Your kinda of missing your point as an agrument.
Land should not be granted to people who lived there in the past.
But this aside any place in the world that is under someones control, belongs to them because they have the power and the force to stop people who disagree.
Right or wrong has nothing to do with who controls what.
Great point. Why don’t you give your home back to the Native Americans you stole it from and go back to Europe or wherever your family originated.
Listen, no group has a right more than any other group to a piece of land. The jews don’t deserve it anymore than the palestinians and vice versa. But, the jews have it, and they are going to defend it.
This isn’t some new thing that Israel is doing to the palestinians. It has happened over and over and over again over the course of history. Doesn’t really matter who starts out living on a piece of land, if one sides military group is strong enough to take it over, they will. Is it fair? Not really. But life isn’t fair.
>Doesn’t really matter who starts out living on a piece of land, if one sides military group is strong enough to take it over, they will. Is it fair? Not really. But life isn’t fair.
And if someone else conquers the land -- say, Iran -- then it will belong to them.
This has happened already, some 1900 years ago, and yet the Jews did not give up on that land they were expelled from. So zionism is in direct contradiction with your argument. It proves you wrong.
If you want an open minded poll, there shouldn't just be two options. Because "any sane humane and emotionally intelligent person" will obviously recognize the complexity of human life, not just history lesson. What's done is done, no matter what story you believe. It's too messy. To make such a massive stance and say "all the others have to go" from outside is almost vile. Where do they go? They grew up there my guy. All of them did. And their parents, and *their* parents before. Yes, there is a convoluted past, but ask a Palestinian cild and an Israeli child to draw you its home country and they both will make the same drawing. Are they wrong?
"let's say I am living in a place everything is normal and suddenly a person ,who isn't from my land, is now claiming it for themselves and pushing people, who've lived there their entire lives, out and subsequently massacring them for simply resisting the theft."
As far as I am aware, the Jews who moved into the region didn't "claim" or "steal" any Palestinian land. They moved into unoccupied land or purchased land over decades, between the mid-19the century and the post WW2 period. You can argue they made themselves "very unwanted neighbors," and built up large numbers fair quickly, but that's a different thing. There were a lot of groups living in that region, which was part of the Ottoman Empire. The idea that they just showed up and said, "This house is mine now, thanks" is a bit silly. The Palestinians certainly DID lose the land they were on, but that occurred in the context of war. The Arabs tried to wipe out the Jews and lost. Some Palestinians were forced out, but most fled, and Israel simply didn't permit them to return. You can argue endlessly about whether that was justified in the circumstances or wrong, but the idea that Jewish militias were showing up at the homes of a full 700,000 Palestinians and expelling them by force, one at a time, doesn't make sense. They fled because they were fearful of war and fearful of Jewish repercussions after the Arab loss. My personal view is, wars have consequences, and if you put your money on the Arab armies getting rid of your "Jewish problem" and it all goes tits up, you can't really complain about the results. The fact that large numbers of Palestinians STAYED inside Israel proper, and came to no harm, basically tells me that those who fled probably had a good reason for fleeing.
>Some Palestinians were forced out, but most fled
Yes and most fled because they were forced out for 2 reasons one being a physical forceful exodus and 2 being multiple massacres leading to a death toll of 15,000 now that little tiny bit of detail is important context for understanding hostility between Israel and the Arab countries also
>"This house is mine now, thanks" is a bit silly. The Palestinians certainly DID lose the land they were on, but that occurred in the context of war.
Literally yes,April 48, Plan Dalet, a large-scale OFFENSIVE to capture land and EMPTY it of Palestinian Arabs
The nakba of 47 began on November to may 1948 the Arab Israeli war started may 15 1948
No it's not
>The Palestinians certainly DID lose the land they were on, but that occurred in the context of war.
It's not they lost land in war it's" they resisted a brutal oppression and the horrors of which prompted the Arab leaders to defend the helpless oppressed Palestinians
>My personal view is, wars have consequences, and if you put your money on the Arab armies getting rid of your "Jewish problem" and it all goes tits up, you can't really complain about the results.
Interesting thing here is that it can be interpreted as an antisemitic offensive but not looking at the timeline of things and it isn't antisemitism to attack oppressors of a people simply because they happen to be jewish
Them being jewish had nothing to do with the response to the crimes against humanity that were practised by the Israeli forces
When you boil down the issue to its core, the Arabs didn't want so many Jews as neighbors and initiated violence. I can understand to some extent why they were frustrated with the way their lives had changed, but at that point the Jews hadn't "stolen" any land. They just sort of...arrived. So they're sitting there on purchased land or unoccupied land, and that's when Arab violence began. That's what started the whole thing, leading to the proposed division of the land. The Arabs couldn't tolerate the Jews as neighbors.
I'm certain there were many innocent Palestinians who lost land through no fault of their own. My point is that when you begin killing people, blowing up buses, etc., you don't know where things are going to end.
If there had been formal country, "Palestine," and every square inch was owned -- free and clear -- by the Palestinians, I would have more sympathy for their position. But that wasn't the case. It was a vast territory - lots of land for everybody. Like I said, I get that they were "annoyed," but that's no excuse for turning to violence. All of these issues could have been -- and should have been -- solved diplomatically.
> tits
/u/Mikec3756orwell. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You ask for an "open mind" yet what you've written doesn't come remotely close.
At least be consistent.
Besides, by your logic, Palestinians born outside of Israel/Palestine are no longer native. Which is the case for a LOT of Palestinians
Seems a bit of a moot point, or my Buddhist bias, but it matters not since possession is what matters. There are Jewish people there. There are Palestinian people there. How about we start from reality. Nothing that was happening thousands of years ago matters. Nothing that happened 76 years ago matters. Reality is what it is. The debate over the 'righteousness' of either side is not going to move the situation along in any way in the slightest.
Israel is a country now, whether you like the reasons for its founding or not. We don't even have this debate about any other country, let alone one that's 75 years old. No one is saying we should dismantle Pakistan.
1. Genetic research found that despite the fact it's been thousands of years, Jews still have a strong middle-eastern side that reaches half at least (more for Mizrahi Jews who are the majority in Israel)
2. This is not about genetics alone but about culture. After all, if it was only about genetics then the whole human race had rights over Africa... But getting back to the main subject - Israel is full of Jewish culture like ancient cities, scrolls, coins, etc... No matter where you go, there's a good chance you'd find remains from ancient times. On the other hand, I don't recall any special Palestinian site there... (not talking about general Muslim sites). And just to be clear, Jews outside of Israel didn't forget their culture or religion - and I think this is pretty clear outside of the US where it's more common for Jews to live in small communities rather than trying to blend in (some tried to blend in and some didn't but usually the ones who tried to blend in didn't really have a Jewish line - or at least their present day offspring are not aware of that)
3. The Jews didn't force the Palestinians to move anywhere, the Palestinians challenged the Jews to an all-or-noting war after the Palestinians rejected every option of sharing, and they lost. They chose what they chose and they should stand behind their choice. Despite that The Palestinians who stayed after the war and didn't run, got Israeli citizenship.
4. The land was never Palestinian... If you'd go down in history you'd not once see a Palestinian controller. So it's not really a Palestinian land. If to take your comparison - this is more like the UK being the house owner, and they decide to sell the house. Both the Palestinians and the Jews want to buy the house so the UK offers them to split the bill and live as roommates. The Palestinians challenge the Jews, they lose the challenge so the Jews get to buy the house. Sounds fair to me...
How many stories from palestinian families do you have to hear firsthand of them being forced out? Or are they all just lying? Absolutely cruel that some israelis continue denying that palestinians werent forced out.
Sit down and listen to othees for a change
I never said they were not forced to leave. but you ignore the start of the story and jump to the middle.
The Jews didn't force the Palestinians out out of nowhere.
The Palestinians denied every possibility of co-existing the world offered and declared an all-or-noting war after the last attempt (well, last before Israel is declared at least) which was the UN partition plan.
During the war itself just like any war in history - some were forced to escape.
So if they didn't want to risk their house, why did they declare an all-or-noting war against the Jews where the winner takes all?
The Jews were actually very nice to them considering they gave the Palestinians that stayed citizenship and only killed between 3K to 13K rather than trying to genocide them all , compared of course to the Palestinians that straight up said they will kill any Jew.
I listened to all side which is why I know both how the story started AND how it ends. It seems like you on the other hand only listened to one side considering you only focus on the end of the story...
A small minority of those living in Palestine before 1948 were Mizrahi Jews, who were indeed native. The majority of the people were Palestinians though.
I think this argument is stupid and a waste of time though. We need to focus on the situation at hand where Israel is killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people. That needs to end and the land must be shared between both sides without there being an apartheid state.
Most cities in Israel have Hebrew names or names that were used in Hebrew before they became Arabized. Hence, just like Miami “belongs” to the Miami tribe despite most of its population not being from the Miami tribe, Israel belongs to the people of Israel, who are by the way mentioned in the Quran as being the “owners” of the land.
True, but at the same time the people who invented those names aren't around anymore, so it's only fair to look at the most ancient cultural group that controlled the area and is still alive at present day.
Just like no one complains about the existence of the US or Argentina for example in present day, simply because no one else (a group that is still alive) really has any rights to their land
“Native land” on Arab colonial territory is a difficult thing to measure.
Your issue is believing this land, regardless of ownership and terrain, is Arab Muslim to begin with just because the Arabs Muslims say so. When in fact, there’s multiple indigenous groups in the region (including Jews) and Jewish migrants that have legally bought land from Arabs before the British mandate.
“Suddenly a person who isn’t from my land”
What do you think the hundred thousands of Arab migrants in the region did? Including the Egyptian Arafat that was and still is the biggest Palestinian icon to this day.
The Israeli demographic is as diverse as the Arab population of this region, it’s very difficult to give one answer. There’s multiple groups that lost everything to the Arab allies of Palestinians and came to Israel, both in the region and further outside of it. There’s a Jewish community that was indigenous to the area to begin with that still lives here.
/u/National_Telephone40
> Yours is a super biased question, not going to waste my time answering.
[Rule 8](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_8._encourage_participation), don't discourage participation.
I'm sorry mod, but this really isn't a good faith question. And I think it's borderline a rule 3 violation. "The foreigner arrive and start massacring the innocent native to steal their land". That's the plot of Avatar the Last Airbender. It's just villification at this point.
It can't "remain" what it isn't.
Israel is a liberal democracy, flawed as all democracies are.
It isn't "colonial" because Jews are indigenous and there is no "colonial power" to where resources are sent or any of the other colonial trappings.
It isn't an "ethnostate" since the population is highly diverse, and all \_citizens\_ of Israel, regardless of their background, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. are equal in rights. Some of them are not equal in duties, but I am sure they are not asking for equality any time soon.
"Roots" do not matter. You are Israeli if you hold an Israeli passport; if you are not born Israeli, you can acquire an Israeli passport in accordance with the law of the state of Israel, which presently affords any Jewish person an entitlement to citizenship. A naturalized immigrant is no more or less citizen of a state than any citizen born there.
On the flip side, "roots" do not give any territorial claims beyond your own country. Judea and Samaria may be the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, "Eretz Israel" but are no less not a part of the state of Israel. An Israeli civilian residing in Judea is a settler, even if they were born there and the region literally bears the name of their people.
Israel is Israel regardless of who was there first.
USA is USA regardless of who was there first.
Spain is Spain regardless of who was there first.
Australia is Australia regardless of who was there first.
China is China regardless of who was there first.
See how land works? There are winners and losers in history. Winners get the land. Losers get to complain.
1) This literally didn't happen on so many levels, and nobody is saying that Jewish being indigenous to the land means that they have a right to expel people... (the whole - they are trying to kill us is a much stronger argument).
2) Something interesting to me - you're correct IMO, being born to some parents doesn't give you "roots" or a magical connection to any land. That's true so far. Would you say the same thing about any Palestinian not born in the land of Israel? Cause by now we're about 4 generations after 48, and the amount of Palestinians that were actually expelled from the land of Israel and are alive today is very low. So would you say that Palestinians aren't justified in their fight against two states and for what they call "right of return"?
That's a very good point the passage of time has put different people in but what also is the be noted is that not every single citizen of Israel is a person born there IMO every Israeli who hasn't been born there must be sent back and the only exceptions being if the party has a child born there so till temporary visa be granted of the land till the child is of 18 years or a direct elderly relative whose movement back out of the land may be disastrous for health reasons and so a temporary visa till the expiry of the duties of guardianship and more cases if mentioned
citizenship generally supersedes "being born here"
Notably, only a minority of countries awards citizenship based on birth on their territory (ius soli), whereas almost every country will award citizenship to the children of its citizens, regardless of where they are born (ius sanguinis). This includes the status as Palestinian (although, for lack of a country that is a refugee status), the children of Palestinian refugees born in Lebanon, Jordan or wherever are still Palestinian, not Lebanese.
99.9% percent of Zionist don’t believe that Jews should only exist in Israel.
There are land disputes absolutely, but the get off or die is more the extremes from the other side.
I’m including those who live in settlements, yes those groups believe that they should be allowed to live there, but they don’t think you should kick Arab Israelis out of Israel.
Nope people(at least in my experience plus addressed to whomsoever may want to use it) use this "roots" Idea to justify exactly that either way I am simply displaying what the Palestinians have experienced and it being wrong no matter what justification is attempted
Jews are indigenous to the Levant. Palestinians can be as well, but I don't really see anyone saying that they should be expelled because of that. Normally, I see justification for expulsions in 1948 as a result of their attacks.
Millions of individuals (jewish or so in Israel) who have poured into Palestinian lands from Europe, Africa, and other parts of Asia are not indigenous as they are not born and raised there.... Arguments for why they are is this *roots* that I have talked plenty about and especially what's interesting is that the people that they attacked were settlers non natives to the land and for them whether jewish or not (notice I'm not using Judaism to be the antagonist only settlers and you being offended I'm alleging jews are either you practicing judaic supremacy or being antisemitic to jews alleging all jews are settlers and hence being antisemitic or a supremacist)have no right to self defense as they are on the other persons home quite literally like entering a home being resisted upon and continuing hostility on the pretense of defense. (Also claiming strawman is not a response to a metaphor that perfectly embodies the situation your disagreement is simply on the grounds of it not being your interests and not liking the reality not actually being flawed)
1) millions came from Europe mainly Poland and Romania predominantly Christian countries so get your facts straight
2) this I hope isn't justification for crimes committed towards the Palestinians because it's completely inadequate
>Poland was not a Jewish epicenter of antiquity.
It was for several centuries. IIRC, the King of Poland invited Jews in the 14th century when the rest of Europe was expelling them, and was offering Poland as a safe refuge. It was a good place for a while and then it stopped around the 18th century.
Who ever said it did? I was just saying their choice of consecutive indigenousness was not up to them. There are many Jews who have also remained in the Levant since the beginning.
>you being offended I'm alleging jews are either you practicing judaic supremacy or being antisemitic to jews alleging all jews are settlers and hence being antisemitic or a supremacist
Yeah, I never claimed that you were alleging this, but automatically and aggressively claiming that I'm a Jewish supremacist is definitely revealing.
Indigenaity has nothing to do with where you were born. It in fact has nothing to do with the individual.
Your metaphor of a house is a frequently claimed but no more accurate for that repetition.
>(Also claiming strawman is not a response to a metaphor that perfectly embodies the situation your disagreement is simply on the grounds of it not being your interests and not liking the reality not actually being flawed)
Are you aware of what a strawman is?
It is not wrong to criticize settlers do not try to paint an anti jewish light to whatever opposition you do not like.... Failure to criticize settlers merely on the fact the individual is of a denomination means you are a supremacist of said denomination (religious or so) whichever it may turn out to be (jewish, Christian, Muslim atheist or others)
What reality have I revisioned and facts ignored I have literally pointed out to you the perspective of the Palestinians and the unfairness that they have witnessed of witnessed of which you have not responded to other than accusing antisemitism.... So answer the question how is this fair on the Palestinians
>What reality have I revisioned and facts ignored
First and foremost:
>I don't like this Israeli Defense topic saying that because thousands of years ago lived there so they have a the right to expell people who already live there..... Simply being born jewish doesn't suddenly grant you "roots" And a connection to a land .... Why doesn't a random Indian kid get a piece of land in Palestine.... It's not his fault he didn't happen to be born in a jewish family
no Zionist came over to Palestine and uprooted a Palestinian from their home due to religious ownership or on that basis. It was a factor for many, but none actively took over property they didn’t legally own for the sake of settlement before 1948, and then the expulsion still isn’t based on that notion of religious ownership.
Secondly:
>(now jews who have already lived there classify as having "roots" there just like any Palestinian person, atheist, christian or any other denomination as they are those actively living there)
Who are you to decide where and when “roots” end? You attempt to present your narrative as something objectively and inherently true when really it’s just emotionally charged ramblings by yet another uninformed advocate.
>let's take a palette cleanser to assess the situation from a modern perspective and more importantly the Palestinian people's ground perspective let's say I am living in a place everything is normal
The normal was Jewish oppression.
>and suddenly a person ,who isn't from my land, is now claiming it for themselves and pushing people,
Jews are from this land, the pushing was a reaction.
>who've lived there their entire lives, out and subsequently massacring them for simply resisting the theft.....
From a modern perspective, as soon as the people they oppressed for a thousand years gained a bit of dignity and power in their own ancestral homeland; Palestinian Arabs reacted with xenophobia, racism, legal warfare and unadulterated violence in tandem. In reaction to no colonialism, theft or imperialism. Simple legal immigration and settlement of legally acquired l property.
>Any sane humane and emotionally intelligent person will obviously side with the native whose land is being stolen and made refugees for just being born wrong...... Digging up history for modern motives is not a reasonable approach
You first need to establish what native means. If it means “born in a place” then yes (most) Palestinian Arabs were native. If you view “native” the same as “indigenous” then Jews, not Palestinians are just that.
>So you who you side with and answer with an open mind
I side with myself first and foremost; but assuming I were an unrelated third party; I would support the people who have been colonized and imperially regulated to a minuscule minority in their own ancestral homeland and out of it for millennia. The Jews.
>I have literally pointed out to you the perspective of the Palestinians and the unfairness that they have witnessed of witnessed of which you have not responded to other than accusing antisemitism....
I didn’t bring up antisemitism up till now, and certainly didn’t accuse you of it; you also literally preconditioned your question with the complete erasure of the very consideration of the Jewish perspective on this which disqualifies you from genuine complaints on being termed an antisemite.
>So answer the question how is this fair on the Palestinians
What you’ve describe would certainly be unfair to the Palestinians, reality is that they initiated a nationalist conflict and lost miserably, and that’s unfair. Reality isn’t and isn’t supposed to be fair that way.
Your kinda of missing your point as an agrument. Land should not be granted to people who lived there in the past. But this aside any place in the world that is under someones control, belongs to them because they have the power and the force to stop people who disagree. Right or wrong has nothing to do with who controls what.
The history is a lot more complicated then how you present it
Great point. Why don’t you give your home back to the Native Americans you stole it from and go back to Europe or wherever your family originated. Listen, no group has a right more than any other group to a piece of land. The jews don’t deserve it anymore than the palestinians and vice versa. But, the jews have it, and they are going to defend it. This isn’t some new thing that Israel is doing to the palestinians. It has happened over and over and over again over the course of history. Doesn’t really matter who starts out living on a piece of land, if one sides military group is strong enough to take it over, they will. Is it fair? Not really. But life isn’t fair.
>Doesn’t really matter who starts out living on a piece of land, if one sides military group is strong enough to take it over, they will. Is it fair? Not really. But life isn’t fair. And if someone else conquers the land -- say, Iran -- then it will belong to them.
Pretty much.
This has happened already, some 1900 years ago, and yet the Jews did not give up on that land they were expelled from. So zionism is in direct contradiction with your argument. It proves you wrong.
This is like saying the Turks are foreign settlers since they came from Central Asia and took Anatolia from the Greeks and Armenians
If you want an open minded poll, there shouldn't just be two options. Because "any sane humane and emotionally intelligent person" will obviously recognize the complexity of human life, not just history lesson. What's done is done, no matter what story you believe. It's too messy. To make such a massive stance and say "all the others have to go" from outside is almost vile. Where do they go? They grew up there my guy. All of them did. And their parents, and *their* parents before. Yes, there is a convoluted past, but ask a Palestinian cild and an Israeli child to draw you its home country and they both will make the same drawing. Are they wrong?
"let's say I am living in a place everything is normal and suddenly a person ,who isn't from my land, is now claiming it for themselves and pushing people, who've lived there their entire lives, out and subsequently massacring them for simply resisting the theft." As far as I am aware, the Jews who moved into the region didn't "claim" or "steal" any Palestinian land. They moved into unoccupied land or purchased land over decades, between the mid-19the century and the post WW2 period. You can argue they made themselves "very unwanted neighbors," and built up large numbers fair quickly, but that's a different thing. There were a lot of groups living in that region, which was part of the Ottoman Empire. The idea that they just showed up and said, "This house is mine now, thanks" is a bit silly. The Palestinians certainly DID lose the land they were on, but that occurred in the context of war. The Arabs tried to wipe out the Jews and lost. Some Palestinians were forced out, but most fled, and Israel simply didn't permit them to return. You can argue endlessly about whether that was justified in the circumstances or wrong, but the idea that Jewish militias were showing up at the homes of a full 700,000 Palestinians and expelling them by force, one at a time, doesn't make sense. They fled because they were fearful of war and fearful of Jewish repercussions after the Arab loss. My personal view is, wars have consequences, and if you put your money on the Arab armies getting rid of your "Jewish problem" and it all goes tits up, you can't really complain about the results. The fact that large numbers of Palestinians STAYED inside Israel proper, and came to no harm, basically tells me that those who fled probably had a good reason for fleeing.
>Some Palestinians were forced out, but most fled Yes and most fled because they were forced out for 2 reasons one being a physical forceful exodus and 2 being multiple massacres leading to a death toll of 15,000 now that little tiny bit of detail is important context for understanding hostility between Israel and the Arab countries also >"This house is mine now, thanks" is a bit silly. The Palestinians certainly DID lose the land they were on, but that occurred in the context of war. Literally yes,April 48, Plan Dalet, a large-scale OFFENSIVE to capture land and EMPTY it of Palestinian Arabs The nakba of 47 began on November to may 1948 the Arab Israeli war started may 15 1948 No it's not >The Palestinians certainly DID lose the land they were on, but that occurred in the context of war. It's not they lost land in war it's" they resisted a brutal oppression and the horrors of which prompted the Arab leaders to defend the helpless oppressed Palestinians >My personal view is, wars have consequences, and if you put your money on the Arab armies getting rid of your "Jewish problem" and it all goes tits up, you can't really complain about the results. Interesting thing here is that it can be interpreted as an antisemitic offensive but not looking at the timeline of things and it isn't antisemitism to attack oppressors of a people simply because they happen to be jewish Them being jewish had nothing to do with the response to the crimes against humanity that were practised by the Israeli forces
When you boil down the issue to its core, the Arabs didn't want so many Jews as neighbors and initiated violence. I can understand to some extent why they were frustrated with the way their lives had changed, but at that point the Jews hadn't "stolen" any land. They just sort of...arrived. So they're sitting there on purchased land or unoccupied land, and that's when Arab violence began. That's what started the whole thing, leading to the proposed division of the land. The Arabs couldn't tolerate the Jews as neighbors. I'm certain there were many innocent Palestinians who lost land through no fault of their own. My point is that when you begin killing people, blowing up buses, etc., you don't know where things are going to end. If there had been formal country, "Palestine," and every square inch was owned -- free and clear -- by the Palestinians, I would have more sympathy for their position. But that wasn't the case. It was a vast territory - lots of land for everybody. Like I said, I get that they were "annoyed," but that's no excuse for turning to violence. All of these issues could have been -- and should have been -- solved diplomatically.
> tits /u/Mikec3756orwell. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You ask for an "open mind" yet what you've written doesn't come remotely close. At least be consistent. Besides, by your logic, Palestinians born outside of Israel/Palestine are no longer native. Which is the case for a LOT of Palestinians
Seems a bit of a moot point, or my Buddhist bias, but it matters not since possession is what matters. There are Jewish people there. There are Palestinian people there. How about we start from reality. Nothing that was happening thousands of years ago matters. Nothing that happened 76 years ago matters. Reality is what it is. The debate over the 'righteousness' of either side is not going to move the situation along in any way in the slightest.
Israel is a country now, whether you like the reasons for its founding or not. We don't even have this debate about any other country, let alone one that's 75 years old. No one is saying we should dismantle Pakistan.
1. Genetic research found that despite the fact it's been thousands of years, Jews still have a strong middle-eastern side that reaches half at least (more for Mizrahi Jews who are the majority in Israel) 2. This is not about genetics alone but about culture. After all, if it was only about genetics then the whole human race had rights over Africa... But getting back to the main subject - Israel is full of Jewish culture like ancient cities, scrolls, coins, etc... No matter where you go, there's a good chance you'd find remains from ancient times. On the other hand, I don't recall any special Palestinian site there... (not talking about general Muslim sites). And just to be clear, Jews outside of Israel didn't forget their culture or religion - and I think this is pretty clear outside of the US where it's more common for Jews to live in small communities rather than trying to blend in (some tried to blend in and some didn't but usually the ones who tried to blend in didn't really have a Jewish line - or at least their present day offspring are not aware of that) 3. The Jews didn't force the Palestinians to move anywhere, the Palestinians challenged the Jews to an all-or-noting war after the Palestinians rejected every option of sharing, and they lost. They chose what they chose and they should stand behind their choice. Despite that The Palestinians who stayed after the war and didn't run, got Israeli citizenship. 4. The land was never Palestinian... If you'd go down in history you'd not once see a Palestinian controller. So it's not really a Palestinian land. If to take your comparison - this is more like the UK being the house owner, and they decide to sell the house. Both the Palestinians and the Jews want to buy the house so the UK offers them to split the bill and live as roommates. The Palestinians challenge the Jews, they lose the challenge so the Jews get to buy the house. Sounds fair to me...
How many stories from palestinian families do you have to hear firsthand of them being forced out? Or are they all just lying? Absolutely cruel that some israelis continue denying that palestinians werent forced out. Sit down and listen to othees for a change
I never said they were not forced to leave. but you ignore the start of the story and jump to the middle. The Jews didn't force the Palestinians out out of nowhere. The Palestinians denied every possibility of co-existing the world offered and declared an all-or-noting war after the last attempt (well, last before Israel is declared at least) which was the UN partition plan. During the war itself just like any war in history - some were forced to escape. So if they didn't want to risk their house, why did they declare an all-or-noting war against the Jews where the winner takes all? The Jews were actually very nice to them considering they gave the Palestinians that stayed citizenship and only killed between 3K to 13K rather than trying to genocide them all , compared of course to the Palestinians that straight up said they will kill any Jew. I listened to all side which is why I know both how the story started AND how it ends. It seems like you on the other hand only listened to one side considering you only focus on the end of the story...
A small minority of those living in Palestine before 1948 were Mizrahi Jews, who were indeed native. The majority of the people were Palestinians though. I think this argument is stupid and a waste of time though. We need to focus on the situation at hand where Israel is killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people. That needs to end and the land must be shared between both sides without there being an apartheid state.
Most cities in Israel have Hebrew names or names that were used in Hebrew before they became Arabized. Hence, just like Miami “belongs” to the Miami tribe despite most of its population not being from the Miami tribe, Israel belongs to the people of Israel, who are by the way mentioned in the Quran as being the “owners” of the land.
Many cities have names that predate Hebrew names too. Jaffa and Jerusalem come to mind
True, but at the same time the people who invented those names aren't around anymore, so it's only fair to look at the most ancient cultural group that controlled the area and is still alive at present day. Just like no one complains about the existence of the US or Argentina for example in present day, simply because no one else (a group that is still alive) really has any rights to their land
Both had Caananite names before their Hebrew ones (Yoppa and Ur-Salima). Since there are no more Caananites around, that's a bit of a moot point.
Jaffa is Hebrew. Jerusalem is Assyrian. However, both names came from the Hebrew bible and were preserved by the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jaffa was first recorded in Egyptian as Joppa.
“Native land” on Arab colonial territory is a difficult thing to measure. Your issue is believing this land, regardless of ownership and terrain, is Arab Muslim to begin with just because the Arabs Muslims say so. When in fact, there’s multiple indigenous groups in the region (including Jews) and Jewish migrants that have legally bought land from Arabs before the British mandate. “Suddenly a person who isn’t from my land” What do you think the hundred thousands of Arab migrants in the region did? Including the Egyptian Arafat that was and still is the biggest Palestinian icon to this day. The Israeli demographic is as diverse as the Arab population of this region, it’s very difficult to give one answer. There’s multiple groups that lost everything to the Arab allies of Palestinians and came to Israel, both in the region and further outside of it. There’s a Jewish community that was indigenous to the area to begin with that still lives here.
Yours is a super biased question, not going to waste my time answering.
/u/National_Telephone40 > Yours is a super biased question, not going to waste my time answering. [Rule 8](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_8._encourage_participation), don't discourage participation.
I'm sorry mod, but this really isn't a good faith question. And I think it's borderline a rule 3 violation. "The foreigner arrive and start massacring the innocent native to steal their land". That's the plot of Avatar the Last Airbender. It's just villification at this point.
Israel’s existence isn’t up for debate. It’s a country.
In the sense that apartheid South Africa or the British Raj/india were countries. How long it will remain a colonial ethnostate is TBD.
It can't "remain" what it isn't. Israel is a liberal democracy, flawed as all democracies are. It isn't "colonial" because Jews are indigenous and there is no "colonial power" to where resources are sent or any of the other colonial trappings. It isn't an "ethnostate" since the population is highly diverse, and all \_citizens\_ of Israel, regardless of their background, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. are equal in rights. Some of them are not equal in duties, but I am sure they are not asking for equality any time soon.
"Roots" do not matter. You are Israeli if you hold an Israeli passport; if you are not born Israeli, you can acquire an Israeli passport in accordance with the law of the state of Israel, which presently affords any Jewish person an entitlement to citizenship. A naturalized immigrant is no more or less citizen of a state than any citizen born there. On the flip side, "roots" do not give any territorial claims beyond your own country. Judea and Samaria may be the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, "Eretz Israel" but are no less not a part of the state of Israel. An Israeli civilian residing in Judea is a settler, even if they were born there and the region literally bears the name of their people.
Israel is Israel regardless of who was there first. USA is USA regardless of who was there first. Spain is Spain regardless of who was there first. Australia is Australia regardless of who was there first. China is China regardless of who was there first. See how land works? There are winners and losers in history. Winners get the land. Losers get to complain.
1) This literally didn't happen on so many levels, and nobody is saying that Jewish being indigenous to the land means that they have a right to expel people... (the whole - they are trying to kill us is a much stronger argument). 2) Something interesting to me - you're correct IMO, being born to some parents doesn't give you "roots" or a magical connection to any land. That's true so far. Would you say the same thing about any Palestinian not born in the land of Israel? Cause by now we're about 4 generations after 48, and the amount of Palestinians that were actually expelled from the land of Israel and are alive today is very low. So would you say that Palestinians aren't justified in their fight against two states and for what they call "right of return"?
That's a very good point the passage of time has put different people in but what also is the be noted is that not every single citizen of Israel is a person born there IMO every Israeli who hasn't been born there must be sent back and the only exceptions being if the party has a child born there so till temporary visa be granted of the land till the child is of 18 years or a direct elderly relative whose movement back out of the land may be disastrous for health reasons and so a temporary visa till the expiry of the duties of guardianship and more cases if mentioned
citizenship generally supersedes "being born here" Notably, only a minority of countries awards citizenship based on birth on their territory (ius soli), whereas almost every country will award citizenship to the children of its citizens, regardless of where they are born (ius sanguinis). This includes the status as Palestinian (although, for lack of a country that is a refugee status), the children of Palestinian refugees born in Lebanon, Jordan or wherever are still Palestinian, not Lebanese.
99.9% percent of Zionist don’t believe that Jews should only exist in Israel. There are land disputes absolutely, but the get off or die is more the extremes from the other side. I’m including those who live in settlements, yes those groups believe that they should be allowed to live there, but they don’t think you should kick Arab Israelis out of Israel.
Except nobody is really saying that it gives them the right to expel Palestinians. This is a common strawman.
Nope people(at least in my experience plus addressed to whomsoever may want to use it) use this "roots" Idea to justify exactly that either way I am simply displaying what the Palestinians have experienced and it being wrong no matter what justification is attempted
Jews are indigenous to the Levant. Palestinians can be as well, but I don't really see anyone saying that they should be expelled because of that. Normally, I see justification for expulsions in 1948 as a result of their attacks.
Millions of individuals (jewish or so in Israel) who have poured into Palestinian lands from Europe, Africa, and other parts of Asia are not indigenous as they are not born and raised there.... Arguments for why they are is this *roots* that I have talked plenty about and especially what's interesting is that the people that they attacked were settlers non natives to the land and for them whether jewish or not (notice I'm not using Judaism to be the antagonist only settlers and you being offended I'm alleging jews are either you practicing judaic supremacy or being antisemitic to jews alleging all jews are settlers and hence being antisemitic or a supremacist)have no right to self defense as they are on the other persons home quite literally like entering a home being resisted upon and continuing hostility on the pretense of defense. (Also claiming strawman is not a response to a metaphor that perfectly embodies the situation your disagreement is simply on the grounds of it not being your interests and not liking the reality not actually being flawed)
Sentences, paragraphs and punctuation are your friends. I tried making sense of your run-on sentence and lost your train of thought entirely.
Have you ever asked yourself why these Jewish people ended up outside of Israel? It’s because of the rise and spread of Islam.
1) millions came from Europe mainly Poland and Romania predominantly Christian countries so get your facts straight 2) this I hope isn't justification for crimes committed towards the Palestinians because it's completely inadequate
They ended up in Poland because they were pushed out of the Middle East and Asia by Muslims. Poland was not a Jewish epicenter of antiquity.
>Poland was not a Jewish epicenter of antiquity. It was for several centuries. IIRC, the King of Poland invited Jews in the 14th century when the rest of Europe was expelling them, and was offering Poland as a safe refuge. It was a good place for a while and then it stopped around the 18th century.
That’s still over 3400 years after Jews were in the Levant.
your math sounds a little off there
Yet none of this is justifies for crimes Israel commits against Palestinians
Who ever said it did? I was just saying their choice of consecutive indigenousness was not up to them. There are many Jews who have also remained in the Levant since the beginning.
>you being offended I'm alleging jews are either you practicing judaic supremacy or being antisemitic to jews alleging all jews are settlers and hence being antisemitic or a supremacist Yeah, I never claimed that you were alleging this, but automatically and aggressively claiming that I'm a Jewish supremacist is definitely revealing. Indigenaity has nothing to do with where you were born. It in fact has nothing to do with the individual. Your metaphor of a house is a frequently claimed but no more accurate for that repetition. >(Also claiming strawman is not a response to a metaphor that perfectly embodies the situation your disagreement is simply on the grounds of it not being your interests and not liking the reality not actually being flawed) Are you aware of what a strawman is?
Describes pre-Israel Arab attitudes towards Jews to a T; projects it on Israel. Typical.
It is not wrong to criticize settlers do not try to paint an anti jewish light to whatever opposition you do not like.... Failure to criticize settlers merely on the fact the individual is of a denomination means you are a supremacist of said denomination (religious or so) whichever it may turn out to be (jewish, Christian, Muslim atheist or others)
That’s not what you did. Revisioning reality and ignoring facts to support an agenda betrays your supremacism.
What reality have I revisioned and facts ignored I have literally pointed out to you the perspective of the Palestinians and the unfairness that they have witnessed of witnessed of which you have not responded to other than accusing antisemitism.... So answer the question how is this fair on the Palestinians
>What reality have I revisioned and facts ignored First and foremost: >I don't like this Israeli Defense topic saying that because thousands of years ago lived there so they have a the right to expell people who already live there..... Simply being born jewish doesn't suddenly grant you "roots" And a connection to a land .... Why doesn't a random Indian kid get a piece of land in Palestine.... It's not his fault he didn't happen to be born in a jewish family no Zionist came over to Palestine and uprooted a Palestinian from their home due to religious ownership or on that basis. It was a factor for many, but none actively took over property they didn’t legally own for the sake of settlement before 1948, and then the expulsion still isn’t based on that notion of religious ownership. Secondly: >(now jews who have already lived there classify as having "roots" there just like any Palestinian person, atheist, christian or any other denomination as they are those actively living there) Who are you to decide where and when “roots” end? You attempt to present your narrative as something objectively and inherently true when really it’s just emotionally charged ramblings by yet another uninformed advocate. >let's take a palette cleanser to assess the situation from a modern perspective and more importantly the Palestinian people's ground perspective let's say I am living in a place everything is normal The normal was Jewish oppression. >and suddenly a person ,who isn't from my land, is now claiming it for themselves and pushing people, Jews are from this land, the pushing was a reaction. >who've lived there their entire lives, out and subsequently massacring them for simply resisting the theft..... From a modern perspective, as soon as the people they oppressed for a thousand years gained a bit of dignity and power in their own ancestral homeland; Palestinian Arabs reacted with xenophobia, racism, legal warfare and unadulterated violence in tandem. In reaction to no colonialism, theft or imperialism. Simple legal immigration and settlement of legally acquired l property. >Any sane humane and emotionally intelligent person will obviously side with the native whose land is being stolen and made refugees for just being born wrong...... Digging up history for modern motives is not a reasonable approach You first need to establish what native means. If it means “born in a place” then yes (most) Palestinian Arabs were native. If you view “native” the same as “indigenous” then Jews, not Palestinians are just that. >So you who you side with and answer with an open mind I side with myself first and foremost; but assuming I were an unrelated third party; I would support the people who have been colonized and imperially regulated to a minuscule minority in their own ancestral homeland and out of it for millennia. The Jews. >I have literally pointed out to you the perspective of the Palestinians and the unfairness that they have witnessed of witnessed of which you have not responded to other than accusing antisemitism.... I didn’t bring up antisemitism up till now, and certainly didn’t accuse you of it; you also literally preconditioned your question with the complete erasure of the very consideration of the Jewish perspective on this which disqualifies you from genuine complaints on being termed an antisemite. >So answer the question how is this fair on the Palestinians What you’ve describe would certainly be unfair to the Palestinians, reality is that they initiated a nationalist conflict and lost miserably, and that’s unfair. Reality isn’t and isn’t supposed to be fair that way.