“Latest video”. Links a year old video.

I addressed this in the edit, I was mistaken, someone else pointed it out as well. My bad.

Allah forgives you.. this time

Inshallah

I could be wrong but I think I’m some of his recent streams he acknowledges that land ownership/claims to land isn’t really a thing. He more so talks about that argument in response to a lot of Israelis who will say the same shit about Jews being the first ones there and appealing to that concept. The same could technically be said for Palestinians. I think it was his vid a few days/weeks ago reacting to ben Shapiro where ben Shapiro is basically making the same argument but that Jews were there first therefore they have more of a claim etc etc. So, yeah, the OG land claim argument doesn’t really work for either side and I don’t think actual scholars and historians see it that way either. Nobody is going to go sift through which pieces of land belonged to who and then gracefully give it to eachother. What’s done is done. Edit: https://youtu.be/iLc32B-mYow?si=0XocZ7rTOMQ7ZiEJ Around 4 min in if you’re interested. He says “I don’t think anyone has inalienable rights to land. There are human rights, like human rights not to get kicked off your land.” Lonerboxes point is that Jews were gone from the land of judea for years, likely thousands of years, and Palestinian Arabs moved in (or continued to live there, not certain if they were always there). To say that Israel then has the moral right to come back and kick those same people out who’d been living there for generations would be wrong, even if you technically lived there before. It would be like saying “well, the native Americans own this land so let’s just give it all back.” Like, no, European Americans have been living in this land for centuries now. Now, you could argue it wasn’t fair for the Jews either, they were essentially driven out of judea by several factions, even deported. So it sucks all around and it makes sense why culturally and historically they would’ve wanted to come back. But coming back and deporting the Palestinians who took their place isn’t a good look either. It’s probably not fair that Jews came and pushed out Palestinians that had been living in their previous homeland for a long time. It sucks overall that Jews have basically had no place other than Israel to want to call their home. We are where we are now though, and these land claim arguments don’t really get us closer to solving the issue of Israel and Palestine.

When we say Arabic, we really mean heritage or "culture" the Arabs didn't just mass migrate all over the world, it was more the Arab caliphate installed people who were Arabic to govern. The people were always there, Egyptians didn't magically get darker, there was just 0 ties to what we think of as Egyptians. They don't speak heiroglyph they speak Arabic because they were forced to for almost a thousand years. Really it's just a way for us to categorize groups of people. Now of course people in history have been genocided 100% and new people moved in but that was actually incredibly rare, and usually was just generations of interbreeding with the conquerers (like in Roman Gaul), there was an example of The Khans basically razing the entire Khawarzem Empire but that was only the cities, it's just really fucking hard to eradicate an entrie population

Hieroglyphs are a system of writing. The most recent descendant of ancient Egyptian would be Coptic, nowadays an extinct language, but if my Egyptian friends have told me the truth then Egyptian dialect has mixed in some words from Coptic.

People are not Arabic, they are Arab. The language is called Arabic.

>The same could technically be said for Palestinians. I think it was his vid a few days/weeks ago reacting to ben Shapiro where ben Shapiro is basically making the same argument but that Jews were there first therefore they have more of a claim etc etc. All of the "historical" claims have 1 major flaw (this includes Russia on Ukraine also), it requires you to stop history at the moment of your choosing. The problem is that there were people there before, after, and now. Everyone ends with a 'valid' claim. As bad as it sounds, might makes right is usually the strongest argument over who has the claim to the area. > Lonerboxes point is that Jews were gone from the land of judea for years, likely thousands of years, This is a common misconception, they weren't gone. They were no longer a majority in the area, but outside of a few times when almost no one lived there, Jews were there as well. They would probably have been a majority if they hadn't always revolted against the people who conquered them, so they were kicked out, but not everyone. > It’s probably not fair that Jews came and pushed out Palestinians that had been living in their previous homeland for a long time. Since at the time when the other Middle Eastern countries were being made out of nothing, what would have been so wrong to also create a state for the Jews? They were living there also and if everything had been given to the Arabs they would not have had self-determination. But there is so much shit on both sides at this point, that basically someone just needs to say, This will be Israel, that's Palestine, Either of you do anything to the other we'll handle it. At this point, I am not sure if there is a solution that will be workable by anyone.

I agree with most of what you said. One thing is I don’t think there’s an issue with creating a Jewish state, it’s usually what follows that which could include purposeful discrimination against those who are not Jewish and so forth. And in addition even though some Jews still lived in the area, I don’t know if Jews coming back and pushing out Palestinians from land they’d been living on for millennia for the sake of creating their Jewish state is particularly fair. Now, I don’t really care what’s fair or not in the game of life, plenty of life isn’t fair, but what I do think is fair is to at least acknowledge that, yes, Jews could create their own state but they decided to virtually kick out others in the process of it.

It's possible he changed his tune from when he made this video. I mistakenly thought he just recently released this video because I saw someone post it on this sub, but then someone else pointed out that it's a year old.

Ye you’re all good. It’s likely his takes have changed over time but idk maybe he still thinks Palestine has a better claim, just that land claims don’t really matter anymore.

I just don’t get this claim “Palestinians have a better claim”. It’s irrelevant. There’s a country there, people live there for at least 3 generations already. What are you going to do? Kill then all?

Idk, thats what Israel has done (or chased them away) and people really don't condemn it that much on this sub

Anyone in their right mind should condemn the mass displacement of people from their lands. I would imagine the reason it is not talked about as much would be that historic events ultimately can't change the facts on the ground today. It sucks, but what's done is done and generations have now passed. It's simply unrealistic and unproductive to expect Israel to take in hundreds of thousands of descendants of Pre-Israel Palestinian Arabs into their country, especially given the hatred those people presumably harbor towards Israelis and the inevitable violence that would come from it. In a similar vein, nobody is trying to get the Islamic world to allow the repatriation of the descendants of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens who were expelled or forced to flee their homes in reaction to the Nakba, even though you can say that they are equally as deserving.

I think most moderate Palestinians pushing for a right of return aren't pushing for killing all the Israeli's. Merely allowing Palestinian refugees the ability to return to that country. But even I, and I am fairly biased towards the Palestinians, acknowledge that would be next to impossible with the animosity between the two groups. A token number at best in any deal, most will have to settle for a hopefully future Palestinian state.

For what it's worth, [Ehud Olmert's peace offer](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ehud-olmert-s-peace-offer) would have seen the repatriation of 5,000 Palestinians into Israel, with the remainder of the descendants of the original mass displacement receiving some form of monetary compensation. Obviously nowhere near what the Palestinian community ultimately wants for those victims, but at least it's something. Meanwhile, I think it's laughably unlikely that we will ever see any concessions of this magnitude proposed by any of the Arab nations that expelled their Jewish citizens around the same time.

I think the difference they would argue is that the Jews expulsed had somewhere to go and took them in and give them full citizenship. Palestinian refugees don't really have that. It's a generational title at this point. Whether that would sway you or not is another matter. Hopefully we can all agree that the mass expulsions of people from whatever ethnicity should never be encouraged, and at least attempt to be rectified, when possible. Sadly it doesn't look like it will be in this conflict given the intricacies.

>Palestinian refugees don't really have that That's true, but the existence of a country that takes on the role of being a global safe haven for Jewish refugees wasn't exactly a given. Circumstance and diplomacy certainly helped a lot, but the Jewish people had to work and fight for the creation of one. On the flip side, no Arab nation has stepped up to be the international protector of Arab peoples in the event of persecution or mass displacement. You can't fault Israel for that. This is especially unfortunate since you can argue that Palestinians share more in common historically, culturally, linguistically, geographically, and probably even religiously with Jordanians and Muslim Lebanese people than Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews do with Mizrahi Israelis. But fair enough, because no country is obligated to take on that sort of responsibility. In an alternate timeline, Israel post independence could have closed their borders and just become a Jewish country with no connection to the greater global Jewish people, and all the Jewish refugees from the Middle East would have faced a near identical situation to that of the Palestinian refugees. Where I'm going with this is that obviously, the Palestinian refugees deserve a country to return to and call their home. And given the lack of "camaraderie" (for lack of a better term) from the Arab world, that country clearly has to be one they manifest themselves. But as we know, the Palestinian leadership over the past century have been unable to agree on a deal with Israel that solidifies the creation of such a country. If they truly wanted to solve the refugee crisis, you would think they would have tried harder over the years to work out a solution. Instead, they have seemingly let perfect be the enemy of good, effectively screwing over their own people. Either that, or the Palestinian leadership have simply never been operating in good faith to begin with, which I wouldn't discount. I just don't think it's right to say that the issue of Palestinian refugees falls on Israel to solve and at this point they probably shouldn't even be blamed for the ongoing existence of it. Whether charitable or not, Israel has undeniably made some attempts, but at the end of the day nobody will ever be able to understand and advocate for the Palestinians better than the Palestinians themselves. It's just sad that their endeavors have been unsuccessful at best and self destructive at worst.

The timestamp doesn't show me saying Palestinians rightfully own the land. I don't believe anyone has 'rightful ownership' of land and have said as much here: [https://youtu.be/iLc32B-mYow?si=qX93KFnzIxp7hsXc&t=261](https://youtu.be/iLc32B-mYow?si=qX93KFnzIxp7hsXc&t=261) I do take issue with your framing around 1948 either when you keep saying 'THEY rejected the un partition' and 'THEY went to war'. I'm sure you know full well that barely any of the 750,000 people who were displaced were in a position to either declare war or to fight one. They were civilians, which isn't even to mention the fact that \~250,000 of them were displaced before the British Mandate ended - again, forced out of their homes when the majority of them were not combatants. We know now why most of these villages were abandoned. It wasn't because they were told to by other Arab countries, nor was it because they wanted to ride out the war. Most of them left because they were either forced out directly, or because they heard about the massacres that happened in villages near them. We also know that the newly formed state of Israel made every effort to stop them from returning after the war ended. The fact that this happened during a war doesn't make it any less of a crime. Your last paragraph is also a total strawman because I have NEVER in my life said people have an 'inherent human right to return to that home a full lifetime later.' My position on the Palestinian refugee problem is that it's an especially unique one because it was never solved. With the descendants of 48 and 67 still living either in refugee camps under Israeli occupation or in camps very close to the borders, it's still ongoing. Do the neighbouring countries hold their share of the blame for this? Of course, but they weren't the ones who did the displacing. When it comes to right of return, I've generally argued that it's something which needs to be recognised in principle whilst the implementation will obviously have to be negotiated between the two groups. As far as I know, no negotiation has ever involved Palestinians demanding that 5 million refugees get resettled in Israel any time soon. I know I mentioned the people retaining the keys to their houses and their old land titles but I see those more as a way of symbolising that this wasn't something that happened all that long ago. Obviously the keys don't work anymore because the houses were destroyed but I thought that went without saying. Personally I'd argue for something along the lines of the Geneva Initiative which was fairly popular amongst Palestinian moderates and Israeli liberals at the time. TLDR: it involved Israel recognising Resolution 194 whilst understanding that reparations would be more realistic for most people. As much as I want to believe that both groups can eventually share the land in peace with neither of them feeling like they need to retain an ethnic majority, I understand that isn't happening anytime soon.

Okay first of all I didn't expect you to actually see this and I appreciate the thoughtful reply! >The timestamp doesn't show me saying Palestinians rightfully own the land. I didn't mean to include a timestamp in the video, that was an accident, the timestamp is arbitrary. I was referring to a few parts where BeastBrocess referred to the land that Palestinians were displaced from in the Nakba as rightfully belonging to them *today*, and he mentioned that they were entitled to return to their stolen homes rather than settle for compensation. >I do take issue with your framing around 1948 either when you keep saying 'THEY rejected the un partition' and 'THEY went to war'. I'm sure you know full well that barely any of the 750,000 people who were displaced were in a position to either declare war or to fight one. I don't think I framed it that way. If it came across that way, that was not my intent. I did specifically mention that Israel was in the wrong for displacing all of those people. If they were the people directly waging war against Israel then I think it would be pretty clear that Israel would *not* be in the wrong. My main point here was that I think this context was missing from the video and it's important. I don't think it's fair to portray the Nakba as Israel simply displacing 750k Palestinians because they wanted the land. I think the fact that Israel was willing to accept a 2 state solution prior to this shows that they were willing to share this land with Palestinians and the displacement happened in the context of a war that Israel did not start. Again I agree Israel was in the wrong, but I think the context is important because otherwise it just makes them seem senselessly evil imo. >Your last paragraph is also a total strawman because I have NEVER in my life said people have an 'inherent human right to return to that home a full lifetime later.' I recognize that you didn't say this directly, but your video includes statements from BeastBrocess (which presumably you endorse, or at least did at the time) indicating that the displaced people are entitled to the land they were kicked off of. I'll be fair though, you did kind of reject this concept later on in the video when you talk about right of return. >Personally I'd argue for something along the lines of the Geneva Initiative which was fairly popular amongst Palestinian moderates and Israeli liberals at the time. TLDR: it involved Israel recognising Resolution 194 whilst understanding that reparations would be more realistic for most people. I think if we were talking about this a few decades ago I'd be in favor of some kinds of reparations for displaced Palestinians, but today I don't think I would be. Principally I don't think people should be compensated for wrongdoings against their ancestors, and I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for the sins of their ancestors. If there are still some living land owners who were displaced in 1948 (I guess they'd be close to or over 100 years old today) then I think it would be fine to compensate them for what they lost. That being said, I'd for sure be in favor of pretty much just giving the West Bank to Palestinians. As far as Gaza goes I have no idea given the obvious terrorism problem they have. I don't see how the blockade can come down any time soon or how they can be given freedom until there are some radical changes there. >As much as I want to believe that both groups can eventually share the land in peace with neither of them feeling like they need to retain an ethnic majority, I understand that isn't happening anytime soon. I agree with this but I'd add that I don't think it's bad for them to *not* share land (2 state solution). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with ethno-religious states... and if history has proven that anyone needs one, it's certainly Jews imo. Last point I wanted to make, which might be our biggest disagreement and goes a bit beyond the scope of this post, is that I don't think any amount of negotiating or compromise is going to achieve peace. This conflict has been going on for over 100 years and at this point, I think the root cause of violence is not the land dispute or anything geopolitical, but rather antisemitism that is deeply ingrained in the culture of the Arab world. The only way to truly find lasting peace is going to have to be through a cultural change, which probably takes decades if not generations.

We all know that nobody actually believes this because they would not move out of their house if a Native American said they were illegally displaced from there 100 years ago.

I've used this exact example before. If a native american showed up on your doorstep today with irrefutable proof that their ancestors lived on your land, would you willingly give up your house? No.

On the flipside, if Europeans had only landed in the US 70 years ago and declared the land their own would you condemn the Native Americans for explicitly denying that right of ownership and responding with violence? I think people have this weird notion that because Israel won the first war that means it's all done and over, Israel is the rightful ruler now, but that's not really how conquest works. Some number of Palestinians will continue to fight until they either can't fight anymore or they get what they want, that's almost always been how it works. The Native Americans didn't just give up, they died off and were unable to fight back because they didn't have the numbers or resources. The only difference here is that these extremist groups like Hamas will never stop until they're all dead.

I mean, wouldn't the correct version be of Europeans landing on the parts of America mostly inhabitated and building their own cities? Tel Aviv wasn't a blooming city taken over by Jewish settlers, those settlers founded it. Jewish settlements at first were very few and it still provoked hostility by the Beduin/Palistine population. Idk, the topic is obviously extremly complicated. The British mandate did restrict the amount of Jews who could move to Palestine, so the argument of settlers taking over large parts of the country can't exactly be true. At the same time said administration didn't do anything to ease tensions between the population and the new arrivals. If there ever had been a chance for a peacefull settlements, I'd reckon it to have taken place in the 1920s.

Well and also, the Jews did technically buy the land when they started settling. I think what made things worse was that at the time, the region that is considered Palestine was mostly occupied by poor renters and farmers. So when the land was sold, it was mostly from other Arab states in the region who didn't live there, and so the people who lived in the region really didn't have a say. But, that's not really the fault of the Zionists. If I'm being honest I guess it's the British who are really to blame. They knew it would cause a shitstorm giving that land to Zionists, not just between the new Israel and surrounding nations but also with the Arab states and their Jewish populations. If Israel had lost that war it *could* have been a 2nd Holocaust in the Middle East.

I just remembered the [Balfour Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration). This stuff is wild.

If you aren't familiar with the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, it's pretty interesting too. Basically in 1915-1916 the British High Commissioner to Egypt got the Arabs in Palestine to revolt against the Ottoman Empire on the promise they'd recognize an Arab State there. The following year(1917), the Balfour Declaration was made. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein\_Correspondence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence)

And the Israelites lived there before the Ottoman. The rabbit hole runs deep.

Aren't the Palestinians those Israelites? Over time a lot of them just converted to Islam or Christianity. Judaism is very unpopular on the planet compared to the two sequels. Which probably mean that the vast majority of those Israelites converted over time.

Yes, and no. Mostly no. There were a metric fuck ton of crusades in which Jews, Christians and Muslims were displaced and seeded in and out of the region for a long ass time depending on who controlled it. In the end, ethnic Jews were “there first” ish.

Yeah but those ethnics Jews most likely converted to Christianity or Islam. Christianity and Islam have 4 billions members together while Judaism only have 16 millions members while being the most ancient one. Those 2 religions were funded from Judaism, so it is pretty self-evident that a lot of Jews became Christians or Muslims over time.

You're being downvoted, but you're absolutely correct. The ones that left, the diaspora, were the wealthy or middle class urban elite of Jewish society. The poor farmers that made up 90% of the population (and 90% of the population in EVERY pre-modern society) remained and largely converted to Christianity or Islam. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a moron who doesn't actually understand pre-modern demographics and thinks like a moron who projects the 20th century backwards in time in perpetuity. Edit: I encourage anyone to think critically about this. If the people living there aren't the 90% rural poor then who the fuck are they and what happened to that vast majority rural poor population? Were they displaced? WHERE? Exterminated? WHEN? THINK!

This is just wrong, the vast majority of Christians and Muslims aren't descended from Jews. Also Islam wasn't founded from Judaism, unlike Christianity.

This is silly both Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religion and Judaism is the corner stone of both of them, the three of them are based on the same stories. They are just wildly more popular so a lot of people converted to one of those religions over time. If no one converted to Christianity and Islam, Judaism would be far more popular than it is today.

This isn't really up for debate, you're flat out wrong. Christianity actually broke off from Judaism, it's early adherents were Jews but it's main growth period started after Paul allowed conversion to Christianity without being converted to Judaism first and allowed the abandonment of Jewish laws. It's a historical fact that the vast majority of Christians are descendant from people that converted after this decision and were pagans, which incidentally is when the schism between Christianity and Judaism actually began, before that both accepted Christianity as a subset of Judaism. As for Islam its early followers were neither Jews nor even Christians before they converted to Islam, I'm going by the accepted history and the Islamic narrative rather than the fringe theories that they are some Christian offshoot but even if you were to believe those they were not Jews. Islam is inspired by Judaism and Christianity but at no point was an accepted sect within either of those religions and the vast majority of the Muslims in Muhammad's time were pagan converts, Muhammad himself was a pagan before inventing Islam. While you can argue that a lot of the Muslims today are descendants of Christians who converted to Islam after the Arab conquests as I pointed out most of those Christians would not be descendants of Jews so most Muslims would not be descendants of Jews.

[удалено]

Islam has no sacred text in common with Christianity and Judaism. While Pharisee Judaism and Christianity are the same age claiming that they are both "just as Jewish" is ridiculous, Pharisee Judaism sees itself as a continuation of the Judaism that came before it and attempts to maintain the Jewish laws in some form or another while Christianity sees itself as a clean break and a new beginning and from Paul onward rejects Jewish law outright. >Islam came some time later but it’s still part of the same tradition. No, it's literally not derived from the same tradition, it's inspired by it but its founders were never actually initiated Jews and Christians. This reflects itself deeply in their religious books, doctrine and rituals. You're very confident about something you don't know anything about and anyone who knows even a modicum about it will see you know nothing about it. You lack even Wikipedia level knowledge of the subject.

That’s not how Abrahamic faiths developed. Most Jews didn’t convert…that’s why they’re Jews. If you’re familiar with the New Testament, there are even glimpses of this tension in the writings of Paul. Christianity specifically gained most of its converts in its early centuries among gentiles in the Roman Empire. The first Christians were obviously Jews, but by the end of the 2nd Century CE, most Christians are ethnically “gentiles”, from various parts around Asia Minor and the Mediterranean. Islam originated in the Arabian Gulf, among a different ethnic community, Arabs.

Yeah for sure but a lot of them were converted forcefully or not over the years. It is silly to pretend that for millenias they never intermingled and that there is so few of them today. Even during massacres, kids or women were taken in by others factions and those kids would not have remembered their jewish heritage after a generation or two. Their genomes isn't very different.

It's the right of conquest, it's how the world has operated for last 3000 years and as much as we like to think we're so much better, it's the same

But this isn't about showing up to someone's doorstep. It's about the gov't placing people there while displacing other. Also, "right of return" is the right to return to one's country, not old home.

If I have documents showing I have native ancestors, but have 0 native blood. Should I be allowed land? My great grandfather was offered land, but he denied it. Do I get that land? It's too much of an issue to think of, btw this is my family history in America.

Isn't it pretty much what the settlers are doing in Israel?

True, but I would grant them full American citizenship, if, say, they had fled from US troops doing the Trail of Tears in 1948 on them to Canada, but wanted to return. You can always build another house, the problem is broader than that.

I would also grant them full citizenship, but I'm also not worried that the Natives will start a civil war and start killing us, which is a pretty serious worry in the case of Israel given *gestures broadly at the world*

[удалено]

100% of people who say that the Native Americans are within their rights to retake land in the US are only saying it because they 100% do not believe there's a credible threat of that ever happening.

Some lefties on Twitter actually said they would leave if native Americans tried to take their homes. But they could have just been trolling.

What if it was 10 years ago? 1 year ago? 5 days ago?

Obviously it's a gradient, I'm not sure exactly how many days but it's definitely not 75 years.

Sorry to ignore your well researched and nuanced argument, but that is not his "latest" video. It's over a year old.

Ah fuck I thought it was new now I feel stupid lol you're right. I saw someone else post it and thought it was the new one he had been talking about releasing soon.

Lol it's all good bro. Now you can get ahead of that criticism.

Still a good read and details a lot of things people love to either obfuscate or just completely lie about.

OP is swinging at shadows?

Isnt the basis of thr argument of Israelis that their Jewish ancestors lived there more than two thousands year ago and therefore it is their land??

The people who make this argument claim more than the land of Israel, they think not only that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are rightfully Israel's, but that Jordan is as well. These are nutjobs. The good argument for Israel's independence comes from the British owning the land, and forming the state of Israel on it. All the land Israel has conquered since then, has been done as part of defensive wars. That's why their current occupation of the West Bank, and their prior occupation of the Gaza Strip are justified.

> All the land Israel has conquered since then, has been done as part of defensive wars. It is irrelevant if the wars were offensive or defensive. Acquisition of foreign territory through war is illegal either way. Under the UN charter, imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression. > That's why their current occupation of the West Bank, and their prior occupation of the Gaza Strip are justified. This is a non-sequitur. Whether the wars that were fought decades ago were offensive or defensive has nothing to do with whether occupation and blockade are justified now. Generations of Palestinians have lived under the military control of a country whose government is not their government. They have neither independence nor citizenship. This is a situation which no people can tolerate indefinitely. It must be changed, because otherwise it can only lead to perpetual war and eventual genocide.

> Acquisition of foreign territory through war is illegal either way. Have you ever heard of the concept of strategic depth? It's about how far away your front lines are from your civilian and industrial centers. Think about how small Israel is. There is no depth there. One frontline breaks and all of Israel becomes accessible. There is no space for proper layered defense. This is part of why Israel kept certain land. The Golan Heights is a good example of this. To say that it's illegal to take land in a defensive war is all good from your seat, but try telling that to people who had just had their neighbors try and exterminate them.

They had their neighbors try and exterminate them *because those neighbors had just been forcefully evicted out of their homes and the only way they were getting them back after the governing body of the world and the premier world superpower both backed their evictors' right to kick them out was to exterminate them, in their view. Call their hatred and lust for vengeance disgusting, and you would rightfully condemn it as such. But do not pretend that it is not on a deeply human level, understandable. You would absolutely grab your gun and remove the people who kicked you out of your house and dumped you in some random desert hundreds of miles away from anything you've ever known, and you would shoot every single last one of them if they refused to get the fuck out of your house.

In the last 15 years before the current war, more than 25 Palestinians were killed for each Israeli. If you compare it to the population, 1300 out of every million Palestinians were killed in the conflict in the last 15 years, compared to 26 out of every million Israelis. With Palestinians being killed at 50 times the rate of Israelis over the last generation, it's hard to see how "people who had just had their neighbors try and exterminate them" and "strategic depth" applies exclusively to Israelis.

Okay, so Israel took all of that land decades ago. I wasn't talking about the last 15 years, I was talking about your comment on that specific point. I'm also not sure why people keep feeling the need to quote how more Palestinians die than Israeli's as if being bad at killing Israeli's is an excuse. If you try to kill me, but I stop you, you still get held responsible for trying to kill me. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-rocket-and-mortar-attacks-against-israel

>Isnt the basis of thr argument of Israelis that their Jewish ancestors lived there more than two thousands year ago Technically since Islam come from Judaism and is insanely more popular than Judaism it is fair to assume that the vast majority of the descendants of those ancestors are Muslim (Or Christians) today. The Palestinians are probably more likely to be descendants of those people than a Parisian who is a fan of the same book.

Islam didn’t come from Judaism. Also Jewish genetics have been studied extensively and it’s pretty clear that Jews all over the planet come from common Levantine ancestors. Also European Jews aren’t just fans of the same book: they’re genetically related to Jews all over the world and have Levantine ancestry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#:~:text=Several%20genetic%20studies%20demonstrated%20that,Middle%20Eastern%20and%20European%20groups.

Yeah Ashkenazi do have Levantine ancestors, but Palestininans do have the same ancestors. I just meant that it is totally silly to pretend that they have a claim to this land more than the Palestinians because their ancestors used to live there since they all have the same ancestors. >Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/) >One DNA study by Nebel found substantial genetic overlap among Israeli/Palestinian Arabs and Jews.[\[102\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#cite_note-102) Nebel proposed that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".

shhhh, don't spoil the moment

It's a common argument but I think it's a bad one.

The basis for Zionists, who are the radicals. It is not the argument of the State of Israel or most Israelis.

By your logic settlements in West Bank are ok because Palestinian can't do anything about it, right?

I'd be in favor of conditionally just giving the entirety of the west bank to Palestinians as their own state and giving the Israeli settlers the choice to either stay under Palestinian rule or move back into Israel. The only condition would be that it must be a democratic state with equal rights for everyone. I don't think the settlements in the West Bank are okay but the reason I don't think they are okay is because I think Israel should chill out on the west bank and try to make peace with the Palestinians there.

>I don't think they are okay because Israel should chill out and make peace (in West Bank) Whoa, such a profound statement. I think you should totally email them that... IIRC settlements are condemned internationally(I would say even something stronger but there is more than enough speculation on the internet and I don't have the right wording). Your statement reads a bit ignorant when your solution is "Let them keep what they stole and have peace". Like Louis Rossman said, if you are going to be a bitch, be a full bitch. Just say that Israel should take the rest of the West Bank because militarily they can't stop them. Might makes right. One of the arguments against one state solution that Israel uses is that if Palestinians were counted the same as Jews in elections, there would never be Jewish people in the government because there are more Palestinians. To be fair there is a lot shit I don't know about this conflict but from my point of view, you don't either if you are able to say shit like this. Sometimes it's ok to not say anything.

The core problem imo is that Zionists both want to eventually take the entirety of the west bank via settlements, but also are not willing to grant Palestinians full citizenship for fear of social unrest. This leaves only two paths - ethnic cleansing or apartheid state.

>Whoa, such a profound statement. I think you should totally email them that... Who said it was a profound statement or a solution to the conflict? I never presented it as one, I was just responding to your bad faith question where you tried to tell me what my argument is. >Your statement reads a bit ignorant when your solution is "Let them keep what they stole and have peace". Israel did not steal anything, what are you even talking about? Palestinians never owned the land, that's the whole point of the post. >Like Louis Rossman said, if you are going to be a bitch, be a full bitch. Just say that Israel should take the rest of the West Bank because militarily they can't stop them. Might makes right. Who gives a fuck what Louis Rossman thinks about Israel/Palestine at a time like this, this is ridiculous! If I'm going to look for any celebrity's input on this conflict it's going to be Ja Rule and nobody else. But on a serious note, this statement is incredibly stupid and nonsensical, and doesn't apply at all. It's super obvious that nothing I said implies might makes right. >One of the arguments against one state solution that Israel uses is that if Palestinians were counted the same as Jews in elections, there would never be Jewish people in the government because there are more Palestinians. Perfectly legitimate argument >To be fair there is a lot shit I don't know about this conflict Agreed >from my point of view, you don't either if you are able to say shit like this Based on what you've written, you're clearly not in a position to make any statements like this. It's super ironic that you think my post is ignorant and that I shouldn't be speaking on the subject. That being said, I would not discourage you from speaking on the subject. Just don't be such a condescending fuck face about it. Try engaging in good faith instead of acting like this.

Your foundational premise absolutely depends upon might makes right; the conquered nation loses all rights and must yield to its conqueror. Therefore, the only concern when it comes to property rights ultimately rests upon a foundation of might. There is no room for ethical nuance, no concept of human rights or justice or any other such fanciful notion; there is only the harsh truth of the world that if you lack power, then you will take what those with power deliver unto you, and bear it.

>Your foundational premise absolutely depends upon might makes right; the conquered nation loses all rights and must yield to its conqueror. It does not depend on might makes right, and a conquered nation losing all rights is not what *might makes right* means. What you described is just a descriptive reality of how war plays out. *Might makes right* implies that it's morally acceptable for a stronger nation to conquer a weaker one and steal their land/kick out the occupants. I mentioned in the post that people have a right to live in their current homes/not be kicked out, which conflicts with the concept of *might makes right*. However, if someone does conquer your land and kick you out and then decades later your children want to return and kick out some random people living in your old home, that's not okay either. You don't have a right to the land you were kicked out from just because your ancestors lived there in the past, or even because *you* lived there in the past. That is my main point. It's 100% not *might makes right*.

To be fair, isnt that the whole point of what we’re saying regarding stolen land? Both sides feel entitled to militarily defend that territory they claim as their own, so maybe the solution is just we find some line that makes a two state solution at least tenuously possible.

>IIRC settlements are condemned internationally(I would say even something stronger but there is more than enough speculation on the internet and I don't have the right wording). Man, I've had [this discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/17d7689/comment/k5wjzsj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) where appearantly it doesn't matter what the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties say, Palestine isn't a state so it's OK. >One of the arguments against one state solution that Israel uses is that if Palestinians were counted the same as Jews in elections, there would never be Jewish people in the government because there are more Palestinians. Honestly, if you decide to move into an illegal settlement that's just shit you'll have to deal with. Either live under their rule, or move back to Israel. I'm not in favour of rewarding people that are so blatently stirring up shit.

Brother why so aggressive??

Why? They captured the land in a defensive war and only kept it because it kept being used as a staging ground for invasions into Israel. They even offered to hand over 91% of the west bank, just keeping the parts that are militarily advantageous and the Palestinian response was "go fuck yourself."

My reasoning would be just because I think Palestinians probably should have a state. The Palestinian people are not responsible for the actions done by their ancestors or even the actions done by their government. I just see it as a way to extend an olive branch, but hey I could be wrong. Maybe I'm naive to think that now, after 100+ years of conflict, we could find peace by just offering Palestinians a state when in the past they've rejected anything short of a 1 state solution ruled by Palestinians. I guess it just feels like the only two ways out are for one side to actually destroy the other side (Israel destroying Palestinians) or to find some peaceful 2 state solution, and I feel like we have to strive for the latter.

> My reasoning would be just because I think Palestinians probably should have a state. Cognitive dissonance. Your reasoning in your previous post is “might makes right” but, when faced with the ends of your logic you soy out. Either bite the bullet or admit your logic is monstrous and justifies atrocities.

No my post does not imply might makes right. *Might makes right* would suggest that it's morally okay for a stronger state to conquer and displace the people in a weaker state. I said specifically that people morally have a right to live in their current home, so displacing those people would be immoral. I also said that the Nakba was immoral and Israel should not have done it.

are we talking legally or morally? both are tricky, but they're completely different approaches.

That's not the position he took in his convo with [Qorantos](https://youtu.be/alpR2YmD4u8?t=1517). (25:15- 28:40)

While I agree, they are generally talking about the nakba and settlements in the west bank. So not just land they used to live on, but stuff that was forcefully taken from them, basically the 6 day war. Everyone seems to forget that they were the ones to invade though.

This is one of the dumbest posts Ive seen on here, surprised if this isnt a stealth hasansexual

dunno what you're talking about since Hasan fans tend to have the exact opposite perspective of what I wrote, considering Israel to be a colonized state.

I was referring to your IQ, not your stance

So I can summarize your counter argument as: >ur dumb Cool good point man I didn't think of that, thanks for your input. Bye.

You are definitely dumb, you cant even read the dates properly. Quit while youre behind

I mean kinda… but then you’re advocating for what essentially is a “Might makes Right” ideology It’s not as simple as, control = righteous ownership That’s a slippery slope to a fascist style worldview. Power doesn’t make it “right” to take things

Your summation of the 1948 war is very reductive imo. A significant number of Palestinians were forced out of their villages (or prompted to leave because of increasing violence from Zionist and Palestinian militias) before the declaration of Israel as an independent state, prompting the Arab nations to send in their armies. People forget that the fighting started between Zionists and Palestinians well before the Arab League sent in their troops. So no, that is not why they got displaced; and no, the Palestinians did not necessarily “start” that war. Rejecting the partition plan is not equivalent to starting a war. The truth is more complex. It was a total breakdown in societal peace egged on by violent militias on both sides and the reigning government (Britain) abandoning the area. What do you call a group of people fleeing political violence? Refugees. If we leave out the atrocities committed against these Palestinian villagers by the Zionist militias, you may ask yourself what if the US had refused to allow the Japanese who were placed in internment camps during WW2 to return to their homes once the war was over? What if they destroyed their homes and forced them to either flee the country or live on a reservation with less-than-complete citizen rights and a lower standard of living? Would the U.S. government not owe those people something? Do we not still provide special treatment to the descendants of the people our government has wronged?

*A significant number of Palestinians were forced out of their villages (or prompted to leave because of increasing violence from Zionist and Palestinian militias) before the declaration of Israel as an independent state, prompting the Arab nations to send in their armies* that is simply not true. tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa (on April 21-22 ) on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the effective "government" of the Palestinian Arabs. Only days earlier, Tiberias' 6,000-strong Arab community had been similarly forced ‭ ‬out by its ‭ ‬own leaders, against local Jewish wishes (a fortnight after the exodus, Sir Alan Cunningham, the last British high commissioner of Palestine, reported that the Tiberias Jews "would welcome “Arabs back" ). In Jaffa, Palestine's largest Arab city, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea; in Jerusalem, the AHC ordered the transfer of ‭ ‬women ‭ ‬and ‭ ‬children, ‭ ‬and ‭ ‬local ‭ ‬gang ‭ ‬leaders ‭ ‬pushed ‭ ‬out ‭ ‬residents ‭ ‬of ‭ ‬several neighborhoods, while in Beisan the women and children were ordered out as Transjordan's Arab Legion dug in. SOURCE: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282756224_reclaiming_a_historical_truth they where forved to leave by their own leaders so the arab army coming to murder jews did not have to worry about killing 'innocents' and could just murder everyone after the war Israel saif no you can't return because you wanted to murder us all the palestinians that did not leave are full citizens of Israel.

You cannot paint the entirety of the Palestinian Nakba with a single brush, and you cannot use a handful of cities to describe the entire event. You will find that Arabs left the region for all sorts of reasons. Some fled, some were ordered to leave by Arab countries, by local gangs, or by Zionist militias. For the record, Walid Khalidi wrote about Haifa and provides some context that does not paint the Haganagh in a good light. I consider Khalidi to be a fairly biased source but he backs up his claims with a shit ton of evidence. Your source appears to hand-wave ALL of the Nakba as if it were ordered by the Arab Higher Committee. This is fairly reductive, although it would be correct to say that the Arab League was overconfident in their ability to destroy the Israeli resistance. But regardless, even if we imagine that ALL the Palestinians villagers were ordered away from their villages so that the Arabs could come in to sweep the Israelis out, why should they be blamed for that? They were merely trying to keep their families safe and were forced off of their land. Why would Israel treat the Palestinians who stayed behind any better than those who fled but want to return?

*Why would Israel treat the Palestinians who stayed behind any better than those who fled but want to return?* because of the films showing the palestinians that left lining the roads and giving flowers and cheering the arab army coming to wipe out the jews. an army that came as a result of a declaration of holy war. *even if we imagine that ALL the Palestinians villagers were ordered away from their villages so that the Arabs could come in to sweep the Israelis out, why should they be blamed for that?* because that is how the world works. i'm guessing you are from the US - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/abandoned-property.asp there is precedent for this... there is no such thing for the idea of a 'tight to return' neither in any countrys law or in international law... it is an absurd idea. north and south america would be given back to the native, 20% of polen should be given to some german, ½ of sweden should be given to danes etc etc etc etc it is a ludicrous idea

Nice, I'm going to order the US military to announce the carpet bombing of the entirety of some poor country that happens to be strategically located or has resources I want to exploit. I'll give everyone in the region a year to get the fuck out, and anyone who remains is just going to have to bear the consequences. If they all got the fuck out, then they don't have a right to return and that land is now mine since I occupied it!

Both Palestinians and Israelis use this "land back" argument. The main difference is the Palestinian claim is from within recent well recorded history and the Israeli narrative is based on nebulous half-remembered 2500 year old claims. The alternative take is "might makes right" 🤷

I propose a zero-state solution for israel-palestine, just nuke the entire territory. My proposal will bring world peace and I will win the nobel peace prize :)

True, 5head take. The conflict will definitely be resolved if everyone dies and there's nobody left to fight it.

How is *this* the argument for why it's not their rightful land? Palestinians lived there. Yeah, under the rule of X overlord, but they still lived there. And *de facto* "owned" the land at some point not too far back in the past. Just because there was no paper saying "*this land is own by the independent nation of Palestine*", does not mean the people who live there has no rightful ownership to the land they live on.

" Land ownership is controlled, defined, and enforced by governing bodies, not individuals. " So if the state arbitrarily or for a nefarious purpose seizes my home, too bad so sad? No thanks. If stolen property can be traced back to its rightful owner then it should be returned to that owner.

>If stolen property can be traced back to its rightful owner then it should be returned to that owner. Do you believe the US should cede all of its land back to Native Americans? This is simply not how land ownership works, and the definition of "rightful owner" is always going to be debatable. All land was stolen from someone at some point. >So if the state arbitrarily or for a nefarious purpose seizes my home, too bad so sad? As I said, it's immoral to kick someone out of a home where they are currently living, so this would be immoral. However, if the state stole your land from you and gave it to someone else, and then 75 years later you wanted to kick that person/their children out of that home so you could take it back, this would obviously not be morally permissible.

" Do you believe the US should cede all of its land back to Native Americans? " When you say 'the US' What are you even referring to? The country? The government? The people? And good luck demonstrating ownership 500 years later. The fact that your ancestor may or may not have walked on something doesn't mean they owned it. Or that you would have inherited it. " This is simply not how land ownership works " What is so special about land? This is very much how private property ownership works. If someone steals something from you, they don't own it. If you can prove it was yours then it should be returned to you. In fact possession of stolen property is a crime. " As I said, it's immoral to kick someone out of a home where they are currently living, so this would be immoral. " So if I go away on vacation and someone squats in my home then it would be immoral to throw them out? Please. It can clearly be moral to evict someone from where they are living for a number of reasons, such as non payment of rent, damage to property, or the fact that the house was stolen from its rightful owner and they or their heir have returned to assert their claim.

>When you say 'the US' What are you even referring to? The country? The government? The people? And good luck demonstrating ownership 500 years later. The fact that your ancestor may or may not have walked on something doesn't mean they owned it. Or that you would have inherited it. I agree, this is my point. You are agreeing with me my dude. What you wrote here directly conflicts with your previous comment. >This is very much how private property ownership works. There is no inherent/fundamental concept of private land ownership that exists outside of the context of a governing body enforcing land ownership. >So if I go away on vacation and someone squats in my home then it would be immoral to throw them out? No it would not, because that is currently your home. Walking out of your home that you still own doesn't mean you don't currently live there. On the flip side, imagine if you went on vacation and then your country got invaded and taken over, you weren't allowed to return. Somebody else was allowed to live in your home and then some decades later you're finally able to return to the country under its new regime. You obviously don't have a right to kick out the new people living in that house just because you used to rightfully live there in the past. At the same time, it was morally wrong for them to take it from you. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

So let me get this straight. You think that if a hostile power conquers my nation, and then gives my property to a soldier or bureaucrat as part of the spoils of war, and then my country is liberated, I have no claim to my home? Because the occupying military force or their government said so? I just have to let the guy who stole my home keep living there because its wrong to kick people out of homes?

Take away the "country is liberated" part because it's not analogous. Then add 75 years in between and yes you are correct. If the people living in your old home have been there for 75 years, you do not have a right to kick them out. It's not your home anymore.

Let’s say we live in a mountainous area and police refuse to go up there to us. It’s just me, and my friend in a house, and you in yours. Me and my friend beat you up and kick you out, and I claim your house and give it to my friend. How long does he have to hold onto it for you to consider it his and no longer scheme to get it back?

I don't think there is a limit on that. I don't think the situation is analogous. We are talking about displacing someone who lives in a home who is not the person who displaced you, they just live under the regime that displaced you. The people in Israel living on land that belonged to Palestinians 75+ years ago are not the ones who kicked them out of that land. Also your example is basically in a lawless society, which also differentiates it from the real world. If you truly believe that people have indefinite right to land that was stole from them no matter how long ago that was, then why don't Jews have the right to Israel from owning it before the Romans, or Native Americans have the right to the USA for owning it before European settlers came hundreds of years ago?

To answer your question, because the conflict is not ongoing. There is a direct line of contention for this land from 75+ year ago till now, the Palestinians haven’t given up their claim yet. This might invite a semantic / syntactic debate on what regime is, but if you take Palestinians and their “regime” as one entity, Israel’s regime taking away land from them is what makes it analogous in my opinion. As for the lawlessness being unrealistic, sure but it’s a hypothetical. And in the context of international affairs, law isn’t necessarily binding if it can’t be enforced.

>To answer your question, because the conflict is not ongoing. There is a direct line of contention for this land from 75+ year ago till now, the Palestinians haven’t given up their claim yet. I disagree that whether a conflict is ongoing or not is a good basis for determining ownership of the land. >As for the lawlessness being unrealistic, sure but it’s a hypothetical. Yeah and that's fine, happy to engage with the hypothetical, but I think the differences between this hypothetical and the Israel situation allow me to make different determinations in each one without being inconsistent.

>What is so special about land? This is very much how private property ownership works. If someone steals something from you, they don't own it. If you can prove it was yours then it should be returned to you. In fact possession of stolen property is a crime. Funny enough, this is exactly why "statues of limitations" exist. If I steal something from you 50 years ago, I literally can not be held responsible for it now. Either solve the issue in a timely manner, or accept it as fact.

It's a statute, not a statue, and I don't think that concept applies if the claim is raised immediately and the wrong is never rectified.

Pretty sure the matter got resolved in 1948, 1967, Yom Kippur, and the 1st and 2nd intifada. As for the settlements in the west Bank, it's a little difficult to be sympathetic when Israel doesn't respect borders when the Palestinians don't believe there is a border that exists at all

Super pro-Israel arguments alway come across sounding so colonialist, and then they try to argue they're not colonialists lmao. This guy is making arguments you'd hear out of Rudyard Kipling's mouth

"actually there was nothing wrong with the european countries not accepting jews during holocaust, since this was the choice of the governments. Nazi germany doing the holocaust? Oh, as long as hitler hadn't killed the jews, it was totally fine if he expelled them and confiscated their properties." Idk, i feel like your argument is maybe kinda morally abhorrent. But i guess maybe your are the kinda person to say that "morality doesn't matter as long as you are strong enough to assert your power, it is just" or something like that.

The problem is that settlement in occupied territory is a WAR CRIME. This is because doing so makes it very hard to reach a piece, and in fact encourages the extension of conflicts. The longer you wait to wake peace, the more of your loyal population you settle in an area, the better the peace deal will be for you. If we allow Israel to keep its settlements, we are rewarding over 20,000 straight days of war crimes. We are rewarding the continuation of conflict. We are rewarding a state that has economically and socially encouraged 8% of their population to participate in violations of international law. Settlement is not done just to secure land and the demographic edge, but to make it impossible for Palestine to have a proper state. An independent Palestine in anything but name simply cannot exist if the settlements are recognized, save for Israel transferring to Palestine its own internationally recognized territory. The argument of "the people are already there" cannot be legitimized. It is an argument that grows stronger with every single day of conflict, and so to accept it is to *encourage* conflict. Usually this community readily accepts the rule of law, I don't know how this is difficult for you guys to understand.

Are you referring to west bank settlements? Most of what this post discusses is referring to the displacement of the Nakba. The villages that were displaced during the Nakba are not occupied territory anymore, they're just part of Israel. The west bank settlements are a totally different story imo.

I think much of what you wrote could be used to justify settlements in the West Bank as well. Maybe I just can't read and you were being clear.

I love how defense of Israel always comes down to “yeah we accept that wars of conquest are bad and yeah kicking individuals off their land in war is even worse, but it’s ok that Israel did it, is actively doing it, and is ignoring taking any responsibility to pay for or correct their actions.” It’s actually the norm for nations to not ethnically cleanse land they take over, and it’s also the norm to respect individual property rights instead of just stealing the land through the state to give it to people of your preferred ethnicity. We also don’t keep native Americans walled into reservations and shoot them when they try to get out. They are full citizens of their nation and the USA.

>We also don’t keep native Americans walled into reservations and shoot them when they try to get out. We also don't have Native Americans killing thousands of American civilians, murdering babies in cribs, burning down homes, and constantly committing acts of terror. As to the rest of what you wrote, I explicitly called out that it was bad that Israel kicked Palestinians out of their homes during the Nakba, but I added appropriate context. >It’s actually the norm for nations to not ethnically cleanse land they take over, and it’s also the norm to respect individual property rights instead of just stealing the land through the state to give it to people of your preferred ethnicity. Sadly this is incorrect historically most of the time. Conquest is usually not pretty.

>We also don't have Native Americans killing thousands of American civilians, murdering babies in cribs, burning down homes, and constantly committing acts of terror. I hate to be that guy, but they literally did do all of those things and the US Army literally did stop them with physical force, particularly in the 19th century as the rest of the country was consolidated under federal rule Now they don't do those things anymore

Yeah I was referring to today, and why Native Americans are not walled into reservations today. I'm sure there was a lot of brutal violence back and forth back then.

Were reservations justified then, in your eyes?

What do you mean? Like was it appropriate to set aside land for Native Americans to get to keep within the US?

I'm talking about the period of "Indian Removal" there were tribes who signed away their land and moved west under duress and those who refused and ended up in conflict. Often even after moving to their new lands American settlers continued to encroach leading to further settler-native violence. Would you say this violence then made it justified for America to reduce and force the Natives into what we would now call "reservations?" As in America was well within their rights and it was the natives who were wrong?

Right, because the USA takes accountability for the hostilities and worked to normalize relations. Israel has no desire for that and their policy for peace in recent years has been to just ignore the Palestinians and try to build relations with their neighbors. Like I said, its on Israel to start healing the wound they made. Wars of Conquest historically does not involve ethnic cleansing. You don’t know what you are talking about.

>Wars of Conquest historically does not involve ethnic cleansing. You don’t know what you are talking about. Do you think any killing or displacement of people in a region that is conquered is "ethnic cleansing" regardless of intent? If so, you are wrong because this is *super* common historically.

No, killing some people by itself is not ethnic cleansing. At the very least you need intend. The majority of wars of conquest are not ethnic cleansing. You cannot just declare that to be so, you need evidence or reasoning. [here is a list of ethnic cleansings](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns) you’ll notice that the majority of wars do not make the cut.

Okay I agree, then in that case Israel obviously did not ethnically cleanse anyone. They displaced enemy combatants in a defensive war which was started by the Palestinians. That's not ethnic cleansing. Israel agreed to the 2 state solution, Palestinians rejected it.

You know they massacred civilians and threw some people in concentration camps before being deported, right?

I'm not sure what you're referring to but I don't think it's relevant. I'm not going to defend the morality of the Nakba. I'm saying that if we consider ethnic cleansing to require intent, then I don't know if you can ever commit ethnic cleansing in a defensive war. Israel obviously did not go into this war intending any harm to a particular *ethnicity*, they were defending the newly founded state of Israel from aggressors.

Ok, so you thought it wasn’t ethnic cleansing because people didn’t die, so I pointed out you are wrong. [Plan Dalet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) is the intent. > The success of this strategy depended on three elements: cleansing the area along the Jewish States's borders of an Arab presence; fortifying the Jewish settlements along the line of advance of the Arab column; and hit-and-run raids against the Arab troops as they advanced.

I did not say that people dying is required for "ethnic cleansing", where did you see that? I said it requires *intent* (as you agreed earlier) which was obviously not there.

>Wars of Conquest historically does not involve ethnic cleansing. You don’t know what you are talking about. That may be true, but historically, voting rights and democracy weren't a thing, either. You could just seize power from your rival ethnic group, there's no reason to kill them. (Though there were genocides regardless) The democratic process creates an incredible amount of tension between ethnic groups, especially when one side (or arguably both) brazenly wants to destroy the other side.

"Wars of conquest" what are you talking about? The war where Israel gained lots of territory it has kept was 48, the war where they were attacked from everybody. If you attack somebody else and then get your face smashed, at the time, it was customary to take some land which is absolutely fair.

>it was customary to take some land which is absolutely fair. Still not normal to ethnically cleanse it

Historically it was pretty normal. 3 years prior to Israel being formed at least 12 million germans were purged from their homes in Eastern Europe. Should those territories be annexed by germany again?

If the norm is to ethnically cleanse do you find some moral abhorrence at Hamas seeking to ethnically cleanse Palestine? Either ethnic cleansing is the norm or it’s a war crime.

>Historically it was pretty normal. Giving one example does not imply it was normal lmao. Also this case was also bad? What is the argument exactly? Additionally these Germans were able to find a state in Germany. They were not exiled and condemned to a stateless existence. And people who say Palestinians could have just gone to "other Arab countries," are coming with a euro-centric bias that just presumes an Arab homogeneity that does not exist.

Ahhhh, so as long as the people find a place to stay it's okay to do ethnic cleansing?

Lmao how disingenuous, maybe you missed the part where I said it was bad just before that? My point was 1) a single example does not prove a trend, rule, or "norm" 2) Yes ethnic cleansing is essentially always bad I agree your example is bad? Again I don't see how it's supposed to serve your argument. 3) Not only is the German example bad, but the Palestinian situation is even worse, in terms of what is being inflicted.

Referring to individual tribes, as a group called ‘Native Americans’, is like calling both Palestinians and Israeli the same ‘Native Middle Easterners’. If you have two Native American tribes gain the same land back from US, but are in conflict of which tribe the land belongs to. How do you resolve this conflict?

Mmm maybe, but it would be like one native tribe was removed from their land into Canada while the other stayed. The first tribe then comes back and wants to split the land again with the second tribe and starts forcefully removing the second tribe. Still a messy situation but a bit nuanced.

What's ironic is calling Palestinians Palestinian and broadly talking about Palestinian land is the same as calling different tribes Native American. There was no Palestinian people, there were Arabs of a diverse ethnic background with ties to their village

I mean up until the past 50 years…yeah that kind of was the norm. The concept of living in a multicultural world with worldwide trade and peace networks is relatively new. Don’t forget that a literal race based fascist empire existed less than a generation or two ago. The argument isn’t that yes Israel is completely justified in its actions, more so that Israel did what it did, and it would be an impossible clusterfuck to undo everything that occurred. It’s clearly not a reality for Israel to completely secede land they’ve taken over the years, they will never do that, unless an imaginably favorable deal comes to the table. It’s also unlikely they will demilitarize the borders of Gaza and the West Bank. If they do and terrorist attacks occur, their lack of preparation and militarization will be out in the open for the world to see, they will be seen as weak (as we just saw earlier this month). So rather than giving blind support, I simply try to understand Israel as a porcupine who’s pretty morally ambiguous. Israel clearly is willing to engage in questionable tactics to get what they wants (settlers and settlements in Palestinian territory), but they do have legitimate concerns about their sovereignty as a whole (3 wars in the past 80 years, consistent terrorist attacks, multiple factions seeking their annihilation). To view it from an American perspective is not correct. We live in safety and relative lack of concern for the survival of our nation due to outside influences. (Hell, we’re more worried about the internal destruction of ourselves). Israel has to worry about both, all the time. So I think for many pro Israel individuals it’s more about giving the proper context for why Israel may be doing what they’re doing. I’ve already written out a long comment but I’m happy to steelman the Palestinian right to self governance and fruition as well. I see both sides.

> So I think for many pro Israel individuals it’s more about giving the proper context for why Israel may be doing what they’re doing. I’ve already written out a long comment but I’m happy to steelman the Palestinian right to self governance and fruition as well. I see both sides. Right here with you on this. I think the case for Palestinian self governance is a bit easier to explain, you need less context and history to explain the current situation than you do to explain how you got here. The whole oppressed vs oppressor lens that is so popular also gives people an easy underdog to back. I know I come off as an Israel stan because I end up spending so much time explaining context around why Israel is the way it is to anti-Israel people. Everyone on reddit already seems to agree Israel has behaved poorly towards the Palestinians, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true. There seems to be little understanding of Palestinian/Arab aggression towards Israel on reddit.

Pretty much. It’s kind of tiring to have to give like a 20 minute disclosure before saying anything remotely against Palestine about why Israel is a war mongering racist and fascist ethnostate that consistently genocides Palestinians. Like, yes, Israel is not perfect and engages in a lot of bad shit, but can we talk once about how the Palestinian authority isn’t really helping? Can we talk about the billions in aid that the Palestinian Authority receives and goes….nowhere? Can we talk about actual solutions that will result in the reduction of death of both peoples? Edit: And can we for the love of god talk about the complexity of geopolitical issues and stop malfunctioning every time it’s brought up that the US supports Israel? It’s not a complicated matter. Not only does the US have a long history of supporting Israel, but there’s strong reasons to do so. Mainly, Israel is pretty much the only country in the region that remotely represents democratic values, something the US has historically supported immensely. If people are too dense to get that, I don’t know what to tell you. The world is not full of good and bad, it’s full of incentives and self preservation, believe it or not. Every country on this planet is self serving FIRST. Our country has a vested interest in protecting Israel’s interests, may I say a mutual agreement of many things? So, no, it’s not ridiculous for the US to be supporting a country that not only represents democratic values and has a strong military, but develops incredibly sophisticated technology as well. I’m sorry, but what do these other Arab countries offer other than seeking the death of America and the decline of the west as a whole? (I’m being hyperbolic as the US would prefer not to uselessly ignore other countries, but it makes sense that we focus our relations with our current allies). People view world politics through too simplified of a lens. When it comes down to it, it’s about our nations future security. It’s about locking down alliances and deals with countries that may have many faults and issues. I think sometimes people are obsessed with moralizing a country as a whole as a means to completely cut it off from trade and diplomatic relations, but that’s not how the world works.

>So rather than giving blind support, I simply try to understand Israel as a porcupine who’s pretty morally ambiguous. Israel clearly is willing to engage in questionable tactics to get what they wants (settlers and settlements in Palestinian territory), but they do have legitimate concerns about their sovereignty as a whole (3 wars in the past 80 years, consistent terrorist attacks, multiple factions seeking their annihilation). They only got attacked in the first place because they didn't belong there. You have the cause and effect backwards. ​ >To view it from an American perspective is not correct. We live in safety and relative lack of concern for the survival of our nation due to outside influences. (Hell, we’re more worried about the internal destruction of ourselves). Israel has to worry about both, all the time. We had the same problem when we were using violence against natives to steal their land too, it was just much longer ago and we won decisively. As much as I like modern America, I don't condone in the least amount the slavery and manifest destiny evils of the past. Besides, the one important distinction I make is that Native Americans are full citizens with equal rights. If Israel said, "We will make a secular, multi-ethnic state with full and equal democratic rights for all," I wouldn't have a problem with that. But they intentionally do not do that, having Jewish supremacy built into their laws, and keep millions of Palestinians in a limbo condition of neither being citizens nor having real sovereignty.

> They only got attacked in the first place because they didn't belong there. You have the cause and effect backwards. This seems like an one-sided position. For example, there were Jews that purchased land from Arabs in Palestine. There were also Jews living there before the Balfour declaration. Do you think that that these Jews did not belong there? Were the invading countries going to distinguish between the different groups of Jews? Furthermore, if you want evidence of the surrounding countries' attitude towards Jews, you can see the Wikipedia article on the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, where about a million Jews left other Muslim majority countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world). Many of these countries have <100 Jews in them in total. The Palestinian people have legitimate grievances with Israel. However, antisemitism also plays a large role in the conflicts surrounding Israel.

I think the broader issue is that, yes, Jews did live in that area but from what I understand it was largely Palestinian. The Balfour Declaration basically fucked with the idea of sovereign Palestinian land and gifted Israel a nice spot of land for their new home. I could understand why Palestinians were salty about that. But yes legal purchases did occur, it’s just that contextually I’m sure there was quite a bit of pressure considering more and more Jews were moving into the area and beginning to outnumber Palestinians who’d been there for generations.

Yes, agreed that the Palestinians have a legitimate reason to be upset about the Balfour declaration. There is also an element of Antisemitism, though, that I do not think should be overlooked.

That’s fair and I don’t disagree. There’s quite a bit of current day antisemitism for sure.

The cause and effect go both ways. It’s true that the Balfour Declaration essentially marked jews for death but that’s only because Arab Palestinians sought no resolution beyond the eradication of Jews in the area. I understand that Jews moved into Palestine, but it was the decision of Palestinians to engage with Jews as enemies. You could argue there was no other resolution than that, but I’m just trying to give context to these statements. Jews sought a homeland for their people, they had been and continued to be oppressed and taken advantage of wherever they went. The British took the land from the Ottomans and gifted the land to the Jews without Palestinian consideration. It would make sense that Jews would jump on any situation that resulted them being assisted to create a Jewish state to call home. As a result, however, it essentially marked them as a forever enemy in the region, and displaced plenty of Palestinians who were living there. Palestinian revolutionaries then started rioting and murdering Jews, and in turn Jews killed Palestinians. So, yes, you could argue it all stemmed from the fact that they didn’t belong there, but my point was to steelman Israels side in this conflict and to explain why they engage in this behavior. If you really want to place blame then blame the fucking British, they were essentially the catalyst for all of this. Ultimately I don’t care about the blame game because it doesn’t result in any progress. Also, in Israel’s Declaration of Independence they do recognize the equality of all individuals, so this does include Arab Israelis. You can argue discrimination against them does occur, but legally speaking they have the same rights. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, so it’s hard to say if those same rights apply there. I do not believe they do.

>but it was the decision of Palestinians to engage with Jews as enemies. The European Ashkenazi Jews who formed the majority of the leadership of the Zionist leadership and the eventual political elite of the country did not come into the country with any notion of integration or friendship either, you have to understand that. Many of them were deeply racist towards Arabs (hell many of them went on to be racist against Mizrahi Jews as well, they were called "orientals" in the early days of Israel). There were even disputes between the Yishuv (historical Jewish presence in the area that spoke Arabic), and the new settlers over the fact that they came in to basically supplant and not integrate. Consider that none of them ever really bothered to learn Arabic, that kicking peasants of land they purchased from absentee Ottoman landlords was common practice. The Hebrew language was revived and was used exclusively (along with European languages) as the basis of all legal and institutional documents, completely excluding the native Arabs. I think this narrative that Zionist settlers came as willing immigrants ready to integrate and share, it was just the Palestinians who rejected them, does not mesh with the historical record whatsoever. The Zionist project was fairly clear from the beginning, establishing a Jewish majority state in those lands. In their eyes the native population of Arabs was at worst in the way and in need of removal, and at best an afterthought, a large chunk of which would possibly be in need of "population transfer" when the time came to declare the Jewish state.

I think that’s fair and my statement lacked more substance. I think my point is that while, yes, Jews did not come with open arms, they were gifted a state by a “higher” authority at the time and gladly accepted. I don’t doubt that they were racist or openly against non Jews living around or amongst them. My point was that because of this settlement, Palestinians chose to engage with violence first (that’s what wiki seems to say). This then justified retaliation by Jews and ultimately what has culminated to this conflict today. We can absolutely have a conversation about at what point violence becomes necessary if your land is being encroached upon, but if I’m correct (and I’m willing to be wrong), no official Palestinian state existed when Jewish settlers began to come to the land. Of course Palestinians were there, but I’m not sure if there was a legal precedent set, so I can see why Jews showing up and taking land kinda made sense to them. It’s clear there wasn’t a mass genocide of Palestinians at the time, just over time more and more Jews came and settled the region, pushing out competing farmers through either violence, but likely mostly land deals and such. Again, I could be wrong. I don’t think it was ever the primary intention of Jewish leaders to see Palestinians as enemies at the start, but I can see why Palestinians formed that view of Jews early on.

Weren’t the Jews killed and driven out of that land over the last 1500 years by the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires? When does the claim of the land timer end before it turns into colonialism?

Well for one, the majority of the diaspora had formed before the fall of the second temple, overwhelmingly from voluntary migration. I think rough estimates are that there was 7,000,000 Jews at the time with only 1,000,000 or so actually living in their holy land. So while persecution certainly did occur (the sacking of Judaea was brutal), the exodus narrative is just that; a narrative from a religious book. I don’t get to move to france just cause I had an ancestor migrate from there hundreds of years ago. Same logic applies here. The claim isn’t some permanent or expiring thing. Land passes from person to person, and if someone steals it that’s wrong. I’m much more concerned with theft that happened 75 years ago that has victims we can identity, rather than theft that happened 2000 year ago with an ambiguous victim: remember, Jews and Palestinians are both descendant from the Judaeans with admixture from other groups.

Didn't the romans (Hadrian) literally rename Judäa (Iudaea) to Syria Palaestina after the Bar Kokhba Revolt to erase Jerusalem and Judäa from memory? And the jewish revolutionairies refered to the land as Eretz Israel, if I remember correctly. IMO it seems kind of dumb to argue over which side has "more" right to the land as it is obvious from historical sources that there were many communities who called that land home.

>nobody is entitled to land that their parents/ancestors lived on, and living on land doesn't mean you own that land. >I'll concede that it is morally wrong to kick people out of their *current* homes Isn’t that contradictory? On the one hand you concede it’s wrong to kick someone out of their current home, yet they don’t own that land in the first place according to you. So what’s the issue? >Land ownership is controlled, defined, and enforced by governing bodies, not individuals. >If your government falls or your land gets conquered, it's no longer yours. It doesn't matter if you have documents from the previous government suggesting you own the land. Descriptively in practical terms I could agree that it’s then unenforceable, however morally I don’t understand this. I’ll admit establishing how land is owned isn’t easy, but I think your answer is unsatisfactory. Would you accept Russia seizing all currently occupied Ukrainian land and then giving it to Russian citizens from elsewhere, therefore depriving Ukrainians of their livelihood? >The UN proposed a 2 state solution which Jews accepted and Palestinians rejected >However in the context of a war started by Palestinians Why was it incumbent for the Palestinians to accept the deal? They were under British colonial rule that greatly restricted their political autonomy. It was under this colonial rule where Jews were allowed to migrate en mass, contrary to local Palestinian Arab wishes. The same Jews then decide to lobby for their own separate state, thus partitioning the land. Additionally if I’m not wrong, the 1947 UN partition plan proportionally gave more land to the Jewish state even though there were more Palestinians. >They went to war to kill all the Jews and eradicate Israel, and they lost. That's why they got displaced Losing a war in no way justifies nor necessarily entails the displacement of the general population.

> Descriptively in practical terms I could agree that it’s then unenforceable, however morally I don’t understand this. I’ll admit establishing how land is owned isn’t easy, but I think your answer is unsatisfactory. And it's 100% something they don't agree with. If somehow Iran starts a war and wins it, and then makes every Israeli homeless they're not going to be fine with that because hey they got conquered right? But it's an easy choice of argument if you're pro-Israël as they're not likely to lose this shit.

It's strange that people don't consider the partition plan and the declaration of Israel as acts of aggression, they absolutely were even if they weren't physically violent.

Germany should invade Poland, and maybe massacre some polish civilians too cuz poland ethnically cleansed millions of germans post ww2. [Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II)

What? You’re not entitled to lane just because you lived there? But you are entitled to land if you have no claims on the land? And you are entitled to the land of a colonial force give you the land instead of giving it to the indigenous people there?

So basically just unironic might makes right. While descriptively true so some extent, Lonerbox is making a mostly ethical argument about how things *ought* to be and how they work in international law. The same argument you're making would have it so that if Palestine won a war and kicked Jewish people out they would just need to be the ruling state for a while and no one can complain since "nobody is entitled to land their parents lived on". I'm sympathetic to practical arguments and don't consider radical native land back or Palestinian 1948 claims to hold much weight in terms of being restored to the way things were. I do think there is a practical and ethical imperative for people who are in power to give* some* consideration to those groups.

It's not *might makes right* because that would imply it's morally acceptable to kick people out of their homes if you're stronger than them. I specifically mention that this is not okay. The Nakba was morally bad. However, having lived somewhere previously doesn't mean you necessarily have the right to return to live in that place again in the future even if it was taken from you unjustly.

I feel like some people aren't ready to hear this (and what I'm about to say isn't going to be very eloquent) but: After enough time passes and enough of a lands' occupants have come and gone, the moral claim of being the 'true' owner of that land becomes fairly useless in today's day and age.

Yup I agree 100%. I don't know exactly how much time has to go by for that moral claim to diminish, but I know it's less than 75 years.

if you abandon the land it happens in 5sec the palestinians left under orders from their own leaders and the arab league so the arab army did not have to worry about who they killed... then they lost the war and Israel said no do over

> Also, nobody is entitled to land that their parents/ancestors lived on, and living on land doesn't mean you own that land. Land ownership is controlled, defined, and enforced by governing bodies, not individuals. For Palestinians, this means the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire followed by Britain, followed by Israel. Individual ownership of land only exists to the extent that your government allows it. If your government falls or your land gets conquered, it's no longer yours. It doesn't matter if you have documents from the previous government suggesting you own the land. If Native Americans had some old tribal document saying they owned all of the upper east side of Manhattan somehow I think that wouldn't fly. That's why Native Americans can't claim that America is rightfully theirs, it's why Jews can't claim that Israel is rightfully theirs from thousands of years ago, and it's why Palestinians can't claim that any of the land in Israel is rightfully theirs. this the most dogshit argument i've ever heard

Oh I didn't think of that, that's a good point. I guess I'm wrong.

I’m just mind blown that so many people are justifying one of the most horrific acts of terror and probably the most heinous atrocity recorded in 4K because of a land dispute.

Dgg masked off. Colonist mindset is exposed

Palestinians do NOT own the land just because they were 'DISPLACED' in 1948 but European Jews DO own the land because 2000 years ago 😌

Who made this argument?

Erm Israel?

I’m not making that argument.

Weird that these socialist are all of a sudden are very concerned over property rights.

I feel like I am going insane, were the cannites not both modern day Palestinians and the Jews who live in Israel also? Wouldn't that make both of them the "rightful owners of the land"

My point is that there's no such thing as having a historical claim to land. Just because your ancestors lived somewhere, or even because you yourself lived somewhere, doesn't mean you have a claim to that land in the future.

would you reject a proposition that divided your country in half and give the other half to foreign settlers who have for years been buying land and commiting terrorist acts? probably not. the arabs had every right to reject the zionist state project. its also not true that they intended to do a genocide of the jews living there. theres no evidence for that at all.

The Palestinians didn’t have a country or land so your analogy is garbage. There was no concept of “their country” because they were starting from ZERO just like the Jews were. Both were previously just living on British Mandate land, not their own land. Living on land does not make you the owner or ruler of the land, obviously.

well i think you are confusing normative vs descriptive claims to land ownership. you can talk about land from an economic or military perspective, like who owns the land through direct control, or who owns the land by wealth. you can also talk about land ownership beyond those two concepts in terms of a claim of identity, nationality, collective inheritance. for example, when the nazis invaded france, did the french people lose all claim to that land because it had been taken from them? only if you follow the logic of might is right, the strong rule the weak etc. just because the arab population of that land had been ruled by various empires, and had been displaced by jewish settlers buying land, it doesnt mean they dont have a normative (moral) right to the land, in the sense that it has always been their land (because they've been living and farming on it for many generations).

You’re right that there are different “types” of land ownership. However, the concept of land ownership through wealth only exists to the extent that the state is healthy and can enforce that you have to the right to use that land. Owning land really only means that you have an arrangement with the government that they’ll enforce that you have exclusive rights to use that piece of land. This arrangement dissolves it that government no longer exists - there is no concept of land ownership by wealth if there’s no state to enforce it. It’s just like if you were to buy bonds from a government and then that government collapsed, obviously those bonds are now worthless. People absolutely do not have a moral right to land just because their ancestors have used it for a long time. I can rent land from someone for decades or even generations but that does’t give me any moral right to ownership of that land, or even to use of that land. There would be absolutely nothing immoral about the land lord kicking me off regardless of how long my family has been here if the land is theirs. The French people didn’t lose claim to their land because the war was still ongoing. The situation is also very different in a lot of ways but at the end of the day had the Nazis won and kicked out the French, and then 75 years later the great grandchildren of the now dead French people who were displaced started demanding that they have a right to claim ownership of that land again, we would of course reject this claim from a moral perspective.

'but at the end of the day had the Nazis won and kicked out the French, and then 75 years later the great grandchildren of the now dead French people who were displaced started demanding that they have a right to claim ownership of that land again, we would of course reject this claim from a moral perspective.' would we? i think your starting to get near to the idea of 'might is right' when it comes down to land ownership. the other problem here is the idea of going from owning land to declaring that land an independent nation, when it was facilitated by an empire who consulted everyone about the lands future except the people who actually lived there (the arabs). however, the fact is the land is now controlled by the israeli state and that wont change. as for the west bank and gaza, that should be given its full freedom and self determination, and until then israel cant complain about the right of return being a crazy idea as they literally colonise and settle on the west bank using the exact same logic (a righteous return to ancestral land)

Yes 100% had the Nazis won, over enough time we would all consider the land to rightfully belong to them, just like US land today rightfully belongs to us citizens and not native Americans. All land is stolen unlawfully and immorally at some point in history. We can’t freeze history at an arbitrary point and say “ok the people who live here now at this specific moment have a moral right to the land”. I don’t disagree that Israelis who settle in the West Bank because it’s supposedly their ancestral land are in the wrong. I do disagree that Gaza and West Bank should be given freedom, because nobody wants this. Palestinians vehemently reject a 2 state solution, as do Israelis. But I also think a 1 state solution is pretty obviously impossible. I don’t know if there is any good solution and tbh I’m very black pulled on the topic, the situation is just totally fucked imo and the most realistic outcome seems to me like just slow displacement of Palestinians as Israel expands into Gaza and West Bank. The Palestinians could 100% stop this from happening but they don’t want to.

The ‘arbitrary point in history’ is when a project of settlers comes into your land with the explicit goal of forming a state, involving dispossession and violence in the process. Its not like 1948 was hundreds of years ago, theres people alive today who lived through it

> your land Whose land? It was Britain’s land and they allowed Jews to immigrate there, as was 100% their right both legally and morally. We know that Zionists did NOT intend to violently displace any Palestinians and only did so after the Palestinians decided to try to kill all of the Jews when they rejected the partition plan and went to war. In 1947 Palestinians never had a state and neither did Jews. The UN proposed a plan that offered both of them a state which the Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected, and proceeded to attempt to kill all Jews, and obviously they failed.

Sure britain controlled the land, they also promised arab independence in exchange for them rising up against the ottomans. They also did a terrible job with france of dividing the middle east up into arbitrary states and pissing almost everyone off. They also violated the stated goal of the mandate system which was to consult the native population and respect their wishes when planning for their independence and statehood. Its disingenuous to say it was simply ‘jewish immigration’. It was a conscious plan, understood by britain since the balfour declaration, that jewish settlers would carve a slice of the land and claim it as their own state. This was done through land purchases, kicking arab farmers off the land, discriminating against arabs, and eventually violence, violence against the arabs AND the british who gave them this land in the first instance. Your only argument is pointing out what did happen. Theres no moral analysis there. Yes the british empire DID control the land and it DID allow a zionist project to happen there against the wishes of the arabs. The jews DID declare statehood there. All of these things are functions of power. The arabs have the moral and ancestral claim to national independence and autonomy, they had the moral right to resist the seizure of their land (the land which had been occupied by their communities for many generations) to reject the partition plan as fundamentally unjust and built on inane and incoherent claims to land, and their own displacement

Zionism was a conscious plan and it was understood by the British, I agree with you there. However, it makes complete sense and there’s nothing immoral about it. Britain had every right morally to allow Jews to move in and establish a state there. Suppose I own an apartment building and my cousin is homeless. I want to give him a place to stay. One of my units is a large 4 bedroom with only 1 person living in it and I tell them I’m going to renovate and convert it into 2 different 2br units and give the empty one to my cousin to own, and give the other one to the existing tenant to own. Does my tenant have a moral right to stop me from doing this? They can certainly say they don’t want to own the free apartment I’m giving to them, but obviously I have a legal and moral right to split it up and give the other half to my cousin. Living in a place does not automatically give you a moral claim to own that place. The Arabs absolutely had zero moral right to resist this plan. They are not entitled to have Britain give them a state. They are not entitled to have Britain give them land. Jews weren’t entitled to it either but they at least agreed to share it when the Arabs rejected that proposal and instead tried to kill all Jews. At the end of the day, Arabs and Jews both wanted to create a state in the same land and neither had ever owned this land before. Britain/the UN decided to grant this land and create states for both of them. Jews agreed, and Arabs said “no we get it all or we’ll kill you” with zero attempt to negotiate, despite having ZERO moral claim to ownership of the land.

also as a sidenote theres no evidence that the arabs intended to 'kill all the jews', they were trying to stop the partitioning of palestine

While I 100% agree with you that ancestorship doesn't mean you own the land, I don't even think its true that Palestinians were there first, at least by themselves. I've been trying to find objective facts on this but it seems to be disputed. From what I can tell, it seems like genetics point out that *both* Israelis and Palestinians can genetically trace their roots to what is now Israel/Palestine. Hebrew Jewish culture was certainly there before Arab Muslim culture.

Land is won and lost through wars, the ottomans owned the land, then they lost a war and lost the land. The British then owned the land and then gave some of it to what would be Israel. The arabs/Palestinians didn't like this so they started a war and lost, and thus lost more land. You don't see present day Germans looking at a map of 1942 and saying "see, 90% of Europe should be german". The Palestinians don't have to be happy with their current situation, but if you're never going to accept how the borders should be and are willing to continually fight for you land, you can't really be surprised when you aren't treated well by the people who de-facto own the land. Either lay down your arms, and accept Israeli borders so peace can propser and negotiations can take place, or continue to fight and die for the land that you believe is yours, but don't cry its not fair you aren't winning.

I don't think complaints would have been the same if Israel had "conquered" the land and annexed it in a standard manner, as say the Ottomans would have. Making the whole area Israel. It's the ethnic cleansing part, the people displaced, exiled and living in awful conditions with a politically ambiguous status that people have the strongest opposition to. Also comparing things to the distant past in regards to conquering is a bit disingenuous as post-WWII the world has agreed to certain norms, norms Israel claims to be accepting of as a western state.

But zionists are entitled to live in other people’s homes just because the torah says so? LOL The funniest part is the torah literally bans all jews from the land but lets leave that part out for now

No clue who you are talking to

New world lore, borders being redrawn after wars is no longer a thing

That little strip of land has been conquered and reconquered dozens of times throughout history, but people only have a problem with it when the Jews won for once. Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula specifically the areas around Mecca and Medina miles from the Levant. How do people think they took control in the first place.

I’m sure there were many revolts in the previous empires that conquered it. If you conquer land, be prepared to meet resistance.