After the Zionists decided to steal Palestine and terrorize the Palestinians, the Palestinians found that not okay and resisted
Wow such a two sided affair. Someone comes into their land and decides to violently steal it. And then the other side fights back. This must mean that both sides are at fault. Another amazing analysis.
Israel terrorizes and colonizes the west bank, and the people there fight back. This must mean both sides are at fault!
A very nuanced analysis thank you for your input once again.
Again, this is misinformation. It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.
“After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire arose during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[3] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt, but in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs.”
“The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words “in Palestine” meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by “stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands”.”
Your ire should be directed at the British protectorate for the ambiguity that enabled both sides to feel justified in their believed independence. This initial blunder seems to me to have fostered mutual extremism.
It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.
I mean yes. Israel has been from the get go, ever since the planning stage, a settler colonialist Apartheid state. The sales pitch has always been “Let’s steal Palestinian lands and make them second class citizens”.
You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?
Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?
Or maybe you mean in the late 19th century when they bought land from the Ottomans and peacefully settled?
Or maybe you mean in 1917 when the Ottomans deported them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa because the Ottomans were at war with the lands they immigrated from?
Or maybe you mean after 1917 when the obscure instructions of the British Mandate radicalized all of their Arab neighbors against them and galvanized the call to the violent eradication of Israel?
Or maybe you mean in 1921 and 1929 when Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population centers?
Or maybe you mean in 1936-1939 when Arabs launched widespread attacks on both the British and the Jews?
Is it blatantly obvious how ridiculous your claim is yet, or do I need to keep going?
You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?
Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?
I’m not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.
Everything since 1917 was with the intention of creating a Jewish-majority state in Palestine. Palestine that’s, for obvious reasons, populated with Palestinians basically everywhere. You can’t have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it’s just not physically possible. And then you had a “Jewish state” with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible. Does that sound like the blueprint for an egalitarian state?
I’m not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.
You don’t think that the established Jewish territory prior to and during the 20th century has anything to do with modern Israel? You think that the revitalization of a Jewish homeland was unique to Zionist ideology when their occupation of both Galilee and Jerusalem was sanctioned by the Ottomans in 1534-1742?
You can’t have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it’s just not physically possible.
Of course you can, you just need more than one state. This had been the plan instituted by the British, but the British Mandatory authorities strayed from the plan as I already stated.
Of course you can, you just need more than one state.
No, because like I said you can’t have a state without a majority, or at least a significant minority, of Palestinians. It’s geographically impossible. That goes directly counter to the Zionist goal of a Jewish state with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible.
Wow such a two sided affair. Someone comes into their land and decides to violently steal it. And then the other side fights back. This must mean that both sides are at fault. Another amazing analysis.
Israel terrorizes and colonizes the west bank, and the people there fight back. This must mean both sides are at fault!
A very nuanced analysis thank you for your input once again.
Again, this is misinformation. It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
“After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire arose during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[3] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt, but in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
“The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words “in Palestine” meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by “stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands”.”
Your ire should be directed at the British protectorate for the ambiguity that enabled both sides to feel justified in their believed independence. This initial blunder seems to me to have fostered mutual extremism.
I mean yes. Israel has been from the get go, ever since the planning stage, a settler colonialist Apartheid state. The sales pitch has always been “Let’s steal Palestinian lands and make them second class citizens”.
You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?
Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?
Or maybe you mean in the late 19th century when they bought land from the Ottomans and peacefully settled?
Or maybe you mean in 1917 when the Ottomans deported them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa because the Ottomans were at war with the lands they immigrated from?
Or maybe you mean after 1917 when the obscure instructions of the British Mandate radicalized all of their Arab neighbors against them and galvanized the call to the violent eradication of Israel?
Or maybe you mean in 1921 and 1929 when Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population centers?
Or maybe you mean in 1936-1939 when Arabs launched widespread attacks on both the British and the Jews?
Is it blatantly obvious how ridiculous your claim is yet, or do I need to keep going?
I’m not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.
Everything since 1917 was with the intention of creating a Jewish-majority state in Palestine. Palestine that’s, for obvious reasons, populated with Palestinians basically everywhere. You can’t have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it’s just not physically possible. And then you had a “Jewish state” with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible. Does that sound like the blueprint for an egalitarian state?
You don’t think that the established Jewish territory prior to and during the 20th century has anything to do with modern Israel? You think that the revitalization of a Jewish homeland was unique to Zionist ideology when their occupation of both Galilee and Jerusalem was sanctioned by the Ottomans in 1534-1742?
Of course you can, you just need more than one state. This had been the plan instituted by the British, but the British Mandatory authorities strayed from the plan as I already stated.
No, because like I said you can’t have a state without a majority, or at least a significant minority, of Palestinians. It’s geographically impossible. That goes directly counter to the Zionist goal of a Jewish state with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible.
Completely baseless. Take it up with the British Mandate authority and the League of Nations that wanted them to be able to stand on their own.
I mean yes I do think the British and the League of Nations are as responsible for the current state of Palestine as Zionists.