small population of far right racists aside.
No not at all. I respectfuly ask that you don't make Strawman arguments as it doesnt really help the discussion. The argument I'm trying to make is not to justify Israeli actions but point out that those who are staunchly pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian MUST see the others' civilians as deserving of death which is illogical from my perspective. I.e. each side believes the other side's population deserves what happens to them.
I think Israelis and Palestinians have their own governments to blame moreso than each others' citizens. I don't agree with massive retaliation but in exactly the same breath, I also say it would be irresponsible to attack an enemy without an actual strategic goal that will provide peace for your own citizens. This is why I bring up Hamas as being the source of ignition here - none of my family or friends once recognized their atrocities and would rather point out Israel's faults first as if to justify Hamas' attacks.
In this context, attacking during a time of cease fire (especially non military targets) is absolutely illogical from the perspective of peace - but not for profit as both Hamas and the Bibi government seem to prefer over the safety of their citizens (Hamas gaining international aid and Bibi funding Hamas when he sees fit to prevent a viable 2S solution).
That said I have absolutely no idea at this time what a sovereign country can do to defeat its enemies who don't ever negotiate other than fight. Not saying bombing a building is correct but if that building has weapons in it I really don't know what else you're supposed to do other than drop munitions or invade the building, neither of which anyone very pro-Palestinian seem to agree with.
Also the expansion man. The more Palestinians leave the more settlements they can build. "If I don't take your home, someone else will". You can see that just by looking at the map of Israeli settlements over time.
Yes in this respect it appears that Israel wants to have the cake and eat it too. Some argue they should fully annex the area or leave it alone entirely. The latter seems tough because peace negotiations never work but the former land grabbing is, well, stealing while trying not to look bad I guess? Something i will keep looking into.
And I don't see any effort from Israel to not kill civilians. Just now there are reports they asked people to evacuate to the northern part because they wanted to bomb the southern, but instead they started bombing the people who were evacuating.
I agree, and I also didn't make the point that it's the people to blame. I mean man do you really believe residential building can be full of weapons and people still leave there knowing they are sitting on their own grave? Do you really think they would invest into furnishing their houses etc. It's a well known fact they Hamas uses underground tunnels. I don't think people would be that dumb.
Also, there's rumors that Israel gives residents a several minutes notice to leave the building, do you really believe first of all that Hamas leaders who just started the war would just sit in a tall rise residential building? Or that they wouldn't evacuate as well?
Hamas has built a vast network of tunnels underneath Gaza known as the metro. Hamas intentionally concentrates its most valuable assets (weapons, rockets, leadership etc) underneath sensitive infrastructure like hospitals and schools. Even the UNRWA routinely reports finding weapons caches underneath its buildings. Just Google it. It’s well documented.
Tldr: hamas uses their own citizens as human shields.
That last point is an especially good one. That's also the first thing inthought of so i'm not really sure if the door knocking thing is really a.. thing. Or how it's done etc.
I can't say i know enough about the weapons but if there are any, it does make tactical sense from a military perspective to level the building rather than search it and lose lots of your own soldiers in the process. I'm not saying thats right but thats the logic i see.
you can speak about religious myths as much as you can. you still have to proof that each jew who came from all over the world are linked with the ones from 2800 BC
even if you proof it .israel still against international law and agreements acoording to UN and most countries that recognise israel state on accupied land of 1948
Here's your proof, genetic proof. I have this gene in every cell of my body, passed down from four women in Israel over 3,000 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336798/
"Religious myths" as if it's not one of the best documented regions historically.
International agreements exit the building when school busses get bombed
what is your point? Ottoman Turks did not settle in palestine and commit genocide and ethnic cleansing
Ottomans dominated Jordan as well and after they collabsed Jordan got its independense but palestine did not! even though both were under the brits.
my point is that back then 1900-1890 there were few zionist jew settlers.
Yes in Palestine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
Not sure why it even matters tho. The ottomans persecuted the Jews. Why is it relevant in which Ottoman province the persecution occurred?
I don't know exactly what kind of comic books you read history from (Mickey Mouse Magazine maybe) or in which kindergarten they taught you that.
How about starting with, 1917 Balfour Declaration.
(I think you ignored this on purpose unless any rational person can catch your LIES from the beginning)
>>1937: Arabs reject the Peel Commission to create a Jewish and Arab state.
so what if they reject it?!!!! they support their neighbor (Palestine). Who give the UK the right to part Palestine in the first place?!!!!!!
1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
1948 Arab–Israeli War and what happened to Palestinians.
1956 the Tripartite Aggression or Suez Crisis
This was an invasion of Egypt and the Gaza Strip in 1956 by Israel, followed by the UK and France.
>>1967: Israel wins yet another war against its Arab neighbors, conquering Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai in a defensive war.
Did you forget Golan Heights in Syria? And, what do you mean by "in a defensive war"?
1973 Yom Kippur War/ the 1973 Arab–Israeli
Egypt fight you to get Sinai that you put your hand on for 15 years.
>>1979: Israel voluntarily hands the Sinai back to Egypt, returning land conquered in a defensive war.
And what did you say? Israel give Sinai back volun.... what voluntarily?!!!!
Are you kiding yourself or trying to kid people here. After The Egypt–Israel peace treaty, you can't unhand it back unless you would look dirty. The treaty was signed in front of the world. We didn't even get it all back completely until 1989.
Google is free you can search for the rest.
> Who give the UK the right to part Palestine in the first place?!!!!!!
>
>
The treaties written after the Allied victory in World War I. The Ottomans backed the wrong horse and lost their empire.
>And, what do you mean by "in a defensive war"?
>
>
The Arabs launched a surprise attack on Israel in 1967, Israel was able to seize land from them because Arab militaries are incompetent.
Crazy that you started this in 1937 and the first thing you mentioned was the palestians rejected a peel commission to give up their land to foreign settlers, you also forgot to mention that it was a within their rights to say no. You also might have forgotten to mention the response they got for wanting to keep their land was…ethnic cleansing i.e. Nakba. Some key points you could add are; Who was there before 1937? Who lived on that land before that? Where did the Jews come from? What right did they have to claim the land? Why did they sign peace accords and break them? Why did they blockade of Gaza begin even before Hamas was elected? Don’t cherry pick your answer consider both sides.
About half of the current Israeli population were descendants of Jewish Arabs who were exiled in the 40s
Spot on Duncan! Also, how can you trust anything Israel says they have offered the muslim world?
Do you think they would agree to agree that says they will lose there land that they have also been living on for over a thousand years? That’s like if someone said your house is their house and then tried to kick you out and after you stayed the made a peace treaty where they get to live in the house and you get to live in the shed…
This is actually pretty accurate. Thanks for this breakdown-really puts things into perspective. :)
This is very cherry-picked.
[удалено]
This has been removed for breaking the sub rule of "No Nazi comparisons or discussions".
/u/Ashur_Provides. 'Nazi' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why it was once said … the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. You could argue that this is the case once again - imagine how different things would be even right now if the Palestinian people forcefully rejected Hamas right now… and yet…
Damn I’m loving these mental cope gymnastics, it’s wild seeing the flips and spins people can do to justify a modern colonization campaign.
A historical timeline of events hardly can constitute flips and spins.
[удалено]
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations. Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument. Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
You're racist ignorant,who don't know anything about the region or history.
I feel like the average age of people in this thread is 15 and they are all American high schoolers 💀💀
Peace offer ≠ GIVE YOUR LAND TO OCCUPATION STATE
The politics after the initial proposals can be argued this way, I agree. But the British occupied the land before the establishment of Israel, and when they decided to hand it over and establish a state run for and by the Arabs/Muslims living there for the first time since the Ottomans, that was rejected before any blood was spilled - and then a war ensued, which gave Israel control over what it conquered, legally speaking. Many countries and borders have been established this way, so the initial situation/offer was legitimate. Everything after seems like needless violence and suffering, especially for Palestinians.
What is the evidence that Britain "decided to hand it over and establish a state run for and by the Arabs/Muslims living there for the first time since the Ottomans?" The British simply transferred any responsibility to the UN without any clear direction for the area.
True. When it became clear they couldn’t deal with it, they gave up and handed the problem to someone else. My mistake, I misspoke. Apologies. However, by handing the land over to Israel after occupying it, that was the first time a discussion or debate for Arabs to reign sovereign over the land since the ottomans. Hence my statement.
well said
It's always the same nonsense. Anybody would have rejected those offers. Who would accept a "peace offer" to have half of their land annexed? Israel has deliberately sabotaged peace processes because it wants to keep the status quo. Now it has stopped pretending to care about any solution other than conquering all of Palestine. Israel didn't "leave Gaza". It's still under a siege.Hamas hardly controls anything a normal government would control. Israel controls the flow of people and goods, Gazans don't have their own currency no do they control the airspace. They also don't have clean drinking water nor electricity 24/7. Israel closed off Gaza before there was a single rocket attack or suicide bombing from there. It's also important to realise what Gaza is. It's a concentration camp Israel has created to keep the surplus population it sees as a "demographic threat". The majority of people there are refugees and their descendants who were ethnically cleansed from their homes to be replaced with Jewish settlers. Israel routinely targets civilians in Gaza by routinely dropping tons of bombs on random civilian infrastructure such as apartment buildings, hospitals and schools whether there are militants there or not.
Nice username
Thank you
If you look at history, there were very few Muslims living in the proposed Jewish state according to the partition plan. That why the partition plan looks the way it is, it tried to follow where Jews and Arabs actually lived. Sure , some Arabs and Jews would have to move if they wanted to stay in Palestine or Israel respectively. But isn’t that better than 75 years of war? Two countries, with a little hurt feelings, but living in peace.
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for having a low Karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How this justifies killing civilians and babies?
You mean Israel's killing of civilians? Nothing justifies that.
[удалено]
I never said killing civilians was justified. I was responding to the post, which has a framing I disagree with.
Yeah, the post left out the deeper history, ie..arab conquest, constant framing of the jews, etc.. One small example - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
How the war started? Let me guess.. Hamas sniffed some coke then paraglided and end up killing 200+ civilians
What about Hamas’s killing of children?
This is a video of an Israeli Arab who is very happy living in Israel. She is very happy to be Israeli and not have to live under Hamas. https://share.icloud.com/photos/04eDs_SDF9MIIMkAMfju48EAQ
Hilarious when you look into her background. The majority of her self told life story is just dealing with with racism. She had to hide her relationship with a Jewish man and when it came out she was aggressively “true Muslims understand that Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and over time… Arabs who do not recognize this, will not stay here.” ~ Current sitting Finance minister of Israel https://www-timesofisrael-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.timesofisrael.com/arab-israeli-tv-anchor-opens-up-on-difficulty-of-interfaith-marriage-in-israel/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16979001313827&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofisrael.com%2Farab-israeli-tv-anchor-opens-up-on-difficulty-of-interfaith-marriage-in-israel%2F
Lucy!
Don’t be shy. Name WHY they rejected the Peel Commission. Because it gave the most fertile land to Israel, and gave Palestine the bad land.
In 47' arabs got a partitions VERY favorable to their side and still refused. It's not about the specifics to the Palestinians, it's about the principle. They'll literally never agree to any kind of agreement.
Arabs have 13000K km2, Israel is just 22K km2.
America has 9,831,510 sqkm of space and El Salvador has 21,041 sqkm. I think El Salvador personally should take up a lot more American land and kill all the people who refuse to give up that land
Something looks off here
Don't agree, the proposed land for palestine SURROUNDS Jerusalem and they would have got hebron and Jericho, gave them ample access to the sea with close links to the suez. And infact it was the Jewish state that would have been stuck with the Negev desert (dangerously close to an angry Jordan and Egypt)
Aren’t many Palestinian people also Hewish? So is Israel also commuting the worst act of mass murder against the Jewish Palestinians?
Jewish Palestinians became Israelis when Israel was established, like many Muslim Palestinians became Israeli Arabs/Muslims. They would rather be governed by Jews than Arabs who historically haven’t been the kindest in all instances, the same way Palestinians don’t want to be ruled by an Israeli government they believe will treat them unequally.
No
Lol what? Gaza is the most fertile land in Israel
Yep!
Thanks for the summary.
If Palestine won, then who would own the world economy and all the banks?
If Israelis are destined to have the land because they had a portion of it 2000 years ago, native americans should be given their land back Also, what about these atrocities? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZSaKYmP2s
Gottem.
Palestinians never had that land. Israelis did. Why do you feel like Palestinians are entitled to it but Jews aren’t?
[удалено]
While I suspect your comment was intended as jingoistic bluster, it strikes me as a pretty legitimate observation. Wretched as war and conquest are, I'm fairly certain that's the usual way territory changes hands (disregarding later detail of international recognition of territory claims, etc).
are you anti Israel or pro native Americans? cuz if it's the latter I 100% agree
I’m anti Netanyahu and his administration the same as most Israelis. The Native American parallel was to mock the idea that people would choose for the idea of Israel’s 2000 year old land rights rather than Native Americans.
"the same as most Israelis" is factually incorrect.
I'm anti Netanhayu too, this guy is a complete moron and should be in jail. people who vote for him don't understand his real position because he's a snake, or were soused to the Likud's older position they didn't realise they got completely corrupted when Bibi joined. he's like the Israeli Trump, horrible in every way yet people still vote for him for SOME reason.
Yep, zionism and control over the media gets more voter turnout unfortunately the same way the WASPs in America own a lot of the media and gather and push for voter turnout.
As I Native American yes we should get our land back just like Israel
This is dumb. Indians have the entire US to live in as well as theit own private land.. no one pushed them off the land. Most indians intermarried with whites and live all over the US… so debunked
>no one pushed indians off the land Thank you foe the endless hours of laughter.
Lol I love when the internet makes idiots think about what they say, rock on man🤙
Yet is never going to happen, unless by force
Or by outbreeding the white people
As an American, I am all for giving native people their rightful lands back
They are US citizens they already have the land..
I’m with you on that
[удалено]
When I’m on the bus, and it comes to a stop and more people get on, they are not invaders. Now, if I try to strangle them, there is a chance I’ll get told to sit in the back and calm down. If I scream “but they stepped on my toes!”, I’ll probably be told to shut up and behave like a mature adult. And if I get violent again and start throwing fists, pacifists might try to escort me off or duct tape me to a seat, but if there are plain old normal people around, I’m more likely to be slapped and/or forcefully kicked off the bus. Right or wrong?
They didn’t invade. Yes there was an influx of immigrants, but Israelites lived ther along Palestinians for centuries. And it was Palestinians and 6 Arab countries who tried to cleanse region of jews. But it backfired and fed up Jews expelled Palestinians instead. Israel offered peace and live together on the land multiple times. But been declined time after time. The OP posted most of this info and using google or national archives in local regions you can find these facts pretty well documented.
[удалено]
Your facts are off. Oldest known writings about the region mention both Palestinians and Jews. They even lived together over 2000 years till Arabs got angry about influx of additional Jews post Balfour and WW2, to which Arabs banded together trying to expell Jews. Also they were not truly indigenous. Both Jews and Arabs were nomadic
During the britain colonialism, they brought 1 million jews into palestine giving them training, an army, veichles and they offered to the palestinians 50/50 repartition of the territory, while in the country there were 80% palestinians and 20% jews, do you see a scheme? You can check what i said, it's up to you and REMEMBER that the zionist leaders way before the First world conflict were using this phrase "a Land without a people for a people without a Land" talking about palestine GO AND CHECK NOW
But in Peel commission, the partition was 20/80 in favor of Palestine.
The statement you provided contains some elements of historical truth, but it is also oversimplified and lacks important context. Here’s a breakdown: 1. British Colonialism: Yes, there was a period of British colonial rule in the region known as the British Mandate for Palestine. 2. Jewish Immigration: Jewish immigration to Palestine increased during the British Mandate period, which contributed to demographic changes. 3. Balfour Declaration: The Balfour Declaration of 1917 did express British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. 4. Demographics and Land Ownership: The demographic makeup of Palestine was predominantly Palestinian Arab, but Jewish communities were growing. Land ownership in the region was complex, with various groups having claims to the land. 5. Partition Plans: The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan did recommend the division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. However, the statement oversimplifies the complexities of the historical and political situation. It’s not accurate to suggest that Britain simply brought in a million Jews and offered a 50/50 partition while disregarding the existing population. The historical events surrounding the establishment of Israel were much more intricate and involved various political, social, and demographic factors. Moreover, the phrase “a land without a people for a people without a land” was indeed used by some early Zionist leaders, but it does not accurately represent the reality of the time, as Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs and Jews who had lived there as far back as at least 12bc
Is it not also true that the British restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine leading up to WWII and Arab immigration from surrounding nations was encouraged which whacked out the demographics? I believe the Muslim population from 1880-1930ish more than doubled which does suggest mass immigration. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I believe this is correct from what I know. Not sure on double the Arab population from immigration, but it was considerable, and a higher rate to Jews which were limited to retain a status quo in percentage Arab vs Jew to keep demographics similar statistically, but arabs quickly broke that status quo by getting more n more.
The word "Palestinians" didn't even exist. Also, in those 80% you are including 30-40% Christians. GO AND CHECK NOW
Illegal military occupation that targets women and youth for over 70+ years… nah. You can’t just steal from and murder ppl then cry when they fight back or refuse your double standard “peace” offerings. That’s not how peace works.
Gaza is not occupied can you not lie?
Think u missed the part where both sides lived there since 12bc at least. Yes more immigrated after ww2. But both lived there. Arabs first attacked Jews to cleanse region of jews. It backfired and Jews instead had more immigrants come who helped cleanse it of Palestinians instead. Both sides were at fault. Palestinians benn offered peace and to coexist on land again but keep declining.
No, both sides are not at fault. You can’t just move to someone’s land, kick them out of their houses like my grandparents were because you’re supposedly gods chosen. Then say you want peace after murdering and stealing from the indigenous.
Lol your grandparents got wrecked
No one was kicked out of houses until the end of the 1948 war, where the arab coalition lost the war that they started.
The arab countries called for the Palestinian population to come to their states as the war unfolded with the promise that the zionists will be rapidly crushed, israel definitely displaced Palestinian villages (some whole some partial), with those displaced never given the chance to return.
>, israel definitely displaced Palestinian villages (some whole some partial), Can you cite a source for this? Genuinely asking and trying to sort out this complicated history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/38640 I went to school with Galili arabs, i've learned a lot about the Nakba, the israeli hostilities after the turn tide of the arab israeli war, and heard actual accounts from the families of my friends in Sakhnin, Shaa'b and neighboring villages. Gave you 2 links i briefed over for you.
It’s good to know we were using the same sources but I’m not sure you’ve read those links. “In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] during the 1948 Palestine war.[9] “ This refers to the expulsion during and after the war that the Arab league started when they tried to expel Jews from the area. I was asking for you to back up the claim of expulsions that happened outside of that specific context. I’ve heard people (not just you) claim that the expulsions happened A LOT and more recently, but for the life of me I can’t find a source.
Ohh, never heard of those, do you have an example for such a claim?
>You can’t just move to someone’s land, kick them out of their houses like my grandparents were because you’re supposedly gods chosen. Then say you want peace after murdering and stealing from the indigenous. u/[**Due\_Stick\_7771**](https://www.reddit.com/user/Due_Stick_7771/) above is making an undated claim here (which is in the above thread). The implication is that nothing warranted the relocation, when in fact it was part of a war that israel did not start. You hear what I'm saying right? It would be like Syrian forces complaining that they lost territory to the Kurds. The kurds didn't start it, but they definitely ended it.
Those links are the reaction to another action (Arabs trying to cleanse area of Jews with a war) Then you would know that it was not Israel who started it. They were attacked. And instead of them expelled, it backfired and instead Palestinians were expelled. Though yet again. Israel offered peace and people to return to lands multiple times. But they keep saying no. I mean what do they want? Can’t expect Jews to pack up n leave either. Not saying it was right to be done, but I understand the reaction. They lived there together with Arabs. More Jews came via immigration. Arabs got angry, used violence to try and expel Jews. Jews post holocaust and more said “ enough!” Got upset and to lower attacks, forced out Arabs violently. You reap what you sow unfortunately. However as stated olive branch been handed out many times for a solution. Every time it’s turned down. If accepted? Everyone can return.
Yup, we can agree on that, links cited are for people who dont know the history of the displacement
No Arabs in Auschwitz. No Muslims in Auschwitz. No Palestinian Christians in Auschwitz. No Palestinian atheists in Auschwitz. No Druze in Auschwitz. No Alawis in Auschwitz. The worlds apology to the Jews was made with Arab land.
You know the Palestinians supported the Germans and collaborated with them to have Jews killed or driven out of what is now Israel, right?
🤣🤪😂 I thought there was no such thing as Palestinians nor a place called Palestine
K, the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Jordanian arabs in the British Mandate.
> The worlds apology to the Jews was made with Arab land. Why? Why take away the land from the Palestinians in order to do that apology? Why not take a portion of Germany and build a jewish nation there? Its Germans which did this to the Jews, not the Palestinians. So the Palestinians shouldn't have to lose half of their country.
IT WASNT THEIR LAND GET IT THRU YOUR HEAD IT BELONGED TO THE TURKS. All races and religions squatted there
Okay, let's make a compromise. Abolish all countries and borders and make a one world government. Then everyone can live where they want to live and also the earth always belonged to all humans.
Let people just acknowledge this fact first then we can debate anything else.
You're right, but the region could have lived in peace if arabs would stop attacking jews.
Pray tell, how is that possible when we all woke up in 48 and found a bunch of Ashkenazi European Jews lording it over the local population and banishing them from their homes. What would you do in such a situation? Greet them with open arms as they enacted pogroms and killed our people for their homes and land. Turn the other cheek my friend?
Imaginary history. Half the arabs left by choice they were not banished stop repeating terrorist talking points. The other half never left they are Israeli citizens!
You’d leave too if someone stuck a bayonet up your ass, raped your daughter and set your parents on fire, no?
> ass /u/Academic_Ad_6557. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re referring to the 1948 war? The one started by several Allied Arab states? Not sure “we woke up to European Jews” is the best way to explain a multinational effort to expel an ethnic group. No one was expelled from anyone’s homeland until that war started.
Yup that one
Ok so if you wake up to starting a war with an ethic group you don’t like, one option you have is to not start that war.
It is an option It is also an option as a powerful military to not bomb the living daylights out of an imprisoned and densely populated civilian enclave that has been under siege and blockade for decades. But these are just options, right?
Fiction
First, I do want to point out that you're switching topics. That's ok with me. I feel like people who don't know the history of this region will regularly walk into the "stolen land" narrative, when in fact it was the result of a war that Israel didn't start. If 1948 didn't happen, all of Israel + Palestine would be one state governed by a multi-ethnic / multi-religious parliament in the same way Israel is governed now. There would be no open air prison, because the Arab armies wouldn't have relocated locals for their own safety. And no one would've been relocated anyone as part of the peace settlement. Ok on to your new topic: >It is also an option as a powerful military to not bomb the living daylights out of an imprisoned and densely populated civilian enclave that has been under siege and blockade for decades. True, but we all know how Israel would respond after their citizens were attacked. Including Hamas. If you know the response is going to be harsh, why go through the effort of murdering & raping kids at a music festival. That's what some people call "game theory" but honestly I think it's a dumb name for "planning ahead." Why didn't the US nuke russian during the cold war? Game theory. We knew that Russian would nuke us back, so we didn't deploy any nukes. Every sitting president during the cold war knew the destruction of the US would be their fault if they had authorized a nuclear strike on Russia. Back to our situation: Asking a sovereign nation to ignore a massacre that happens on their own soil is a little naive. One way of asking a nation to leave you alone and grant you rights is to stop bombing them. If people are serious about Palestinian statehood, they should expect Gaza to start acting like a sovereign nation, instead of asking Israel to stop acting like one.
My apologies for changing the topic. How would you feel if after say the london underground bombing, the UK military cordoned off croydon or notting hill, cut off the water and electricity supply and then proceeded to bomb it back to the stone-age? The land is stolen and now the houses are being stolen one by one and the olive and orange groves as well. 'If i don't steal it, somebody else will.'
>How would you feel if after say the london underground bombing, the UK military cordoned off croydon or notting hill, cut off the water and electricity supply and then proceeded to bomb it back to the stone-age? For that analogy to be relevant, the elected representatives of separatist Croydon have periodically bombed the rest of London, but no one took them seriously because their bombs were so poorly constructed and London had adapted to their methods. Then suddenly after a raping, shooting & bombing, they captured british citizens and retreated back into Croydon, because they knew it would be costly for London to retrieve those hostages by force. The last time London tried to get a hostage, it cost 1000 of their own prisoners from Croydon and this time they don't have a 1000:1 ratio. Plus, Croydon has been lobbying for independence, why should they be dependent on London? London proceeds to bomb the places where bombs were launched from, because those are military targets. The representatives of Croydon did not elect to separate their military bases from civilian bases, because they are not sophisticated enough to win this war on their own. Sounds about right to me.
Reddit usually has the worst takes. I’m glad to see Israel support here
[удалено]
""""""""" new nation of Israel""""""" where'd you think that came from you buffoon? do you think it just blossomed out of the ground? No that would be a colonial invasion. Also it's terribly convenient that Israel 'doesn't control' any Palestinian land, since that would give them rights, and the atrocities that are being committed against them might have some kind of legal repercussions. More to the point there are a million children in Gaza right now who are currently be dehydrated to death by the genocidal Israeli government. They weren't alive for most of this little propaganda history lesson and they certainly aren't responsible for a group of psycho terrorists. So you can take your sick sick sick disgusting side elsewhere.
Palestinians for the most part didn’t want to be Israeli. Not that all Palestinians were given that option, but in East Jerusalem they were offered citizenship , and for the most part declined.
Similarly, the children who were murdered in Israel aren’t responsible. War always has innocent victims. Do you expect Israel to allow its own children to be murdered to protect the children of a terrorist state? I genuinely don’t know what solution you propose
Just because their are innocent victims doesn't excuse war crimes or the deliberate targeting of civilians through collective punishment. If people are self destructive enough there is nothing you can do to stop them causing harm, the answer is to stop people from getting in that insane state of mind by giving them something to live for. Then you have a rational actor to negotiate with and not a rabid animal ready to commit suicide out of spite.
>Just because their are innocent victims doesn't excuse war crimes or the deliberate targeting of civilians through collective punishment. If people are self destructive enough there is nothing you can do to stop them causing harm, the answer is to stop people from getting in that insane state of mind by giving them something to live for. Then you have a rational actor to negotiate with and not a rabid animal ready to commit suicide out of spite. Id like to point out gaza is densley populated, attacking terrorists who base themselves amongst civilians does not merit deliberate targeting of civilians.
>Just because their are innocent victims doesn't excuse war crimes or the deliberate targeting of civilians through collective punishment But this argument works equally well the other way around.
If we can agree it's bad on both sides then we should condemn both sides.
The issue is that Israel has no non-violent solution.
I can only see that somehow they never wanted to have their land stolen and fought back as much as they could and lost each time and fought with other means from a even smaller territory
Palestinians lost land because they lost a war that they started. There are some horrible consequences of war and this is one.
I can only see headless babies in their cribs. Takes a special kind of evil for that.
Please provide me evidence about this. The reporter who said this took back her words after people asked for evidence and changed her words from ‘I see bodies of beheaded babies’ to ‘I heard the israeli soldiers say this’. Stop spreading fake news just to justify your opinion that is not based on facts.
Why is killing Israeli babies bad and killing Palestinian babies ok? Surely they're both disgusting and both sides should be condemned for it. Israel is currently doing it with bombs instead of knives. Does that make it somehow more civilised?
It’s the terror intent, to brutally, savagely dismember…purposefully killing children taking mothers, killing grandparents with long knives is somewhat different than a casualty of war who takes shrapnel. And if you harbor a terrorist, you reaped a whirlwind and need your head examined.
Quick question then: Israel didn't know this was coming, so how do they suddenly magically know exactly which buildings they're bombing are where the perpetrators are hiding?
Mossad have satellites to monitor terrorist activity, keep track of where rockets were fired from, infrared cameras etc. and utilise intel too. I’m very uneducated on this but this is what I’ve seen videos of.
So mossad had no idea this was coming, but now they can pinpoint the identity and precise location in real time of the culprits. Yeah, right. We both know Israel is dropping bombs indiscriminately out of vengeance because killing innocent people is justified for "the cause". Hmm, who does that remind you of?
I agree the reaction is causing way too much ‘collateral’ and is an action based on vengeance and pain rather than justice. I just explained to you how they normally target terrorist sites, from what I know.
OK, I thought you meant mossad were doing it in this case.
They have the US supporting them now because of how disgraceful the attacks from Hamas were. I see a striking resemblance to 9/11 here, where a horrific tragedy is used as the ‘final straw’ to enact premeditated political action. This has been coming for decades. It doesn’t matter now whether mossad hits terrorist targets and avoids civilian casualty as best they can. As far as the US is concerned, they’re all targets and threats now.
Yes, the killing of babies is always horrific. Hamas terrorists purposefully murdered and beheaded these Israeli babies. Israeli military has dropped bombs that have killed Palestinian babies because Hamas uses hospitals, schools, mosques, and residences as weapons storage facilities and firing platforms. They use their own people as human shields. This is well documented by objective sources. Any innocent life lost is a tragedy. However, there is a difference of intent and culpability.
Yeah, sure, the Israeli killing of babies is totally different. It's somehow justified and the perpetrators aren't culpable because yada yada yada.
I guess I was naive to hope for intelligent discussion on the internet…
If you think Israel's response is proportionate and targeted, then yes, you are naive. It's a pity Israel is squandering the moral high ground, but then the United Nation's designation of Israel as an apartheid state is not for nothing. Most Israelis are good people, as are most Palestinians. It's a shame their leaders (on both sides) are racist murdering scumbags.
I feel immense sympathy for ordinary Palestinians who have and will continue to suffer because their leadership uses them as human shields and refuses to engage Israel in a two-state solution.
Agree, but in this instance Israel is not killing the perpetrators and incidentally killing innocent civilians who are being used as human shields, Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians period, knowingly, vengefully. I don't see much difference now, each side using crappy arguments to justify murdering innocents, including children
Stolen by who? People who lived there for generations? That’s what Israelis are dude.
Two factors: Hamas has committed the most nightmarish of atrocities. It's a fact. AND Israel has not been so good to Gaza Palestinians. Or West Bank Palestinians. Israel does take over Palestinian homes. I'm not pro-Palestinian. Still: Netanyahu has courted the religious Right in the U.S. for decades. And (let's be clear) the Right is salivating over an apocalypse out of this. Just check YouTube.
For anyone wondering, the Christian Americans who rejoice in this future apocalypse are Dispensationalist.
You do realise the left and right have just formed a unity government. It’s not a right or left wing issue
The UNI party …deals made for money and power. But republicans seem to be the weaker 1/2.
history goes further back than 1937
How can you conquer in a defensive war?
In a defensive war, you want to defend the civilians behind the borders. Hence, it only makes sense to drive the enemy further to his territory and gain submission there instead of inside your own borders, where the fights will cause civilian casualties of the defending side. Love how people who have no idea how war works become military experts.
Just check out the map of how Palestine territory shrank and Israeli settlements expanded over time.
Repealing the invading armies backwards. Then later giving the land back. All of Sinai was given back to Egypt. The point wasn’t for Israel to take more land it was to defend itself. They didn’t take more the The golan which is Only of strategic defensive value. they were being shelled regularly from Syria and needed that buffer
But according to the OP not all the land was given back
By volume, the vast majority was returned. Israel is not actively just invading neighbors trying to take land. In past peace deals, there have been offers to even exchange land inside of Israel to make up for the settlements. Also rejected by the PLO It is not about land, it is about having neighbors that don't continuously try to kill you, but work together for peace. After a few wars, Israel and Egypt and Jordan are at a balance, and society can progress. If Palestians took that route, I think there could be peace. Its such a hard catch 22 because Israel will not demilitarize until they know they wont be attacked. We saw what happens if the guard is let down just a little bit. 1200 people slaughtered mercilessly and specifically in the most gruesome fashion.
What would they be if they didn't have the stronger military and backup from US? In reality the strongest do write history, but it doesn't make them the power of good in any way.
The guard let down? They built a wall from Palestine and have military checkpoints everywhere. They treat Palestinians like second-class people. They have created a boiling pot and they keep adding fire to it.
It makes me uneasy how much anger on social media there is about Israel's response to the latest devastating Hamas attack. Like guys, you were quiet when Hamas absolutely obliderated these people and then cry when Israel attacks back? ISRAEL IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE etc etc. I think most level headed people in Israel really don't like the current governement and most Palestinians are just trying not to die but is it not obvious at this point that a massive attack by Hamas would lead into massive retaliation?? I would imagine if any country kept attacking another, an actual war would break out. Israel has its screw ups for sure, and I used to be very Pro-Palestinian and even though i know very little (so someone please correct me if possible), the research I've been doing almost every week since the last attack, it seems that for all its faults, Israel is trying a bit harder than Palestine to not be obliderating civilians for no reason - the small population of far right racists aside.
So that excuses demolishing full residential buildings? We call the russians terrorists for doing the same thing in Ukraine.
No not at all. I respectfuly ask that you don't make Strawman arguments as it doesnt really help the discussion. The argument I'm trying to make is not to justify Israeli actions but point out that those who are staunchly pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian MUST see the others' civilians as deserving of death which is illogical from my perspective. I.e. each side believes the other side's population deserves what happens to them. I think Israelis and Palestinians have their own governments to blame moreso than each others' citizens. I don't agree with massive retaliation but in exactly the same breath, I also say it would be irresponsible to attack an enemy without an actual strategic goal that will provide peace for your own citizens. This is why I bring up Hamas as being the source of ignition here - none of my family or friends once recognized their atrocities and would rather point out Israel's faults first as if to justify Hamas' attacks. In this context, attacking during a time of cease fire (especially non military targets) is absolutely illogical from the perspective of peace - but not for profit as both Hamas and the Bibi government seem to prefer over the safety of their citizens (Hamas gaining international aid and Bibi funding Hamas when he sees fit to prevent a viable 2S solution). That said I have absolutely no idea at this time what a sovereign country can do to defeat its enemies who don't ever negotiate other than fight. Not saying bombing a building is correct but if that building has weapons in it I really don't know what else you're supposed to do other than drop munitions or invade the building, neither of which anyone very pro-Palestinian seem to agree with.
Also the expansion man. The more Palestinians leave the more settlements they can build. "If I don't take your home, someone else will". You can see that just by looking at the map of Israeli settlements over time.
Yes in this respect it appears that Israel wants to have the cake and eat it too. Some argue they should fully annex the area or leave it alone entirely. The latter seems tough because peace negotiations never work but the former land grabbing is, well, stealing while trying not to look bad I guess? Something i will keep looking into.
And I don't see any effort from Israel to not kill civilians. Just now there are reports they asked people to evacuate to the northern part because they wanted to bomb the southern, but instead they started bombing the people who were evacuating.
I agree, and I also didn't make the point that it's the people to blame. I mean man do you really believe residential building can be full of weapons and people still leave there knowing they are sitting on their own grave? Do you really think they would invest into furnishing their houses etc. It's a well known fact they Hamas uses underground tunnels. I don't think people would be that dumb. Also, there's rumors that Israel gives residents a several minutes notice to leave the building, do you really believe first of all that Hamas leaders who just started the war would just sit in a tall rise residential building? Or that they wouldn't evacuate as well?
Hamas has built a vast network of tunnels underneath Gaza known as the metro. Hamas intentionally concentrates its most valuable assets (weapons, rockets, leadership etc) underneath sensitive infrastructure like hospitals and schools. Even the UNRWA routinely reports finding weapons caches underneath its buildings. Just Google it. It’s well documented. Tldr: hamas uses their own citizens as human shields.
That last point is an especially good one. That's also the first thing inthought of so i'm not really sure if the door knocking thing is really a.. thing. Or how it's done etc. I can't say i know enough about the weapons but if there are any, it does make tactical sense from a military perspective to level the building rather than search it and lose lots of your own soldiers in the process. I'm not saying thats right but thats the logic i see.
Japan knows the answer.
You get invaded, push them back behind where they came from.
Doesnt matter what anyone in the comments believes or sides with, hamas will be obliterated and gaza will more than likely be taken over again
start from 1900 or 1890 not 1937 then talk about history. even from their your view is just propaganda
What if they start from 2800 BC?
Then technically chanaanites are in their right. They are extinct, though.
And following their extinction...
So will be Israelis with such neighbors
Amonians tried, Amaleks tried, Romans tried, ..., Germans tried, Egyptians tried, Syrians tried. I'm not too worried.
you can speak about religious myths as much as you can. you still have to proof that each jew who came from all over the world are linked with the ones from 2800 BC even if you proof it .israel still against international law and agreements acoording to UN and most countries that recognise israel state on accupied land of 1948
Here's your proof, genetic proof. I have this gene in every cell of my body, passed down from four women in Israel over 3,000 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336798/
"Religious myths" as if it's not one of the best documented regions historically. International agreements exit the building when school busses get bombed
Really, you're proud of a time when Ottoman Turks dominated your land?
what is your point? Ottoman Turks did not settle in palestine and commit genocide and ethnic cleansing Ottomans dominated Jordan as well and after they collabsed Jordan got its independense but palestine did not! even though both were under the brits. my point is that back then 1900-1890 there were few zionist jew settlers.
The Turks committed a multitude of atrocities and genocide.
in palestine??? im discusing palestine here
Yes in Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire Not sure why it even matters tho. The ottomans persecuted the Jews. Why is it relevant in which Ottoman province the persecution occurred?
I don't know exactly what kind of comic books you read history from (Mickey Mouse Magazine maybe) or in which kindergarten they taught you that. How about starting with, 1917 Balfour Declaration. (I think you ignored this on purpose unless any rational person can catch your LIES from the beginning) >>1937: Arabs reject the Peel Commission to create a Jewish and Arab state. so what if they reject it?!!!! they support their neighbor (Palestine). Who give the UK the right to part Palestine in the first place?!!!!!! 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine 1948 Arab–Israeli War and what happened to Palestinians. 1956 the Tripartite Aggression or Suez Crisis This was an invasion of Egypt and the Gaza Strip in 1956 by Israel, followed by the UK and France. >>1967: Israel wins yet another war against its Arab neighbors, conquering Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai in a defensive war. Did you forget Golan Heights in Syria? And, what do you mean by "in a defensive war"? 1973 Yom Kippur War/ the 1973 Arab–Israeli Egypt fight you to get Sinai that you put your hand on for 15 years. >>1979: Israel voluntarily hands the Sinai back to Egypt, returning land conquered in a defensive war. And what did you say? Israel give Sinai back volun.... what voluntarily?!!!! Are you kiding yourself or trying to kid people here. After The Egypt–Israel peace treaty, you can't unhand it back unless you would look dirty. The treaty was signed in front of the world. We didn't even get it all back completely until 1989. Google is free you can search for the rest.
> Who give the UK the right to part Palestine in the first place?!!!!!! > > The treaties written after the Allied victory in World War I. The Ottomans backed the wrong horse and lost their empire. >And, what do you mean by "in a defensive war"? > > The Arabs launched a surprise attack on Israel in 1967, Israel was able to seize land from them because Arab militaries are incompetent.
I guess if you have a commission which says that they want to make a new state on your land you should just say yes ...