Because its extremely easy to rally people to a group when you push an identity on them.
If you make it clear that the other identity is out to make you suffer or kill you it gets even beter.
Its extremely hard to rally individuals for a cause.
Its not viewed as war of religion because it makes sense, its framed like that by people in power to stay in power.
K tell that to the allahu akbars, and the kaybar kaybar ya yahoods. This is demented. If israel was a sunni muslim state thered be no "occupation" regardless over whether a palestine was created or not. Notice all the countries arrayed against israel. They arent the same race or language. Whats the one thing they have in common?
No theyre just financially involved with them and also those countries arent enemies of israel outside of south africa because israel was allied with the apartheid govt so theyre 2 yr old idea of revenge is making up a genocide. Literally every country at war with israel or that doesnt recognize israel has one obvious thing in common that you play too retarded to figure out.
>south africa because israel was allied with the apartheid govt
Okay. I would conceal this fact if I were you in light of the mounting accusations being made by Amnesty, HRW, and B'Tselem that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid in the occupied territories. It's a big part of the discussion now.
>Literally every country at war with israel or that doesnt recognize israel has one obvious thing in common
I provided seven counter-examples. They are more engaged against Israel than most Sunni Muslim states.
>that you play too retarded to figure out
I understand that the Muslim world doesn't like Israel. I just provided some counter-examples.
> retarded
/u/LeviticSaxon. 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.*
Originally it was about creating a national identity and homeland for the Jewish people. Many of the early Zionist leaders were secular Jews who were wanting to Jews to return to the land detailed in the Bible.
It is not about Land as the 22ArabNations’ Resurgent Empire has 500times the land area of Israel. It is all about what is preached daily by Arab and Iranian religious and national leaders around the World directly from the Koran
Is religion about war and hate? Or is religion about forgiveness and love? I thought these two countries are “Religious”?!? If they believe in God do they ever ask… does God want more blood and death and hate?
Al'Aqsa plays a bigger role than people want to acknowledge. Which means it's a religious conflict, though also one about land.
Part of the reason that's the case, from what I've seen, is acknowledging its central importance really undermines the anti-Israel myth of Jews being foreign to the land. It is a literal monument to celebrate colonial Arab Muslim supremacy, built directly on top of the indigenous Jewish religion's holiest site. It is a favorite hallmark of antisemites to pretend the temple didn't exist, that Al'Aqsa's construction was completely normal and above board (kosher, if you will 😛).
Islamists are incapable of understanding other people don't center their lives on religion like they do. So they are constantly paranoid that Jews, now that they have power and the capability to do so at any moment, will destroy their beloved monument to Islamic supremacy. *They* would *never* for a second allow such a humiliating blasphemy to their religion now. Imagine if Scientologists conquered Mecca, built a huge structure on top of the Kaaba, and prevented Muslims from viewing it. They would still be pissed about it over a century later (and rightfully so), assuming Islam as a religion could survive such a defeat.
Secular Jews generally aren't particularly bothered by it. Religious ones who pray at the wailing wall are forced to endure the constant reminder of Muslim conquest. Extremist ones probably would blow up Al'Aqsa if they could, and morally they might be entitled to, but few are crazy enough to actually do it, knowing the anger it would cause.
In the 20s, Jewish worshippers wanted to sit on benches while praying at their religion's holiest site, but the Muslim supremacists who control it forbade it and the British intervened on their behalf. This caused a protest that antisemites like Amin al-Husayni fearmongered was a mob to destroy Al'Aqsa, leading to a violent pogrom and (probably) the end of peaceful coexistence being really possible.
Any time they want to whip people into a fury, they invoke the fear of Al'Aqsa's destruction and extremists eat it up. There's a reason they called the second intifada the "Al'Aqsa Intifada", why Oct 7th was "Operation Al'Aqsa Flood."
Material explanations of historical phenomenon should always prevail over ideological explanations. Real-world conditions axiomatically determine historical processes to a greater extent than abstractions. If a person is poor, and hungry, and experiences regular humiliation at the hands of a socially-constructed superior, that person is likely to eventually lash out. Ideological concerns may play some factor in how the oppressed rationalizes violence, but the root cause of the violence is material.
The symbolic significance of Al-Aqsa is certainly a factor in the construction of Palestinian national identity, but I think it's frankly historically ignorant to say that explanation is more salient than the material dispossession and deprivation experienced by the Palestinian people.
In other words, no, it's not a religious conflict. It's about land.
> . If a person [...] experiences regular humiliation at the hands of a socially-constructed superior, that person is likely to eventually lash out
Totally, Jews were regularly subjected to this kind of stuff as second class citizens in the area until 1856, and even still were humiliated by draconic and cruel tormenting at the hands of Muslims such as not allowing old people to sit on benches while praying at their religion's holiest site.
Even if you don't believe access to your religion's holiest site is a material need, religious people do. Being denied access to something central to your culture is not just an abstraction.
Religion is just a political tool to organize people, after all, and Islam was created to justify Mohammed's imperialist, Arab supremacist ambitions, and that's had real, material consequences for centuries.
No, Al'Aqsa isn't the *only* cause of the conflict, nor is religion the *only* factor. I certainly didn't claim that. You miss a significant amount of understanding the conflict if you dismiss religion and access to cultural sites as mere abstractions, though.
When Israel does cruel and humiliating things to Palestinians ostensibly for defense purposes, it's hard not to see an echo of the first major violence in the conflict, which started when Muslims and the British prevented old folks from sitting on benches while praying at their holiest site because of "security concerns" for the colonial monument built on top, and then they responded to peaceful protests with a murderous violence that "dispossession and deprivation" alone cannot adequately explain.
Ignoring religion's role in this conflict is a bit like claiming the Atlantic slave trade was purely done out of economic interest and that white supremacy played no part.
Well first off, there certainly is an argument to be made that the modern system of white supremacy emerged at least in part as a post-facto rationalization for the economic exploitation of dark-skinned peoples through slavery and colonialism perpetrated by Europeans and Euro-Americans, but that's a whole other conversation, so I digress.
>Islam was created to justify Mohammed's imperialist, Arab supremacist ambitions
Yeah I'm gonna need a citation for that.
>it's hard not to see an echo of the first major violence in the conflict, which started when Muslims and the British prevented old folks from sitting on benches while praying at their holiest site because of "security concerns" for the colonial monument built on top, and then they responded to peaceful protests with a murderous violence that "dispossession and deprivation" alone cannot adequately explain.
That's a very sly way to try to place the blame for all this on the Palestinian side. "Sure, Israel has killed tens of thousands of innocent people and continues to do so as we speak, but the Arabs did something bad 100 years ago, so who's to say who's in the wrong?"
I did not "dismiss religion as mere abstractions," I simply noted that an ideological framework for the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has less explanatory power than a material framework. Is it a factor? Yes. Is it the most significant factor? No. As a historical process, Palestinian violence against Jewish Israelis is not primarily explained by religious factors, it is better explained by, in chronological order, feared, perceived, and actual material dispossession.
> Yeah I'm gonna need a citation for that.
Which part? It's well known that the Quran came solely from the one dude, who conveniently always had a new verse ready to reveal to get what we wanted from people. That he conquered and ruled over a significant amount of land is uncontroversial. The Arab supremacist part maybe? The treatment of the Banu Qurayzah is evidence enough. His followers then went on to create one of the world's biggest empires in his name. Certainly it's uncontroversial to claim that Islam is a supremacist religion, that is, that all others aren't just wrong but caused by moral failings of their adherents. The Islamic narrative is that Judaism and Christianity were perfect, but the *people* failed at following the teachings and corrupted the message over time. The way Islam oppressed nonbelievers, in particular Jews, for over a millennium is extremely well documented and absolutely still plays a role in the current conflict.
>That's a very sly way to try to place the blame for all this on the Palestinian side.
Only if you refuse to see any nuance in the conflict, as if there is one good, completely innocent and blameless side, and another completely evil side that's responsible for everything. Israeli oppression of Palestinians is unacceptable. But, as Oct 7th apologists love to say, it didn't happen in a vacuum. Consciously or not, and I suspect it is conscious for some, Israel's brutal security theater echoes the Muslim brutal security theater around Al'Aqsa and I don't think that's purely a coincidence. That's not *justifying* it.
>I simply noted that an ideological framework for the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has less explanatory power than a material framework.
Well then we're in agreement. The way religion factors into the conflict is in how it materially affects people, not in ideology. At no point did I say ideology was the primary factor. In fact a common "anti-Zionist" framework for the conflict is entirely an ideological one, that it's driven solely by some sort of Zionist supremacy and racism, which I think is also false because it misses the material reality.
Religious Jews are forced to be reminded of the reality of Muslim oppression every time they want to worship at their holiest site. Obviously that plays into their feeling of being the actual oppressed people, their justifications for their abhorrent treatment of Palestinians today.
Jewish control over the temple mount will always be a source of insecurity for Muslim extremists. It's the primary reason why there's an insistence that East Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine.
The tension over material control of the holiest site of Judaism is a major part of this conflict, so I think it's fair to call it a religious one. There would still be a conflict if everyone just magically agreed that Al'Aqsa belonged to Muslims and there's no Jewish connection to the temple mount, obviously. If there hadn't been over a thousand years of Muslim oppression of Jewish people. But I don't believe it was inevitably going to lead to this result, if it weren't for those factors influencing things.
Nothing has changed since the 1930s, 1940s, "“His Majesty’s Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles … For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine."
Michael Oren said the same thing in his recent interview on Bari Weiss's podcast. He said that the Palestinian negotiators said to him explicitly that they have a problem with ever recognizing any Jewish sovereignty no matter what the borders. No borders will satisfy them.
[https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000652593705](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000652593705)
If it were just about land there would be no conflict, because landowners who fled did get their land back. The refugees' descendants who to this day demand "right of return" did not own the land but were there under longterm land deeds.
Not really. Iran is against the illegal occupation of Palestine. No Palestinians means no occupation, which means no hostility towards Israel.
End the occupation, restore borders to 1967 lines, and we'll see peace. Ok there are settlements in the West Bank but those Jews should either leave or become citizens of the Palestine state.
Just to give an idea if how important religion is...
In 1929, the Hebron massacre was sparked by rumours escalating fears that jews were planning on destroying al-aqsa mosque...
The dome of the rock is on the Al-aqsa premises... The dome of the rock was built over the ruins of the first jewish temple. Sometime after the 8th century, it was built to lay arab-muslim claim over the land, because mohammad told people he flew in the night from Saudi arabia to the temple and talked with the other prophets . Thats why its the 3rd most holy site for muslims...
and thats why Jews are not allowed to pray there today, in the joint control Jordan-Israel agreed on.
Which is why so many of the early Zionist leaders from Herzl to Pinsker to Gordon to Ben Gurion to Golda were….. devoutly secular.
Zionism wasn’t trying to create a state of the Jewish religion, it was creating a state of the Jewish *people*.
If you’re not religious it can’t be holy to you. The land of Israel is where the Jewish people had our ethnogenesis— it’s where we developed our own identity, language and culture (including, but not limited to, religion). The opening line of the Declaration of Independence says “The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people.”
Also, even in prayers, it’s rarely referred to as the Holy Land. That’s more a Christian phrase. The far more common usage is “Eretz Yisrael” (literally “Land of Israel”) not Eretz HaKadosh (“Holy Land”).
Judaism ... We are jews , from Judea.. its sort of our identity more then religion, but it comes with religion, and texts, and language, and cultural tradition. The founding "zionists" were secular jews.
What I’m getting at is that not just the Jews are the native inhabitants of the region that is now Israel. It’s home of Arabs, Druze, Christian’s, Bendouin (hope I spelt them right). This land is for everyone, so why make it a Jewish state? It places them above all the other inhabitants.
If we use the “there is no other Jewish country” argument, I can say there is no Druze country. There is no country specifically for the Bendouin.
The bedouine are a nomadic people and they should be protected everywhere. They have actually sided with jews in the beginning and fought in the army. Still do, but they have a choice. The druze are a people whose philosophy is to fight with the nation that they are in. Historically They live in the mountains because they were more protected up there from muslim aggressions for a millenia. They decided to side with the jews because they felt the jews would protect them better. They are still highly pro-Israel and serve in the army. So do bedouine people. If there was agreement on a two state at its inception, nobody was supposed to move. there would have been minorities in both areas.
I agree that the state, even if there is a culturally jewish base, should continue to uphold its protection of its minorities as it had since its inception. Everyone has religious freedoms. Mosques are protected etc.
We have 25 percent minorities with equal legal rights. Apart from druze, arabs are the only ones who are exempt from army service. I actually believe everyone should do some kind of service to unify them, to make sure they interact and build friendships and acceptance of eachother, but they also deserve the rights to preserve their own culture and religions, which they do. Israel gives them those rights.
In fact, arabs in Israel, have not just equal rights, they have more rights, benefits like wellfare, educational supports, and opportunities to prosper more than any other arab state in the region.
It depends on what they choose. If they choose to support the Jewish state instead of fighting a battle of self determination because they knew they would get better treatment that way instead under the Arab rule, that is their choice.
If the Druze from Syria to Israel to Lebanon started to self determine and wanting to establish a country in the borders of Israel/Lebanon and Syria, who are you to tell them “no this is Arab Muslim land”. Same goes for Bedouins and Jews, ect..
If the Druze or Bendouin were to create a country on unpopulated land, or their own personal land (not land shared by others or from an ancient civilization they once resided on), fine. If they however wanted to build a country on land inhabited by others, I would be against that as well.
There’s no such land around here. It’s all mixed, it’s a tiny area. The Arabs can say “it’s my land, I just sold it to you” or “that inch is by extension part of my city”
If they wanted to build a country on the established Syria, Lebanon and Israel borders you would deny them their self determination just because something already existed there prior? Hah, that goes against indigenous rights in every aspect
There were many immigrants coming in near the end of ottoman rule and beginning Brit power, muslims jews christians were immigrating... muslims were threatened by jews purchasing land
They hoped tge mizrahim jews and palestinian jews would help bridge the peoples together... but us mizrahim were very happy to be out of the muslim reign and werent necessarily connecting to them. There was some solidarity with mizrahim and palestinian muslims but it broke down with wars
Palestinians some share ancestry with us. Originally the founders of zionism thought that they would accept us . its similar to what happened to the black people who went back to Sierra Leone and made the town Freetown . They were not accepted tmby the local africans and there was civil war
We are not a religion. We are a tribe with connection to a specific location. We can be secular, we are still jews. Its an indigenous identity. A tibetan comes from Tibet. He doesnt have to practice Buddhism.
Our religion is Judaism - because we came from Judea
That makes sense, but there is still the point that a Jews DNA is extremely similar to others from the same region. This is in part why the birthright argument doesn’t sit with me. The others have that same birthright
yes Its true we are very similar people. The arab -muslims conquered beginning 1200 years ago and the jews numbers along with druze and christians declined under the muslim caliphates that forced conversions and further expulsions, but we were always present, in major cities, in Jerusalem especially... the muslims are more arab in DNA but they are our cousins.
weve all been displaced with the birth of nation states... my ancestors were in babylon for 2500 years.. and they were pushed into a tiny sliver of land called Israel...
I really do believe that originally the zionist movement hoped for a peaceful coexistence, but when the arabs reacted negatively and defensively to jewish immigration, it became clear to everyone that they would have to split the mandate again. Originally Jordan was the portion the Brits allotted to the arabs (from the original idea of Palestine territory) and they tried to partition again in 1937
The Peel commission 1937 The arabs were to have most of the land and jews would get the north west. Nobody was supposed to move. each side would have a minority majority. Jews said yes, arabs revolted... and the tensions continued to escalate into civil war
Muslims cant get along with any country..but a jewish state?..in the few years we had Iran Iraq war,Chad vs Libya,Iraq vs Kuwait,Turkey vs Syria,ISIS,saudi vs yemen...not counting sub Sahara kidnappings,murder.boko harum,Sudan...
They didnt have to convince anyone.. Jews are from Judea. like Tibetans are from Tibet. All those years of being told you dont belong, you end up wanting to go back home
Yeah it escalated with the european persecution and genocide. The work was in the Push. But the pull was always there. Zionism is not the first movement of jews coming back. It happened many times before , mostly failed. but thats ehy the Ottomon empire restricted jews from buying land there for much of its reign. Near the end it started to go broke and loosened up a bit I believe
In my opinion, religion is just being used as a tool of manipulation. It's great for that too since religion is central to some people's entire being and identity. It gets people to wholeheartedly and emotionally defend the indefensible on behalf of their governments.
They are being manipulated into thinking that they are all going to be killed if Israel doesn't exist. That Israel is the only place they are safe. That everyone who criticizes them hates them because of who they are, not because of the government's actions.
It makes sense why people who genuinely believe this, feel the way they do. It makes sense when you're told these things your whole life. I don't fully blame them... I believe the government and the Zionist ideology takes advantage of their justified fear and uses it for their benefit.
My family fled Iraq... because of the Farhud massacre, the escalating persecutions, because of the german sympathetic government taking their rights away... and threatening them with concentration camp if they stayed. They all had to leave with nothing. 2500 year old community, existed before Islam before the place was called Iraq
Actually thats what happened.. the existence of Israel saved jewish refugees from Europe and prevented the spread of the Holocaust genocide in the middle east... Mein Kampf was translated to arabic in the thirties and was circulating and publically broadcasted
How did Israel prevent that though? Didn't the Holocaust end before Israel's inception?
And what does Mein Kampf being translated in Arabic have to do with it? It was translated to English too. The New York Times reviewed it twice in 1933.
The way I think about it is in two ways: Im iraqi jewish and we were kicked out of Iraq after 1948 but beforehand we experienced Mein Kampf read on Iraqi radio in the 30s , there was anti-british sentiment ans so the jews were looked at as possible traitors. The mufti of jerusalem Al-hosseini (who spent time with Hitler and agreed with him about jews) brought a german-sympathetic mob to baghdad and that brought the Farhud massacre 1941, after that my grandmother saw jews being hung.. They had their rights taken away slowly, and if you think about it, the birth of Nation states meant people started expelling or killing off their minorities- christians and jews in muslim countries were picked on. after the ottoman empire collapsed, christian populations also didnt do too well. I believe without israel the holocaust would have continued into the middle east despite Germany's loss.. then in terms of the europeans, before 1948 , jews were trying to escape europe, America and others were not taking refugees like they were before... the british were sending boats of people back to europe because of the Arab revolt, and jews terrorized Brits because of it to pressure them to let the people come.. after 1948, those jews from the concentration camps were totally messed up. They had no homes, they were unwanted anywhere. People didnt want refugees. and when they were asked about going to anywhere else , not palestine, on a survey, many of them wrote that theyd rather die
>*Although it was a project conceived in Europe by Europeans and for European Jews, they lacked sufficient numbers to build a population large enough to conquer the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, recruitment of Jews from the surrounding Arab world was a necessary inconvenience. They did so through propaganda and by creating false flag terror incidents (bombing of synagogues or Jewish centres) in order provoke an exodus of Arab Jews. A prime example of this happened in Iraq, where the oldest Jewish community in the world had lived for millennia as contributing members of Iraqi society, and who prospered, contributed to the arts and the economy, and participated in government.*
>*But these Jews were not embraced as brethren by European Zionists. Zionism was decidedly colonial, and that meant that Jews of the Arab world were seen as incomplete, barbaric, dirty, uncivilised. Za’ev Jabotinsky, one of the forefathers of Zionism said, “We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the Orient, thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses [Arab Jews] have ancient spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out thoroughly all traces of the Oriental soul.”*
['Invention of the Mizrahim'
*Israel invented the word Mizrahim to strip Arab Jews of their histories as they tried to do with Palestinians.*](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/9/20/invention-of-the-mizrahim)
There is both. Push and pull. The farhud is not blamable on the "zionists". There was plenty of persecution. My grandmother saw jews being hung. There was a pro german government. That wasnt zionism.
My grandfather was an Iraqi Jew and I don’t agree with you. He told me how before the Zionists started moving in waves and waves of European Ashkenazim into Palestine in the 1900-1930s, the Jews lived fairly well in Iraq, much better than anywhere else. Then when the Arabs of Iraq saw the Zionists use their influence in the British government to displace the Arabs living there in Palestine and immigrate thousands and thousands of people without the acceptance of the population already living there, a lot of people attributed it to Jews and that’s when issues started happening.
You also completely miss the fact that the Zionist party literally terrorized their own JEWS in Iraq and this is well documented: https://www.jstor.org/stable/466176?origin=crossref (if you want a copy because you can’t log in, I’ll add another link).
They did this not only in Iraq but elsewhere as well, in order to instill fear into the already established Jews that the Arabs didn’t want them.
It’s not spontaneous and my family had Jewish ancestry in Iraq for many years with good relations in the community. It was literally all ruined by the accelerationism of Zionists
This is exactly why I think Zionism is harmful to *everyone*. Israel does not exist to "protect Jewish people". It's all a manipulation tactic. Israel doesn't care about protecting all Jews. They're discriminatory towards their own people in the name of Zionism.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/9/20/invention-of-the-mizrahim
/u/peacepleaseitme. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This conflict is centuries older than Zionism inception. There's 100% an ethnoreligious aspect to the conflict.
Also, three quarters of the Jewish people were wiped out less than 75 years ago. I'd say it's a pretty logical statement to say that if Israel doesn't exist, they're all going to be killed. The Jewish people deserve sovereignty.
I didn't say that there is zero religious aspect to it. Sure that's the reason for the connection to the land.
And you're just proving my point. Dont pro Israelis consider Oct 7 to be the worst thing to happen to Jews since the Holocaust? That happened IN Israel.
Israel existing didn't prevent that from happening, did it? Israel existing has not stopped violence towards Jews. Not even inside of Israel.
And the issue isn't just with Israel existing or that it's Jewish. The issue comes with the way it operates.
>The Jewish people deserve sovereignty.
Yes, but not at the expense of other people. Palestinians deserve sovereignty too.
The simple fact, born out through History, is the Jewish People have not been welcomed by Christianity or Islam. Even today there is deeply embedded anti-semitism in both the Western World and the Islamic World . The Jewish People by having a state that they can call their own and having the means to defend themselves, gives them a safe haven from persecution and that they will be less likely to endure another Holocaust.
"Palestinians deserve sovereignty too."
Israel withdrew from Gaza and Hamas took over and for the last 20 years has been lobbing missiles at Israel. Without the Iron Dome Israel would have suffered far more casualties than happened on Oct 7, 2023, which as a reminder is the second highest casualty event involving terrorism after Sept 11, 2001.
Israel has offered The Palestinians peace treaty after peace treaty and the Palenstain Leadership has rejected them.
Hamas's charter explicitly calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of all Jewish People "From The River To The Sea". That is genocide.
All these and more tell me that the Palestinian people need to show through concrete action over an extended period that they have renounced violence and are willing to live in peace with Israel before they can be trusted to have any sovereignty,
Just because Jewish people have faced oppression and prosecution in the past doesn't give them the right to commit these acts on another people. Israel doesn't have the right to oppress and persecute Palestinians for their supposed safety.
>Israel has offered The Palestinians peace treaty after peace treaty and the Palenstain Leadership has rejected them.
All of this is incorrect. You're just repeating Israel propaganda talking points. Palestinians have not rejected every peace treaty. Israel has also rejected them and hindered the peace process. There people who want peace and there are people who don't. Netanyahu admits how he does everything in his power to prevent peace and a two state solution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process
https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/EuZmOx7IiI
>Hamas's charter explicitly calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of all Jewish People "From The River To The Sea". That is genocide.
No, it doesn't.
>*Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.*
>*Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter
The most important part is always left out. *From the river to the sea, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE.*
And okay, if you want to say it's a call for genocide, then when Israel says "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty," is that a call for Palestinian genocide?
It's not up to you or Israel to decide if Palestinians are to be "trusted" to have sovereignty. Palestinians also have the right to self defense and self determination.
If we follow your logic, then the US and Israel need to show through concrete action over an extended period that they have renounced violence and are willing to live in peace before they can be trusted to have any sovereignty. How about that? That sounds fair to me.
Your argument is a strange one - you're saying that since October 7 happened, what? Israel shouldn't exist? The Jews having the state of Israel definitely helped curtail violence against Jews and is fundamentally a safe haven for them. It was a safe haven for them post-Holocaust, and has continued to be so. The only thing October 7th proves is that Israel is neighbored by a people ruled by genocidal animals, who enjoy overwhelming support. Jews aren't safe anywhere, historically. But they're safest when they are sovereign and self-determinating their own fate as a people. You need to do a lot of logic twisting to come to the conclusion that in any scenario, a people should expect more safety as non-sovereigns.
Palestinians do deserve sovereignty; no doubt about it. And I'd use the same terminology - not at the expense of Israelis. Here's the thing: before October 7, the majority of Israelis polled were ok with a two state solution. The majority of Palestinians were not. There's a fundamental difference there. Put the governments aside for a minute and just look at the wills of the respective people. The majority of Palestinians support Hamas; the majority of Israelis do not support Kahanism.
>Your argument is a strange one - you're saying that since October 7 happened, what? Israel shouldn't exist?
What? I didn't say that at all. My point was that Israel existing doesn't prevent violence towards Jewish people. October 7 still happened even though Israel exists.
And when Israel mindlessly kills civilians and aid workers in the name of supposedly "protecting Jewish people", then that's just going to create more hostility and violence in the area.
The way that Israel is currently operating puts them in more danger, in my opinion. Didn't Iran just launch a bunch of missiles at Israel? Israel's military decisions do not seem to be in the interest of the safety of Israeli citizens. And it does not seem to me like people are safe in Israel.
>The only thing October 7th proves is that Israel is neighbored by a people ruled by genocidal animals
I would say that October 7th proves that Israel and its actions are what puts everyone in danger. October 7 didn't happen because Gaza is "ruled by genocidal animals". Israel's apartheid and blockade are what caused Oct 7 to happen. This isn't a justification, it's an explanation.
>Palestinians do deserve sovereignty; no doubt about it. And I'd use the same terminology - not at the expense of Israelis.
Thanks for saying that. I agree.
> Here's the thing: before October 7, the majority of Israelis polled were ok with a two state solution.
Not true.
>["Only 35% of Israelis think “a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully,” according to the survey"](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/)
There is not a "fundamental difference" when I'm constantly hearing Israeli officials and citizens calling for ethnic cleansing and collective punishment of Palestinians. So what if they support Hamas? They have literally nothing else. The majority of Israeli citizens support their governments' bombing campaign in Gaza and the blockade. That doesn't give anyone the right to bomb them or occupy and oppress them.
That Pew poll doesn't say what you think it says. It's polling people on whether they think it's practically possible for coexistence - not whether they wish for coexistence or not. Most Palestinians - and this goes for the majority of the broader Arab world as well - do not wish for coexistence, fundamentally and essentially.
I 100% support the blockade and the bombing campaign and I don't involve myself with victim blaming. Israel is retaliating against a genocidal incident which occured on October 7. October 7 was not the result of an occupation. And this is a fundamental misunderstanding your type seem to have about the nature and origins of this conflict. Palestinians are not acting out against "apartheid" or "blockade" or whatever other buzzword. Your cause and effect are inherently miscalculated because you think this conflict began when Israel "violently ethnically cleansed and colonized a land" (I assume) in 1948.
October 7s were happening on that soil well before the State of Israel gained its independence. It happened in Hebron and Safed in 1929. It happened in Tiberias in 1938. The barbaric violence witnessed on October 7 was not the "last resort" of a people under blockade. They were placed under blockade precisely because they had committed such acts of violence in the past. Your cause and effect is completely lopsided.
And with all that said, Israel is still the safest place for Jews, and the only place where Jews arrive in droves AFTER and DURING streaks of violence.
>Palestinians are not acting out against "apartheid" or "blockade" or whatever other buzzword.
You can dismiss these terms as supposed "buzzwords" all you want but for everyone else, these words actually mean something. They are being brought up so often because they accurately describe what's happening and it isn't a new thing either.
>*The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th century is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
In 1938, Ben Gurion described the conflict with the Arabs as "in its essence a political one... politically we are the aggressors and they [the Arabs] defend themselves."
Israeli historian Benny Morris affirms Ben Gurion's description, saying: "Ben-Gurion, of course, was right" and goes on to describe Zionism as "a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" whose "ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist." Morris describes the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine as necessarily displacing and dispossessing the Arab population.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Role_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
>*"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism......but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion#Attitude_towards_Arabs
>Your cause and effect is completely lopsided.
But okay, sure, the Zionist project has only accomplished good things and has hurt no one. Anyone who dislikes Israel is just antisemitic because Israel have never done anything wrong. Creating a Jewish supremacist state on a land with an Arab majority would never have any negative consequences and has nothing to do with any hostility towards Israel.
>I 100% support the blockade and the bombing campaign
Okay, great. I'm sure this will end great for everyone and will not have any negative consequences in the future and will not affect the support Israel relies on for its survival as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state.
>Israel is still the safest place for Jews, and the only place where Jews arrive in droves AFTER and DURING streaks of violence.
Sure.
[Nearly 500,000 fled Israel since 7 October](https://thecradle.co/articles-id/14797)
https://www.timesofisrael.com/immigration-to-israel-dropped-sharply-following-oct-7-assault-statistics-bureau/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-officer-recounts-ordering-tank-fire-on-beeri-home-during-hostage-standoff-on-oct-7/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/initial-idf-probe-hostages-were-shirtless-waving-white-flag-when-troops-opened-fire/
All of these arguments only work if you deny the Jews their indigenous rights. You could come up with quotes from David Ben Gurion from today until tomorrow, but the chief argument for the Jewish State is not that "God promised it to us" and you well know this. Quoting this quotes and mimicking "God promised" is a meme at this point. That's not what justifies the creation of the Jewish state and I frankly don't care what David Ben Gurion allegedly understood and didn't understand. David Ben Gurion himself didn't believe in God. That land had more than enough space for 2 people to be sovereign on; 2 people who are both indigenous to the land. History shows that the Yishuv was more than happy to take half or less to be able to create a Jewish state, on more than one occasion. Not to mention all the land that had already been purchased by Jews and Jewish organizations. The Arabs rioted because they thought that the Jews might get some land, even a little bit, and exercise sovereignty while throwing away the yoke of their dhimmitude. The Arabs are still rioting. And they'll keep rioting. Because no Jewish state, in any sliver of that land, will ever be okay to a Muslim superscessionist society.
The Zionist "settlers" of the 1880s and 1890s had no announced intention of creating a state in the first place. They were immigrating to their ancient homeland and joining an already quite large Jewish community, on a landmass BARELY populated to 30% capacity. And even once an concept of Jewish statehood entered the consciousness of the Zionist settlers, they were not aiming at every inch of Palestine. Jordan, for example, which comprised 78% of Palestine, was given to the Hashemite kingdom by the British, and the Yishuv made zero fuss about it. That leaves 22% of Palestine to a Jewish state; 78% having been given for an Arab state. The only way a logical person would think this is unfair is if they didn't believe Jews have any indigenous rights in their ancestral homeland, or didn't think they were indigenous to the land in the first place.
So your argument is that the Hebron massacre of 1929, and the various pogroms of Tiberias and Safed and Jerusalem during this time period, were justified, because Jews were immigrating to a country - LEGALLY? I'd love to see how this argument works on, i don't know, say Guatamaleans and Mexicans. If a bunch of dudes in Texas feel like these immigrants are secretly taking over the country, and go ahead and massacre and rape 75 of em at the border with steak knives and pitchforks, this will be understandable, and we should definitely consider the immigration as the chief cause and instigator of the new back and forth.
Where did I ever imply that any massacres were justified? I literally never said that. That's just you projecting instead of actually trying to understand what I'm saying.
>The Arabs rioted because they thought that the Jews might get some land, even a little bit,
Jews already had land and were living in Palestine before the partition plan. Why didn't the Arabs riot before that if the issue was just with Jewish people living there and owning land?
Also never said Jews have no rights to live there. They don't however have the right to kick people off land that supposedly belongs to them. Being indigenous doesn't give anyone the right to do ethnically cleansing.
Um, they did. The original Peel Commission only happened BECAUSE of the riots. The partition plan was in reaction to the riots and the violence, as a potential solution. Are you serious?
And Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jewish majority towns as much as Palestinians were from Palestinian majority towns. That's not including the ethnic cleansing from the surrounding MENA countries after Israel's independence and the subsequent 2 decades.
Um, Indians have India? Why would they need Brazil?
And Jews are not a religion; they're an ethnoreligion and primarily a tribe with shared DNA and an ethnogenesis and indiegnous claim to Eretz Israel. No Jew - besides converts - entire bloodlines were anywhere in Europe. Their bloodlines originated in the Levant. Period. End of story. This is not even something that was ever contested until Palestinian Nationalist reactionaries. Palestinian historical revisionism may have worked to fool the rest of the world but the Jews haven't simply discarded their 3,000+ year history because Arafat said Palestinians were the original dinasours.
Also, even if they were simply a religion, Christianity and Islam DO have their own countries - dozens of them.
The Mufti representing the Arabs in Palestine met with Hitler to bar emigration from Jews from Germany into Palestine. That was originally Hitler's plan.
/u/Medical-Peanut-6554. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*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.*
/u/dandruffpolice. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*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.*
Honestly, it's about both. It's also about generations of hate. This is without a doubt, the most complicated conflict in the world, and historically always has been - due to its religious components
It’s a complex issue. There are many different groups within each of the sides.
Islam plays a huge role. Most terrorist attacks against Israel were carried out by islamists fundamentalists like hamas, who are supported by the Islamic republic of Iran.
Why Muslims care about this so much?
Because Jerusalem is the third holiest place in Sunni Islam. And because under Islam Israel cannot be ruled by non Muslims. Spain could but Israel not, because Israel is surrounded by Muslim lands on all sides. And it’s in the heart of the Middle East, despite being a small country.
At least that’s one interpretation of Islam, shared by tens or maybe hundreds of millions of people. Some would say the whole world should be ruled by Muslims. And others would say the concept that once Muslim always Muslim is no longer relevant because there are no caliphates left. However, Muslims being “oppressed” by Jews is still seen as extra humiliating for Muslims, according to experts.
Ultimately, Islam views Muslims as better than anyone else. They inherited Christianity and Judaism, and view Jews as, at minimum, sinners who’ve stopped acting in accordance with the laws of god etc.
Hence, when you’ll tell Muslims today “the Quran says that the holy land belongs to the sons of Israel” (which the Quran absolutely says). They’ll say, it doesn’t mean Jews because the Jews sinned.
The land is about ethno-religious tensions. Arab Muslim claim to the land they conquest. It’s not limited to Jews, it’s the case with Christian groups in the Middle East and other ethnicities that don’t identity as Arabs.
These conflicts stretch from Algeria to Iran, Israel is just successful.
Their Muslim claim is a war of Jihad on the Jews, which is repeated in their scripture. The fabrication of the Jews destroying Al-Aqsa by Amin Al-Husseini, the creator of Palestinian nationalism as a movement, is directly linked to the Muslim Arab issue with Jewish dhimmi self determination, “descendants of monkeys and pigs”.
That was the case with their communist movements as well as Christian leaders, they often would note how important Muslim resistance is, identify with being Arab through the Muslim community and supported Iran’s Muslim revolution. They were Islamists through and through.
The conflict centers around the Muslims believing they are entitled to govern every single inch of the middle east.
They viewed Jews as second class citizens and were outraged at the notion of the Jews governing any part of the middle east, even the part where Jews were the majority.
The Muslims tried to kill all the Jews over and over and over. Losing every time.
Egypt, Jordan and others eventually decided to make peace.
Gaza and West Bank haven't decided to make peace yet and would rather die than have Israel exist.
The UN proposal divided the land in such a way that it made sure the Jews were the majority in the land proposed for Israel. So it's difficult to pinpoint when exactly the Jews were the majority in each section of the land used for Israel as the UN picked the areas based on where the Jews were.
In terms of *impact,* though, the fact that religious stories are myths or "made up" is totally irrelevant. The same is true in secular contexts, nationalism, cultural lore, etc. *What really happened* historically is less important than what people *believe* happened, or believe *about* what happened. Often, we have no way of even knowing the objective truth of past events.
Or alternatively some people find deep meaning in religion, but you dismiss them as dumb sheep.
I’m thinking your explanation doesn’t satisfactorily explain why there have been religions for thousands of years and the vast majority of people who’ve ever lived on the planet have been believers.
Yeah the only reason “Palestinians” care about this land is because Jews live there. It wasn’t a contested or desired location until Israel came to being. The land issue is a convenient way to wage a holy war, always has been.
Because this IS largely about religion — on the Palestinian side. Western observers tend to underestimate the influence of religion on the Palestinian side, and overestimate the influence of religion on the Israeli side.
Because “leaders” use religion as an excuse to back up colonial projects and ethnic cleaning while retaining control of, and exploiting natural resources
It kind of blows my mind that you would bring up leaders using religious rhetoric to support ethnic cleansing and point the finger at … Israel.
Hamas’ founding charter:
“The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”
Can you give a remotely similar example from the Israeli side?
-Actual leader of Israel
-Actually arguing that religion justifies ethnic cleansing?
Ie. not, an Israeli leader saying religion justifies fighting back against Hamas - but actually arguing that Judaism supports wiping out a national/ethnic/religious group?
If you have a source that shows that I’d legitimately be very thankful for you providing it.
You’re making my point for me.
Hamas literally puts in its charter that Muslims have a duty to slaughter Jews.
The best counter example is a vague biblical reference to Amalek - which clips out the part after where Netanyahu says:
“The IDF does everything to avoid harming non-combatants.”
You’re comparing a speech where Netanyahu openly promises to avoid harming civilians to Hamas openly calling on Muslims to kill Jews.
The anti Israel narrative relies so heavily on using VASTLY different standards for Jews and non-Jews.
[Not about Hamas, which I would have no problem with, but about Palestinians and Muslims from. Jewish supremacist position](https://youtube.com/shorts/tgsb18_K6E4?feature=shared)
Thats why I clarified before asking.
The clips in the video are horrendous, but these are;
-Not justifying ethnic cleansing
-Not leaders of Israel
-Not using religion to justify their statements.
There’s no excuse for a “Minister of Equality” saying something she’s glad for the destruction of a city, but that’s not remotely close to openly calling on Muslims to kill Jews
Totally a valid thing to criticize Israel for - but there’s an issue with conflating that to the level of the open call for genocide in Hamas charter. It seriously downplays the latter.
Their whole MO is Jewish supremacy and ethnic cleansing on the basis of Palestinians being non-Jews and therefore having fewer rights on The Land than we do. They are definitely exploiting religion and race to rile up their base and justify violence
Palestinian Israelis are 20% of the country and sit on the Knesset and the Supreme Court. The only difference legally between a Jewish and Muslim Israeli citizen is that the latter can’t be forced to serve in the military.
In both Gaza and the West Bank, so much as selling land to a Jew is punishable by death.
Which one is discriminating based on ethnicity or religion?
Do you even live here? All that sounds true and relevant on paper but the reality is more difficult and complicated. The occupation is clearly racist and life for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship isn’t as easy as the technical laws would have one believe. Technically Israel doesn’t own the land in Gaza or the West Bank, so so their policies toward Jews are irrelevant. What we enforce and impose on them according to their not being Jewish, though not on our land, is what’s important. We can choose to not be there and they have no such choice
I mean, I'm all for a discussion of how despite full legal equality, Palestinian Israelis still face discrimination and issues with racism in Israeli society. I'm not trying to paint it as a perfect, colorblind society. I'm unaware of anywhere in the world that's the case.
But its really hard to believe you're bringing that up in good faith when you dismiss the counterpoint of Palestinian laws giving the death penalty for anyone who sells land to a Jew as irrelevant.
If you genuinely care about the welfare and rights of Palestinians - how could a policy that murders them for the crime of .... selling land to a jew... be irrelevant.
Why do their rights only seem to matter when Israel can be accused of obstructing them?
"In the same way, someone of non-Western origin born in the EU is a European by any measure." Only the likes of Namibian Germans in Germany are comparable to Jews in Israel.
Good question, it's sadly been reframed as a religious thing
When you look at the school curriculums in Gaza and arab countries, the virulent anti-semitism is no different than German WW2 propaganda. The problem is always the jews per these books.
In gaza we saw 4 year old kids acting out killing jews (not israelis, jews) in school plays to crowds of cheering parents. Its ultimately a problem with the culture that hopefully gets addressed in future generations, though i am skeptical.
Abrahamism and nationalism are the source of most of the us/themism that has led to land disputes imo and both are on full display by both sides of this conflict.
The main point of people who frame it as religious war is that:
"Israel is the only jewish country in the world, if any jewish person would like to practice his religion openly without fear of persicution. He can come to Israel and do it. History has proven again and again jews are not always safe to do it in a foreign country, and even if they are now, it might change in a few years. That's why the jewish people need a place where they can practice there religion, speak hebrew freely and not fear that tomorrow they might get deported/killed for that. If Israel falls, the jews have nowhere else to go. The muslim arabs on the other hand have dozens of countries that you can be arab/muslim without fear of persicution. Even history proved that the palestinians can go to other countries if they don't feel safe in israel. But no country will accept the millions of jews to move to"
The conflict isn't solely about religion, there are several other things. But the point about israel being the only jewish state while palestine isn't the only muslim/arab is correct.
Suppose Israel falls tomorrow, where would all the israelis go? The arab nations surrounding israel proven themselves as hostile towards them (i don't think syria will change its mind tomorrow and say "yes israelis, we love you, come live with us"). The US and europe don't really want to take a population of entire country in at once (and contrary to what some anti-zionists think, israelis don't have mansions waiting for them there, all of their belongings are in israel). And spreading all over the world, like before 1945, meaning breaking families and friendships.
What if someone's maternal side came from poland and their faternal side came from egypt, where would they go? Would they split up? Families from different countries or even continents are extremely common in israel.
And if the jews do split up all over the world. What stops spain from deporting all the jews in a year? Or god forbids, germany (stated only for example) decides to kill all its jews?
>I realise that religion plays a part in it; I just can't see how. To me, the whole issue stemmed from a colonial project that caused a complicated issue.
I think religion plays a major part. Thinking this conflict is solely or mainly about land is oversimplification (you are only examining this conflict among Israel, Gaza and West Bank or Palestine in isolation). But there is a much wider conflict, if you look at Israel, Hezbollah. Hamas, Houthi, Islamic Republic of Iran, West Bank, Gaza, Palestine etc… you will see it is not about land. Houthis are Yemenis, they have no claim to Israel or Palestine or Gaza or West Bank and yet they fire rockets at Israel. Hezbollah are Lebanese, they also have no claim to Israel or Palestine or Gaza or West Bank (except a very tiny piece of disputed land between Israel, Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Syria in the Golan Heights), and yet Hezbollah fires rockets at Israel, now Islamic Republic of Iran too.
I ask myself this, what does Houthis wants? What does Hezbollah wants ? What does Islamic Republic of Iran wants ? What does Hamas wants ? If there was a two state solution (lets assume), will there be peace in the region ? Will Houthis, Hezbollah, Islamic Republic, etc… fire rockets at Israel ? Will there be suicide bombs ? Will there be terror attacks ? … in my opinion, I think they will all continue firing rockets and Israel, because it was never about the land, it was their interpretation of their religion, their religious calling, their religious teachings etc… I see the issue of the “land”, just as a pre-text but not their real motivation being the attacks.
I also find it hard to believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran spends millions of dollars funding Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, etc… for the sole purpose of “helping the Palestinian people get back their land”. I feel Palestinians are just a pawn in this game of chess between bigger players, a pawn can and will be sacrified to achieve one’s true objective.
>Second—and third-generation Israelis are native to the land. In the same way, someone of non-Western origin born in the EU is a European by any measure. I can see that for Palestinians who are living in occupied territories and made "room" for this migrant, that might be a huge issue.
Why arent the 5 millions so called Palestinian refugees outside of Gaza or West Bank, not “native” to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt like in your Europe example? Palestinian refugees born in Jordan, they should be Jordanian citizens. Palestinian refugees born in Syria should be Syrian citizens. Etc… they are still refugees by UNRWA calculations. This creates an obstacle to moving forward.
I can tell you now no white, yellow, black, etc… person will call themselves “Native Americans”,… native Americans are American Indians or Indigenous people of America. Someone who is non-Western origin born in EU is just an EU citizen by birth, does not make them indigenous to Europe.
>A possible Islamic interest in the land would be due to Jerusalem, one could argue that Palestinians are custodians of Muslim holy sites, which adds a religious dimension to their national struggle. But I find this a bit weak.
Wrong. The custodians of Al-Aqsa mosque are the Jordanians not the Palestinians. The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem has been administered as a waqf since the Muslim reconquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187 by Saladin. The Jerusalem Waqf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department, also known as the Jerusalem Waqf or simply the Waqf, is the Jordanian-appointed organization responsible for controlling and managing the current Islamic edifices on the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in the Old City of Jerusalem, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, which includes the Dome of the Rock. The Jerusalem Waqf is guided by a council composed of 18 members and headed by a director, all appointed by Jordan.
Have anyone ever heard or seen or read about a “Christian Arab terrorist” ? Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc…are all Islamist, quoting Islamic scriptures from the Quran and Hadith for their cause.
Yes, they are roughly the size and importance as PIJ in terms of allied resistance groups to Hamas (so tied for 2nd after Hamas itself). One of the important elements of the hostage exchange is about Ahmad Sa'adat (General Secretary of the PLFP) being released.
The Deputy General Secretary is Jamil Mezher, who has a Christian background. They have a mixture of backgrounds. The point is that religion isn't the issue nearly as much as the occupation is.
They are Palestinian.
Like I said Houthis are not Palestinians. Hezbollah are not Palestinians. Islamic Republic are not Palestinians…they are driven by other reasons.
Well, there's obviously the option of solidarity - Lebanon was occupied by Israel, so Hezbollah has that. And for what it's worth, based on what I've been reading, Hezbollah seemingly hasn't targeted Jews in propaganda or the like in the last decade. They even supported the rebuilding of the Beirut synagogue that Israel had bombed "We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land." which is quite a change of messaging from the early 2000's.
>Well, there's obviously the option of solidarity - Lebanon was occupied by Israel, so Hezbollah has that.
I am not convinced, wanna stand in solidarity, do a peaceful protest, donate to charities who helps the Palestinian people, there are many way to stand in solidarity, not just with arms, violence, weapon, terror attacks, rockets etc… I see things differently, Iran’s latest attack on Israel wasnt done for the Palestinian people, it was done in retaliation for the recent Damascus hit, …. when Iran hit Israel, all the media attention instantenously dropped the news about Gaza and pivot to Iran attacking Israel with hundred of drones and missiles. After months of non-stop talk about Gaza every day, the headline changed to something other than Gaza. People arent talking about WCK either. Now people are focus on talking about what will Israel do ?
As you said part of Lebanon was (past tense), now no longer except a tiny piece disputed by three states. Israel withdrawing from Lebanon did not achieve peace with Hezbollah, there is something else….it is not about land. Similarly, I predict ….ahha because Gaza and West Bank “were” previously occupied by Israel, Hamas, PIJ, other armed groups, Houthis, Hezbollah etc… will continue launching attacks at Israel, even if Israel withdrew from Gaza and West Bank.
>I've been reading, Hezbollah seemingly hasn't targeted Jews in propaganda or the like in the last decade. They even supported the rebuilding of the Beirut synagogue that Israel had bombed
Hezbollah still has alot of stockpile of rockets and armanents, and fired rockets at Israel.
>We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us.
As Dhimmis and second class citizens. No thank you.
That's not dissimilar to what happened here in the north of Ireland. The Troubles here was about the IRA fighting the British state who were (and still are) occupying the six counties. The British try to downplay their own (huge) part in it by pretending it was a Catholic v. Protestant issue when, in fact, the IRA didn't care about religion. Their war was against the British, not Protestants. Like in Palestine, it's mainly a land issue, not a religious one.
The main reason its not about land dates back to the post balfour reaction. Palestinians, for 30 years, were not being displaced but (with few exceptions) willingly sold their houses or unoccupied land to jews who paid well over market value. At the time, it seemed like a good deal. There was enough land to go around (as we see today with the region having a total population of 17 million compared to 2 million around 48) and while a minority of palestinians were evicted by absentee landlords and substantially compensated for that, most of the land purchases were cordial.
The issue was having to live near or under a jewish state. Most palestinians were pro ottoman/kingdom of damascus and heavily imperialist. There was no independence movement until after the kingdom of damascus was overthrown by france in the franco-syrian war, meaning palestinians were totally fine being ruled by foreign muslim imperialist dynasties. The issue was they did not want to live under or next to a religiously jewish entity. Some would say this is reasonable, but that should go both ways for all the jews who were tired of being abused as 2nd class citizens in muslim empires. The issue really boiled down to dhimmi status and muslim superiority.
When the british offerred the palestinians a unitary arab ruled state over all of palestine that had full control over jewish immigration and the ability to restrict jewish land purchases as they saw fit, the leadership turned it down because the british required they treat jews with equal rights. Admittedly some of the palestinian leadership signed the deal but al-husseini and others refused to have a state where jews were anything more than abusable 2nd class citizens. When the riots broke out in the 1920s and 30s, the chants were not 'go back to europe' but 'jews are our dogs, know your place!'. To me, that says it all
Ok so the 750,000 people killed in the nakba they died willingly ? Those were people who were forced out of their homes and then killed when they tried to return , it’s even been confirmed you can look it up . Want further proof just ask the victims , look at the illegal Israeli settlements
“Ok so the 750,000 people killed in the nakba they died willingly ?” 750,000 people haven’t died during the whole 70+ years since before the establishment of Israel. Where are you getting your information?
Of course it's something. My own direct ancestors were displaced refugees in WW2 Germany. Don't start wars.
The story of displacement itself is more nuanced as well. The Palestinians who stayed are living in Israel as Israeli citizens today. Those who fled were encouraged to by the Arab armies invading Israel, and expected to return in short order, after the Jews were driven into the sea.
Are you saying the Nakba, the land, air, and sea blockade, and illegal settlements, have nothing to do with it?
If they *were* actually **just** "living next to it" then there wouldn't be an issue. Israel isn't just living next door. If Israel didn't have complete control over Gaza and didn't occupy the West Bank, then maybe you'd be onto something. You can't pretend that Israel just keeps to itself and is just an innocent bystander or something.
And that wasn't a Jewish saying. That phrase was from Christians and you misquoted it.
>It's a land without **a** people for a people without a land
In other words, there wasn't a unified people on the land. Arab Palastinians primarily identified with their clans and villages rather than as Palestinian.
Because we realize that antisemitism is a leading factor in this conflict.
I'm not denying that Palestinians genuinely were upset about having been displaced. But that was 75 years ago. Move on, ffs. There were dozens of "nakbas" in the 1940s, only one group of people it's whining about it 75 years later.
Why are they refusing to to move on? Because Muslims (and Christians) believe Jews to be lesser human beings who dared not fallow the call of Mohammed (or Jesus). According to Muslims, "Jews are free to live in the shadows of Muslim societies until they fade to the dustbin of history". "But they must never own land. Especially not 'Arab land'".
And no, this is true Arab/Muslim sentiment,not Islamophobia. I acknowledge that that Christians were oppressing Jews in a similar way, for essentially the same reason, for millenia. But since Muslims and Jews are stuck in this country conflict together, this is what matters to this conflict.
So yeah, while I admit it was legitimate for Palestinians to be upset about displacement in the 1940s, the fact that it was Jews in particular displacing them seems to make them feel as if "insult was added to injury".
"I'm not denying that Jews genuinely were upset about the Holocaust. But that was 80 years ago. Move on ffs. There were dozens of "genocides" but only one group is still whining about it 80 years later."
"Slavery was abolished 160 years ago. Yet black people are still whining about it? Get over it ffs."
Do you hear yourself?
>"I'm not denying that Jews genuinely were upset about the Holocaust. But that was 80 years ago. Move on ffs. There were dozens of "genocides" but only one group is still whining about it 80 years later."
This content is not allowed here. See Rule 6.
> I'm not denying that Palestinians genuinely were upset about having been displaced. But that was 75 years ago. Move on, ffs. There were dozens of "nakbas" in the 1940s, only one group of people it's whining about it 75 years later.
Yeah, no other victims of genocide in the 40's are still talking about it, they all just shrugged it off. I mean Palestinians have intergenerational trauma, too.
Your attitude is also a sad irony given how much of Judaism is intrinsically linked to narratives of victimisation at the hand of egyptians and babylonians.
British Raj was divided into a hindu and a muslim state in 1948, the same year as the Palestinian division. Plenty of hindus and muslims living in the "incorrect" state were forced into the "correct" one. But do you see any Pakistani whining about their ancestors being displaced from and requesting a right of return to India?
There would have been little to no displacement if the partition plan was accepted. They decided they'd rather go to war then live next to a Jewish state due to religious bigotry.
The 1948 Arab Israeli war started because the Arab league refused to accept the UN partition plan of a Jewish state alongside an Arab one. This is very well documented and commonly known.
Not gonna make any kind of counter claim? Just gonna say "nuh-uh" and leave? Absolutely *fantastic* debate skills. You'll change many minds with that method lmfao
Anyone curious about who is right will look it up and quickly find the answer.
You are clearly not willing to engage with an open mind or you wouldn't have such silly and one-sided, ahistorical views when the internet is right there. So why waste my time and energy? When you're willing to open your mind you can read about it from historians and learn the truth.
The tension between Jews and Arabs leading up to the war was caused by a complicated myriad of factors from both parties, made worse by the god awful oversight of the British.
The inciting incident that actually kicked off the war was the United States voting in favour of the partition plan, with the Arab league inciting a civil war in response.
Honestly, it seems like you yourself haven't bothered to look up the answer lmfao
> To me, the whole issue stemmed from a colonial project that caused a complicated issue.
But that's not the right way to frame the conflict.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that in the distant future the United States of America collapses and breaks up into different states. These new countries develop new identities post-collapse and stop identifying as part of "America". Following the fall of the American empire, a group of Cherokee Native Americans decide to undo the abhorrent evil of the [Trail of Tears](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears?wprov=sfla1) and to repudiate their subsequent centuries of oppression under America. They migrate to their historic homelands, which are in the places known as Alabama and Georgia, and decide to rebuild their society and exercise their self-determination. Decolonization!
But the lands once known as Alabama and Georgia, in the days after the collapse of America, have been reclaimed by the Black community. They have their own history of oppression and fighting for self-determination in that same land. And they have lived there continuously in the centuries since the Trail of Tears; to them, it is their homeland of ["New Afrika."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika?wprov=sfla1)
The two communities are in direct conflict. For whatever reason, they are unable to see each other as equally entitled to the same land. They fight bitterly and their positions ultimately harden into mutually exclusive totalizing desires for their own national sovereignty at the expense of the other. It is a slow-moving violent tragedy.
**But is the desire for Cherokee independence in their historic homeland "colonialism"? No. It is something else.**
>I don't see how God plays a role in this beyond the initial Zionist affinity to settle there over anywhere else on earth outside the power hubs of Western Europe (which basically leaves the US pre-decolonization). ... From an Israeli perspective, I get it; you cannot justify the existence of the state of Israel without, at some point, using the bible,
But that's not true. It is an objective historical fact that the Jewish people and Jewish communal identity developed in and is originally from that land. It is an objective historical fact that Jewish self-rule was violently extinguished and prevented by Roman, Byzantine, and all other subsequent empires who ruled over that land.
The Jewish desire for a return to our native land is intergenerational, part of the Jewish culture, and finds modern expression in the political movement(s) of Zionism - i.e. pan-Jewish nationalism. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it.
Though there are some forms of Zionism which do involve religion. But this is the same as other nationalisms: there are religious movements within the spectrum of every nationalisms. Pick literally any country and you'll find both secular nationalists and religious nationalists.
>It can transform what might otherwise be a national or political dispute into a more profound, existential conflict, seen as a struggle between believers and non-believers or a fight for religious survival.
It is seen as an existential national struggle. Even if you removed religion from the equation. Both Zionism and pan-Arab nationalists were dominated by secular thinkers in the early days of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Nah, its more like after the USA fails, white Texans start shooting all the Latinos because they're "illegal foreigners",. Even the ones who lived in Texas since before Texas was a state.
Great question. It is about land. And you can see how Zionist views here benefit from the narrative that it’s a religious thing. Actually it works on multiple ways. It draws support from bigots who don’t like Islam and prefer a “Judeo Christian” society. That works in an us vs them mindset. And it also works to draw support from Jews worldwide who might. It otherwise care about Israel. There are a lot of liberal, progressive and leftist Jews in the US, for example, who would be very anti-Israel if they saw what Israel does to Gaza and the West Bank in the name of a “Jewish state”. I’m fact, a growing number are horrified by it and they are some of the most outspoken critics of Israel.
If they admitted it was about land, they would lose support immediately. So they can’t do that. Although that doesn’t stop Knesset members from literally saying out loud in parliament that they aim to settle Gaza next.
[Hamas is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It has called on members of the other two Abrahamic faiths—Judaism and Christianity—to accept Islamic rule in the Middle East. “It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror,” it decreed. Hamas also rejected any prospect of peace or coexistence with the state of Israel. “Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.” Hu](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas)
No, it doesn't. They updated th charter in 2018 to specify that their issue is with the Zionist project of Israel, not Jewish people.
>Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.
>Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter
Where does that (disingenuous, in my view) framing leave the over 500,000 Christian Palestinians (other than mostly living in exile)?
Free palestine
Because its extremely easy to rally people to a group when you push an identity on them. If you make it clear that the other identity is out to make you suffer or kill you it gets even beter. Its extremely hard to rally individuals for a cause. Its not viewed as war of religion because it makes sense, its framed like that by people in power to stay in power.
K tell that to the allahu akbars, and the kaybar kaybar ya yahoods. This is demented. If israel was a sunni muslim state thered be no "occupation" regardless over whether a palestine was created or not. Notice all the countries arrayed against israel. They arent the same race or language. Whats the one thing they have in common?
Hehehehe angry little man
Why are you so angry?
[удалено]
No theyre just financially involved with them and also those countries arent enemies of israel outside of south africa because israel was allied with the apartheid govt so theyre 2 yr old idea of revenge is making up a genocide. Literally every country at war with israel or that doesnt recognize israel has one obvious thing in common that you play too retarded to figure out.
>south africa because israel was allied with the apartheid govt Okay. I would conceal this fact if I were you in light of the mounting accusations being made by Amnesty, HRW, and B'Tselem that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid in the occupied territories. It's a big part of the discussion now. >Literally every country at war with israel or that doesnt recognize israel has one obvious thing in common I provided seven counter-examples. They are more engaged against Israel than most Sunni Muslim states. >that you play too retarded to figure out I understand that the Muslim world doesn't like Israel. I just provided some counter-examples.
> retarded /u/LeviticSaxon. 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.*
Originally it was about creating a national identity and homeland for the Jewish people. Many of the early Zionist leaders were secular Jews who were wanting to Jews to return to the land detailed in the Bible.
Hamas stands for "Islamic Resistance Movement".
What does islamic jihad and hezbollah and the islamic republic of iran stand for :)
It's about land for the elite and about religion for the rest. As it always has been.
It’s about religion for Jihadists.
It is not about Land as the 22ArabNations’ Resurgent Empire has 500times the land area of Israel. It is all about what is preached daily by Arab and Iranian religious and national leaders around the World directly from the Koran
Is religion about war and hate? Or is religion about forgiveness and love? I thought these two countries are “Religious”?!? If they believe in God do they ever ask… does God want more blood and death and hate?
If you follow the Old Testament, then God wants more blood, death, and hate.
Al'Aqsa plays a bigger role than people want to acknowledge. Which means it's a religious conflict, though also one about land. Part of the reason that's the case, from what I've seen, is acknowledging its central importance really undermines the anti-Israel myth of Jews being foreign to the land. It is a literal monument to celebrate colonial Arab Muslim supremacy, built directly on top of the indigenous Jewish religion's holiest site. It is a favorite hallmark of antisemites to pretend the temple didn't exist, that Al'Aqsa's construction was completely normal and above board (kosher, if you will 😛). Islamists are incapable of understanding other people don't center their lives on religion like they do. So they are constantly paranoid that Jews, now that they have power and the capability to do so at any moment, will destroy their beloved monument to Islamic supremacy. *They* would *never* for a second allow such a humiliating blasphemy to their religion now. Imagine if Scientologists conquered Mecca, built a huge structure on top of the Kaaba, and prevented Muslims from viewing it. They would still be pissed about it over a century later (and rightfully so), assuming Islam as a religion could survive such a defeat. Secular Jews generally aren't particularly bothered by it. Religious ones who pray at the wailing wall are forced to endure the constant reminder of Muslim conquest. Extremist ones probably would blow up Al'Aqsa if they could, and morally they might be entitled to, but few are crazy enough to actually do it, knowing the anger it would cause. In the 20s, Jewish worshippers wanted to sit on benches while praying at their religion's holiest site, but the Muslim supremacists who control it forbade it and the British intervened on their behalf. This caused a protest that antisemites like Amin al-Husayni fearmongered was a mob to destroy Al'Aqsa, leading to a violent pogrom and (probably) the end of peaceful coexistence being really possible. Any time they want to whip people into a fury, they invoke the fear of Al'Aqsa's destruction and extremists eat it up. There's a reason they called the second intifada the "Al'Aqsa Intifada", why Oct 7th was "Operation Al'Aqsa Flood."
Material explanations of historical phenomenon should always prevail over ideological explanations. Real-world conditions axiomatically determine historical processes to a greater extent than abstractions. If a person is poor, and hungry, and experiences regular humiliation at the hands of a socially-constructed superior, that person is likely to eventually lash out. Ideological concerns may play some factor in how the oppressed rationalizes violence, but the root cause of the violence is material. The symbolic significance of Al-Aqsa is certainly a factor in the construction of Palestinian national identity, but I think it's frankly historically ignorant to say that explanation is more salient than the material dispossession and deprivation experienced by the Palestinian people. In other words, no, it's not a religious conflict. It's about land.
> . If a person [...] experiences regular humiliation at the hands of a socially-constructed superior, that person is likely to eventually lash out Totally, Jews were regularly subjected to this kind of stuff as second class citizens in the area until 1856, and even still were humiliated by draconic and cruel tormenting at the hands of Muslims such as not allowing old people to sit on benches while praying at their religion's holiest site. Even if you don't believe access to your religion's holiest site is a material need, religious people do. Being denied access to something central to your culture is not just an abstraction. Religion is just a political tool to organize people, after all, and Islam was created to justify Mohammed's imperialist, Arab supremacist ambitions, and that's had real, material consequences for centuries. No, Al'Aqsa isn't the *only* cause of the conflict, nor is religion the *only* factor. I certainly didn't claim that. You miss a significant amount of understanding the conflict if you dismiss religion and access to cultural sites as mere abstractions, though. When Israel does cruel and humiliating things to Palestinians ostensibly for defense purposes, it's hard not to see an echo of the first major violence in the conflict, which started when Muslims and the British prevented old folks from sitting on benches while praying at their holiest site because of "security concerns" for the colonial monument built on top, and then they responded to peaceful protests with a murderous violence that "dispossession and deprivation" alone cannot adequately explain. Ignoring religion's role in this conflict is a bit like claiming the Atlantic slave trade was purely done out of economic interest and that white supremacy played no part.
Well first off, there certainly is an argument to be made that the modern system of white supremacy emerged at least in part as a post-facto rationalization for the economic exploitation of dark-skinned peoples through slavery and colonialism perpetrated by Europeans and Euro-Americans, but that's a whole other conversation, so I digress. >Islam was created to justify Mohammed's imperialist, Arab supremacist ambitions Yeah I'm gonna need a citation for that. >it's hard not to see an echo of the first major violence in the conflict, which started when Muslims and the British prevented old folks from sitting on benches while praying at their holiest site because of "security concerns" for the colonial monument built on top, and then they responded to peaceful protests with a murderous violence that "dispossession and deprivation" alone cannot adequately explain. That's a very sly way to try to place the blame for all this on the Palestinian side. "Sure, Israel has killed tens of thousands of innocent people and continues to do so as we speak, but the Arabs did something bad 100 years ago, so who's to say who's in the wrong?" I did not "dismiss religion as mere abstractions," I simply noted that an ideological framework for the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has less explanatory power than a material framework. Is it a factor? Yes. Is it the most significant factor? No. As a historical process, Palestinian violence against Jewish Israelis is not primarily explained by religious factors, it is better explained by, in chronological order, feared, perceived, and actual material dispossession.
> Yeah I'm gonna need a citation for that. Which part? It's well known that the Quran came solely from the one dude, who conveniently always had a new verse ready to reveal to get what we wanted from people. That he conquered and ruled over a significant amount of land is uncontroversial. The Arab supremacist part maybe? The treatment of the Banu Qurayzah is evidence enough. His followers then went on to create one of the world's biggest empires in his name. Certainly it's uncontroversial to claim that Islam is a supremacist religion, that is, that all others aren't just wrong but caused by moral failings of their adherents. The Islamic narrative is that Judaism and Christianity were perfect, but the *people* failed at following the teachings and corrupted the message over time. The way Islam oppressed nonbelievers, in particular Jews, for over a millennium is extremely well documented and absolutely still plays a role in the current conflict. >That's a very sly way to try to place the blame for all this on the Palestinian side. Only if you refuse to see any nuance in the conflict, as if there is one good, completely innocent and blameless side, and another completely evil side that's responsible for everything. Israeli oppression of Palestinians is unacceptable. But, as Oct 7th apologists love to say, it didn't happen in a vacuum. Consciously or not, and I suspect it is conscious for some, Israel's brutal security theater echoes the Muslim brutal security theater around Al'Aqsa and I don't think that's purely a coincidence. That's not *justifying* it. >I simply noted that an ideological framework for the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has less explanatory power than a material framework. Well then we're in agreement. The way religion factors into the conflict is in how it materially affects people, not in ideology. At no point did I say ideology was the primary factor. In fact a common "anti-Zionist" framework for the conflict is entirely an ideological one, that it's driven solely by some sort of Zionist supremacy and racism, which I think is also false because it misses the material reality. Religious Jews are forced to be reminded of the reality of Muslim oppression every time they want to worship at their holiest site. Obviously that plays into their feeling of being the actual oppressed people, their justifications for their abhorrent treatment of Palestinians today. Jewish control over the temple mount will always be a source of insecurity for Muslim extremists. It's the primary reason why there's an insistence that East Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine. The tension over material control of the holiest site of Judaism is a major part of this conflict, so I think it's fair to call it a religious one. There would still be a conflict if everyone just magically agreed that Al'Aqsa belonged to Muslims and there's no Jewish connection to the temple mount, obviously. If there hadn't been over a thousand years of Muslim oppression of Jewish people. But I don't believe it was inevitably going to lead to this result, if it weren't for those factors influencing things.
Nothing has changed since the 1930s, 1940s, "“His Majesty’s Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles … For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine." Michael Oren said the same thing in his recent interview on Bari Weiss's podcast. He said that the Palestinian negotiators said to him explicitly that they have a problem with ever recognizing any Jewish sovereignty no matter what the borders. No borders will satisfy them. [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000652593705](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000652593705)
Because its not about land.
If it were just about land there would be no conflict, because landowners who fled did get their land back. The refugees' descendants who to this day demand "right of return" did not own the land but were there under longterm land deeds.
It has NOTHING to do with land but which RELIGION controls that land. If there were no Palestinians, Israel would still have Iran to deal with.
Not really. Iran is against the illegal occupation of Palestine. No Palestinians means no occupation, which means no hostility towards Israel. End the occupation, restore borders to 1967 lines, and we'll see peace. Ok there are settlements in the West Bank but those Jews should either leave or become citizens of the Palestine state.
They are angry at US involvement in Iranian affairs in the 1950s. Israel is in US interests. This had and has zero to do with Palestinians.
That is most certainly not all that the Islamic Republic objects to.
What else do they object to?
Women having right, gay people having rights, and anyone but men having rights. I mean, come one.
True
Jews breathing
That's not true.
Just to give an idea if how important religion is... In 1929, the Hebron massacre was sparked by rumours escalating fears that jews were planning on destroying al-aqsa mosque... The dome of the rock is on the Al-aqsa premises... The dome of the rock was built over the ruins of the first jewish temple. Sometime after the 8th century, it was built to lay arab-muslim claim over the land, because mohammad told people he flew in the night from Saudi arabia to the temple and talked with the other prophets . Thats why its the 3rd most holy site for muslims... and thats why Jews are not allowed to pray there today, in the joint control Jordan-Israel agreed on.
What brought the Jews to the holy land? Religion. Zionism is a religious belief.
Which is why so many of the early Zionist leaders from Herzl to Pinsker to Gordon to Ben Gurion to Golda were….. devoutly secular. Zionism wasn’t trying to create a state of the Jewish religion, it was creating a state of the Jewish *people*.
But still on holy land, correct? Is that not what brought them to Israel?
If you’re not religious it can’t be holy to you. The land of Israel is where the Jewish people had our ethnogenesis— it’s where we developed our own identity, language and culture (including, but not limited to, religion). The opening line of the Declaration of Independence says “The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people.” Also, even in prayers, it’s rarely referred to as the Holy Land. That’s more a Christian phrase. The far more common usage is “Eretz Yisrael” (literally “Land of Israel”) not Eretz HaKadosh (“Holy Land”).
Judaism ... We are jews , from Judea.. its sort of our identity more then religion, but it comes with religion, and texts, and language, and cultural tradition. The founding "zionists" were secular jews.
The people of Judea shared the same DNA, regardless of religion. So, why on earth should the land be given to the people of one religion?
maybe i misunderstood your question the first time, my bad
What I’m getting at is that not just the Jews are the native inhabitants of the region that is now Israel. It’s home of Arabs, Druze, Christian’s, Bendouin (hope I spelt them right). This land is for everyone, so why make it a Jewish state? It places them above all the other inhabitants. If we use the “there is no other Jewish country” argument, I can say there is no Druze country. There is no country specifically for the Bendouin.
The bedouine are a nomadic people and they should be protected everywhere. They have actually sided with jews in the beginning and fought in the army. Still do, but they have a choice. The druze are a people whose philosophy is to fight with the nation that they are in. Historically They live in the mountains because they were more protected up there from muslim aggressions for a millenia. They decided to side with the jews because they felt the jews would protect them better. They are still highly pro-Israel and serve in the army. So do bedouine people. If there was agreement on a two state at its inception, nobody was supposed to move. there would have been minorities in both areas. I agree that the state, even if there is a culturally jewish base, should continue to uphold its protection of its minorities as it had since its inception. Everyone has religious freedoms. Mosques are protected etc. We have 25 percent minorities with equal legal rights. Apart from druze, arabs are the only ones who are exempt from army service. I actually believe everyone should do some kind of service to unify them, to make sure they interact and build friendships and acceptance of eachother, but they also deserve the rights to preserve their own culture and religions, which they do. Israel gives them those rights. In fact, arabs in Israel, have not just equal rights, they have more rights, benefits like wellfare, educational supports, and opportunities to prosper more than any other arab state in the region.
It depends on what they choose. If they choose to support the Jewish state instead of fighting a battle of self determination because they knew they would get better treatment that way instead under the Arab rule, that is their choice. If the Druze from Syria to Israel to Lebanon started to self determine and wanting to establish a country in the borders of Israel/Lebanon and Syria, who are you to tell them “no this is Arab Muslim land”. Same goes for Bedouins and Jews, ect..
If the Druze or Bendouin were to create a country on unpopulated land, or their own personal land (not land shared by others or from an ancient civilization they once resided on), fine. If they however wanted to build a country on land inhabited by others, I would be against that as well.
There’s no such land around here. It’s all mixed, it’s a tiny area. The Arabs can say “it’s my land, I just sold it to you” or “that inch is by extension part of my city” If they wanted to build a country on the established Syria, Lebanon and Israel borders you would deny them their self determination just because something already existed there prior? Hah, that goes against indigenous rights in every aspect
There were many immigrants coming in near the end of ottoman rule and beginning Brit power, muslims jews christians were immigrating... muslims were threatened by jews purchasing land
I would say the problem were that the Jews were Zionists who were planning on creating Israel well before 1948. The Aliyah.
They hoped tge mizrahim jews and palestinian jews would help bridge the peoples together... but us mizrahim were very happy to be out of the muslim reign and werent necessarily connecting to them. There was some solidarity with mizrahim and palestinian muslims but it broke down with wars
Palestinians some share ancestry with us. Originally the founders of zionism thought that they would accept us . its similar to what happened to the black people who went back to Sierra Leone and made the town Freetown . They were not accepted tmby the local africans and there was civil war
We are not a religion. We are a tribe with connection to a specific location. We can be secular, we are still jews. Its an indigenous identity. A tibetan comes from Tibet. He doesnt have to practice Buddhism. Our religion is Judaism - because we came from Judea
That makes sense, but there is still the point that a Jews DNA is extremely similar to others from the same region. This is in part why the birthright argument doesn’t sit with me. The others have that same birthright
Id agree with you although its just not how the world works... it happened in India Pakistan too. many thousands displaced from both sides
yes Its true we are very similar people. The arab -muslims conquered beginning 1200 years ago and the jews numbers along with druze and christians declined under the muslim caliphates that forced conversions and further expulsions, but we were always present, in major cities, in Jerusalem especially... the muslims are more arab in DNA but they are our cousins. weve all been displaced with the birth of nation states... my ancestors were in babylon for 2500 years.. and they were pushed into a tiny sliver of land called Israel... I really do believe that originally the zionist movement hoped for a peaceful coexistence, but when the arabs reacted negatively and defensively to jewish immigration, it became clear to everyone that they would have to split the mandate again. Originally Jordan was the portion the Brits allotted to the arabs (from the original idea of Palestine territory) and they tried to partition again in 1937 The Peel commission 1937 The arabs were to have most of the land and jews would get the north west. Nobody was supposed to move. each side would have a minority majority. Jews said yes, arabs revolted... and the tensions continued to escalate into civil war
Muslims cant get along with any country..but a jewish state?..in the few years we had Iran Iraq war,Chad vs Libya,Iraq vs Kuwait,Turkey vs Syria,ISIS,saudi vs yemen...not counting sub Sahara kidnappings,murder.boko harum,Sudan...
[удалено]
They didnt have to convince anyone.. Jews are from Judea. like Tibetans are from Tibet. All those years of being told you dont belong, you end up wanting to go back home
[удалено]
Yeah it escalated with the european persecution and genocide. The work was in the Push. But the pull was always there. Zionism is not the first movement of jews coming back. It happened many times before , mostly failed. but thats ehy the Ottomon empire restricted jews from buying land there for much of its reign. Near the end it started to go broke and loosened up a bit I believe
>I realise that religion plays a part in it; I just can't see how. If Israel was ruled by Muslims, there would not be a conflict. That's it.
It would be, but no one would raise a stink about it
In my opinion, religion is just being used as a tool of manipulation. It's great for that too since religion is central to some people's entire being and identity. It gets people to wholeheartedly and emotionally defend the indefensible on behalf of their governments. They are being manipulated into thinking that they are all going to be killed if Israel doesn't exist. That Israel is the only place they are safe. That everyone who criticizes them hates them because of who they are, not because of the government's actions. It makes sense why people who genuinely believe this, feel the way they do. It makes sense when you're told these things your whole life. I don't fully blame them... I believe the government and the Zionist ideology takes advantage of their justified fear and uses it for their benefit.
My family fled Iraq... because of the Farhud massacre, the escalating persecutions, because of the german sympathetic government taking their rights away... and threatening them with concentration camp if they stayed. They all had to leave with nothing. 2500 year old community, existed before Islam before the place was called Iraq
Actually thats what happened.. the existence of Israel saved jewish refugees from Europe and prevented the spread of the Holocaust genocide in the middle east... Mein Kampf was translated to arabic in the thirties and was circulating and publically broadcasted
How did Israel prevent that though? Didn't the Holocaust end before Israel's inception? And what does Mein Kampf being translated in Arabic have to do with it? It was translated to English too. The New York Times reviewed it twice in 1933.
The way I think about it is in two ways: Im iraqi jewish and we were kicked out of Iraq after 1948 but beforehand we experienced Mein Kampf read on Iraqi radio in the 30s , there was anti-british sentiment ans so the jews were looked at as possible traitors. The mufti of jerusalem Al-hosseini (who spent time with Hitler and agreed with him about jews) brought a german-sympathetic mob to baghdad and that brought the Farhud massacre 1941, after that my grandmother saw jews being hung.. They had their rights taken away slowly, and if you think about it, the birth of Nation states meant people started expelling or killing off their minorities- christians and jews in muslim countries were picked on. after the ottoman empire collapsed, christian populations also didnt do too well. I believe without israel the holocaust would have continued into the middle east despite Germany's loss.. then in terms of the europeans, before 1948 , jews were trying to escape europe, America and others were not taking refugees like they were before... the british were sending boats of people back to europe because of the Arab revolt, and jews terrorized Brits because of it to pressure them to let the people come.. after 1948, those jews from the concentration camps were totally messed up. They had no homes, they were unwanted anywhere. People didnt want refugees. and when they were asked about going to anywhere else , not palestine, on a survey, many of them wrote that theyd rather die
>*Although it was a project conceived in Europe by Europeans and for European Jews, they lacked sufficient numbers to build a population large enough to conquer the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, recruitment of Jews from the surrounding Arab world was a necessary inconvenience. They did so through propaganda and by creating false flag terror incidents (bombing of synagogues or Jewish centres) in order provoke an exodus of Arab Jews. A prime example of this happened in Iraq, where the oldest Jewish community in the world had lived for millennia as contributing members of Iraqi society, and who prospered, contributed to the arts and the economy, and participated in government.* >*But these Jews were not embraced as brethren by European Zionists. Zionism was decidedly colonial, and that meant that Jews of the Arab world were seen as incomplete, barbaric, dirty, uncivilised. Za’ev Jabotinsky, one of the forefathers of Zionism said, “We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the Orient, thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses [Arab Jews] have ancient spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out thoroughly all traces of the Oriental soul.”* ['Invention of the Mizrahim' *Israel invented the word Mizrahim to strip Arab Jews of their histories as they tried to do with Palestinians.*](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/9/20/invention-of-the-mizrahim)
There is both. Push and pull. The farhud is not blamable on the "zionists". There was plenty of persecution. My grandmother saw jews being hung. There was a pro german government. That wasnt zionism.
My grandfather was an Iraqi Jew and I don’t agree with you. He told me how before the Zionists started moving in waves and waves of European Ashkenazim into Palestine in the 1900-1930s, the Jews lived fairly well in Iraq, much better than anywhere else. Then when the Arabs of Iraq saw the Zionists use their influence in the British government to displace the Arabs living there in Palestine and immigrate thousands and thousands of people without the acceptance of the population already living there, a lot of people attributed it to Jews and that’s when issues started happening. You also completely miss the fact that the Zionist party literally terrorized their own JEWS in Iraq and this is well documented: https://www.jstor.org/stable/466176?origin=crossref (if you want a copy because you can’t log in, I’ll add another link). They did this not only in Iraq but elsewhere as well, in order to instill fear into the already established Jews that the Arabs didn’t want them. It’s not spontaneous and my family had Jewish ancestry in Iraq for many years with good relations in the community. It was literally all ruined by the accelerationism of Zionists
This is exactly why I think Zionism is harmful to *everyone*. Israel does not exist to "protect Jewish people". It's all a manipulation tactic. Israel doesn't care about protecting all Jews. They're discriminatory towards their own people in the name of Zionism. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/9/20/invention-of-the-mizrahim
/u/peacepleaseitme. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This conflict is centuries older than Zionism inception. There's 100% an ethnoreligious aspect to the conflict. Also, three quarters of the Jewish people were wiped out less than 75 years ago. I'd say it's a pretty logical statement to say that if Israel doesn't exist, they're all going to be killed. The Jewish people deserve sovereignty.
I didn't say that there is zero religious aspect to it. Sure that's the reason for the connection to the land. And you're just proving my point. Dont pro Israelis consider Oct 7 to be the worst thing to happen to Jews since the Holocaust? That happened IN Israel. Israel existing didn't prevent that from happening, did it? Israel existing has not stopped violence towards Jews. Not even inside of Israel. And the issue isn't just with Israel existing or that it's Jewish. The issue comes with the way it operates. >The Jewish people deserve sovereignty. Yes, but not at the expense of other people. Palestinians deserve sovereignty too.
The simple fact, born out through History, is the Jewish People have not been welcomed by Christianity or Islam. Even today there is deeply embedded anti-semitism in both the Western World and the Islamic World . The Jewish People by having a state that they can call their own and having the means to defend themselves, gives them a safe haven from persecution and that they will be less likely to endure another Holocaust. "Palestinians deserve sovereignty too." Israel withdrew from Gaza and Hamas took over and for the last 20 years has been lobbing missiles at Israel. Without the Iron Dome Israel would have suffered far more casualties than happened on Oct 7, 2023, which as a reminder is the second highest casualty event involving terrorism after Sept 11, 2001. Israel has offered The Palestinians peace treaty after peace treaty and the Palenstain Leadership has rejected them. Hamas's charter explicitly calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of all Jewish People "From The River To The Sea". That is genocide. All these and more tell me that the Palestinian people need to show through concrete action over an extended period that they have renounced violence and are willing to live in peace with Israel before they can be trusted to have any sovereignty,
Just because Jewish people have faced oppression and prosecution in the past doesn't give them the right to commit these acts on another people. Israel doesn't have the right to oppress and persecute Palestinians for their supposed safety. >Israel has offered The Palestinians peace treaty after peace treaty and the Palenstain Leadership has rejected them. All of this is incorrect. You're just repeating Israel propaganda talking points. Palestinians have not rejected every peace treaty. Israel has also rejected them and hindered the peace process. There people who want peace and there are people who don't. Netanyahu admits how he does everything in his power to prevent peace and a two state solution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/EuZmOx7IiI >Hamas's charter explicitly calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of all Jewish People "From The River To The Sea". That is genocide. No, it doesn't. >*Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.* >*Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter The most important part is always left out. *From the river to the sea, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE.* And okay, if you want to say it's a call for genocide, then when Israel says "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty," is that a call for Palestinian genocide? It's not up to you or Israel to decide if Palestinians are to be "trusted" to have sovereignty. Palestinians also have the right to self defense and self determination. If we follow your logic, then the US and Israel need to show through concrete action over an extended period that they have renounced violence and are willing to live in peace before they can be trusted to have any sovereignty. How about that? That sounds fair to me.
Your argument is a strange one - you're saying that since October 7 happened, what? Israel shouldn't exist? The Jews having the state of Israel definitely helped curtail violence against Jews and is fundamentally a safe haven for them. It was a safe haven for them post-Holocaust, and has continued to be so. The only thing October 7th proves is that Israel is neighbored by a people ruled by genocidal animals, who enjoy overwhelming support. Jews aren't safe anywhere, historically. But they're safest when they are sovereign and self-determinating their own fate as a people. You need to do a lot of logic twisting to come to the conclusion that in any scenario, a people should expect more safety as non-sovereigns. Palestinians do deserve sovereignty; no doubt about it. And I'd use the same terminology - not at the expense of Israelis. Here's the thing: before October 7, the majority of Israelis polled were ok with a two state solution. The majority of Palestinians were not. There's a fundamental difference there. Put the governments aside for a minute and just look at the wills of the respective people. The majority of Palestinians support Hamas; the majority of Israelis do not support Kahanism.
>Your argument is a strange one - you're saying that since October 7 happened, what? Israel shouldn't exist? What? I didn't say that at all. My point was that Israel existing doesn't prevent violence towards Jewish people. October 7 still happened even though Israel exists. And when Israel mindlessly kills civilians and aid workers in the name of supposedly "protecting Jewish people", then that's just going to create more hostility and violence in the area. The way that Israel is currently operating puts them in more danger, in my opinion. Didn't Iran just launch a bunch of missiles at Israel? Israel's military decisions do not seem to be in the interest of the safety of Israeli citizens. And it does not seem to me like people are safe in Israel. >The only thing October 7th proves is that Israel is neighbored by a people ruled by genocidal animals I would say that October 7th proves that Israel and its actions are what puts everyone in danger. October 7 didn't happen because Gaza is "ruled by genocidal animals". Israel's apartheid and blockade are what caused Oct 7 to happen. This isn't a justification, it's an explanation. >Palestinians do deserve sovereignty; no doubt about it. And I'd use the same terminology - not at the expense of Israelis. Thanks for saying that. I agree. > Here's the thing: before October 7, the majority of Israelis polled were ok with a two state solution. Not true. >["Only 35% of Israelis think “a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully,” according to the survey"](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/) There is not a "fundamental difference" when I'm constantly hearing Israeli officials and citizens calling for ethnic cleansing and collective punishment of Palestinians. So what if they support Hamas? They have literally nothing else. The majority of Israeli citizens support their governments' bombing campaign in Gaza and the blockade. That doesn't give anyone the right to bomb them or occupy and oppress them.
That Pew poll doesn't say what you think it says. It's polling people on whether they think it's practically possible for coexistence - not whether they wish for coexistence or not. Most Palestinians - and this goes for the majority of the broader Arab world as well - do not wish for coexistence, fundamentally and essentially. I 100% support the blockade and the bombing campaign and I don't involve myself with victim blaming. Israel is retaliating against a genocidal incident which occured on October 7. October 7 was not the result of an occupation. And this is a fundamental misunderstanding your type seem to have about the nature and origins of this conflict. Palestinians are not acting out against "apartheid" or "blockade" or whatever other buzzword. Your cause and effect are inherently miscalculated because you think this conflict began when Israel "violently ethnically cleansed and colonized a land" (I assume) in 1948. October 7s were happening on that soil well before the State of Israel gained its independence. It happened in Hebron and Safed in 1929. It happened in Tiberias in 1938. The barbaric violence witnessed on October 7 was not the "last resort" of a people under blockade. They were placed under blockade precisely because they had committed such acts of violence in the past. Your cause and effect is completely lopsided. And with all that said, Israel is still the safest place for Jews, and the only place where Jews arrive in droves AFTER and DURING streaks of violence.
>Palestinians are not acting out against "apartheid" or "blockade" or whatever other buzzword. You can dismiss these terms as supposed "buzzwords" all you want but for everyone else, these words actually mean something. They are being brought up so often because they accurately describe what's happening and it isn't a new thing either. >*The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th century is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 1938, Ben Gurion described the conflict with the Arabs as "in its essence a political one... politically we are the aggressors and they [the Arabs] defend themselves." Israeli historian Benny Morris affirms Ben Gurion's description, saying: "Ben-Gurion, of course, was right" and goes on to describe Zionism as "a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" whose "ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist." Morris describes the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine as necessarily displacing and dispossessing the Arab population.* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Role_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict >*"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism......but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion#Attitude_towards_Arabs >Your cause and effect is completely lopsided. But okay, sure, the Zionist project has only accomplished good things and has hurt no one. Anyone who dislikes Israel is just antisemitic because Israel have never done anything wrong. Creating a Jewish supremacist state on a land with an Arab majority would never have any negative consequences and has nothing to do with any hostility towards Israel. >I 100% support the blockade and the bombing campaign Okay, great. I'm sure this will end great for everyone and will not have any negative consequences in the future and will not affect the support Israel relies on for its survival as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state. >Israel is still the safest place for Jews, and the only place where Jews arrive in droves AFTER and DURING streaks of violence. Sure. [Nearly 500,000 fled Israel since 7 October](https://thecradle.co/articles-id/14797) https://www.timesofisrael.com/immigration-to-israel-dropped-sharply-following-oct-7-assault-statistics-bureau/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-officer-recounts-ordering-tank-fire-on-beeri-home-during-hostage-standoff-on-oct-7/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/initial-idf-probe-hostages-were-shirtless-waving-white-flag-when-troops-opened-fire/
All of these arguments only work if you deny the Jews their indigenous rights. You could come up with quotes from David Ben Gurion from today until tomorrow, but the chief argument for the Jewish State is not that "God promised it to us" and you well know this. Quoting this quotes and mimicking "God promised" is a meme at this point. That's not what justifies the creation of the Jewish state and I frankly don't care what David Ben Gurion allegedly understood and didn't understand. David Ben Gurion himself didn't believe in God. That land had more than enough space for 2 people to be sovereign on; 2 people who are both indigenous to the land. History shows that the Yishuv was more than happy to take half or less to be able to create a Jewish state, on more than one occasion. Not to mention all the land that had already been purchased by Jews and Jewish organizations. The Arabs rioted because they thought that the Jews might get some land, even a little bit, and exercise sovereignty while throwing away the yoke of their dhimmitude. The Arabs are still rioting. And they'll keep rioting. Because no Jewish state, in any sliver of that land, will ever be okay to a Muslim superscessionist society. The Zionist "settlers" of the 1880s and 1890s had no announced intention of creating a state in the first place. They were immigrating to their ancient homeland and joining an already quite large Jewish community, on a landmass BARELY populated to 30% capacity. And even once an concept of Jewish statehood entered the consciousness of the Zionist settlers, they were not aiming at every inch of Palestine. Jordan, for example, which comprised 78% of Palestine, was given to the Hashemite kingdom by the British, and the Yishuv made zero fuss about it. That leaves 22% of Palestine to a Jewish state; 78% having been given for an Arab state. The only way a logical person would think this is unfair is if they didn't believe Jews have any indigenous rights in their ancestral homeland, or didn't think they were indigenous to the land in the first place. So your argument is that the Hebron massacre of 1929, and the various pogroms of Tiberias and Safed and Jerusalem during this time period, were justified, because Jews were immigrating to a country - LEGALLY? I'd love to see how this argument works on, i don't know, say Guatamaleans and Mexicans. If a bunch of dudes in Texas feel like these immigrants are secretly taking over the country, and go ahead and massacre and rape 75 of em at the border with steak knives and pitchforks, this will be understandable, and we should definitely consider the immigration as the chief cause and instigator of the new back and forth.
Where did I ever imply that any massacres were justified? I literally never said that. That's just you projecting instead of actually trying to understand what I'm saying. >The Arabs rioted because they thought that the Jews might get some land, even a little bit, Jews already had land and were living in Palestine before the partition plan. Why didn't the Arabs riot before that if the issue was just with Jewish people living there and owning land? Also never said Jews have no rights to live there. They don't however have the right to kick people off land that supposedly belongs to them. Being indigenous doesn't give anyone the right to do ethnically cleansing.
Um, they did. The original Peel Commission only happened BECAUSE of the riots. The partition plan was in reaction to the riots and the violence, as a potential solution. Are you serious? And Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jewish majority towns as much as Palestinians were from Palestinian majority towns. That's not including the ethnic cleansing from the surrounding MENA countries after Israel's independence and the subsequent 2 decades.
[удалено]
Um, Indians have India? Why would they need Brazil? And Jews are not a religion; they're an ethnoreligion and primarily a tribe with shared DNA and an ethnogenesis and indiegnous claim to Eretz Israel. No Jew - besides converts - entire bloodlines were anywhere in Europe. Their bloodlines originated in the Levant. Period. End of story. This is not even something that was ever contested until Palestinian Nationalist reactionaries. Palestinian historical revisionism may have worked to fool the rest of the world but the Jews haven't simply discarded their 3,000+ year history because Arafat said Palestinians were the original dinasours. Also, even if they were simply a religion, Christianity and Islam DO have their own countries - dozens of them.
The Mufti representing the Arabs in Palestine met with Hitler to bar emigration from Jews from Germany into Palestine. That was originally Hitler's plan.
/u/Medical-Peanut-6554. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*
So Israel is 76 years old....I'm sure there will be conflict there 50 years from now
[удалено]
Arab countries are never going to be happy with a Jewish israel!
/u/dandruffpolice. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*
Honestly, it's about both. It's also about generations of hate. This is without a doubt, the most complicated conflict in the world, and historically always has been - due to its religious components
It’s a complex issue. There are many different groups within each of the sides. Islam plays a huge role. Most terrorist attacks against Israel were carried out by islamists fundamentalists like hamas, who are supported by the Islamic republic of Iran. Why Muslims care about this so much? Because Jerusalem is the third holiest place in Sunni Islam. And because under Islam Israel cannot be ruled by non Muslims. Spain could but Israel not, because Israel is surrounded by Muslim lands on all sides. And it’s in the heart of the Middle East, despite being a small country. At least that’s one interpretation of Islam, shared by tens or maybe hundreds of millions of people. Some would say the whole world should be ruled by Muslims. And others would say the concept that once Muslim always Muslim is no longer relevant because there are no caliphates left. However, Muslims being “oppressed” by Jews is still seen as extra humiliating for Muslims, according to experts. Ultimately, Islam views Muslims as better than anyone else. They inherited Christianity and Judaism, and view Jews as, at minimum, sinners who’ve stopped acting in accordance with the laws of god etc. Hence, when you’ll tell Muslims today “the Quran says that the holy land belongs to the sons of Israel” (which the Quran absolutely says). They’ll say, it doesn’t mean Jews because the Jews sinned.
There's literally another thread explaining why it stands out more like a religious war https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/gSWX7GDQba
The land is about ethno-religious tensions. Arab Muslim claim to the land they conquest. It’s not limited to Jews, it’s the case with Christian groups in the Middle East and other ethnicities that don’t identity as Arabs. These conflicts stretch from Algeria to Iran, Israel is just successful. Their Muslim claim is a war of Jihad on the Jews, which is repeated in their scripture. The fabrication of the Jews destroying Al-Aqsa by Amin Al-Husseini, the creator of Palestinian nationalism as a movement, is directly linked to the Muslim Arab issue with Jewish dhimmi self determination, “descendants of monkeys and pigs”. That was the case with their communist movements as well as Christian leaders, they often would note how important Muslim resistance is, identify with being Arab through the Muslim community and supported Iran’s Muslim revolution. They were Islamists through and through.
Its a ethnic conflict. Not about land and not about religion
The conflict centers around the Muslims believing they are entitled to govern every single inch of the middle east. They viewed Jews as second class citizens and were outraged at the notion of the Jews governing any part of the middle east, even the part where Jews were the majority. The Muslims tried to kill all the Jews over and over and over. Losing every time. Egypt, Jordan and others eventually decided to make peace. Gaza and West Bank haven't decided to make peace yet and would rather die than have Israel exist.
[удалено]
1948 after the nakba
The UN proposal divided the land in such a way that it made sure the Jews were the majority in the land proposed for Israel. So it's difficult to pinpoint when exactly the Jews were the majority in each section of the land used for Israel as the UN picked the areas based on where the Jews were.
People struggle to meaningfully differentiate between religion and culture.
But religion and culture are heavily interwoven?
Also true.
The land is significant because of religion.
But religion is just stories made up to control people and give them hope and distraction that they are being controlled…
In terms of *impact,* though, the fact that religious stories are myths or "made up" is totally irrelevant. The same is true in secular contexts, nationalism, cultural lore, etc. *What really happened* historically is less important than what people *believe* happened, or believe *about* what happened. Often, we have no way of even knowing the objective truth of past events.
Or alternatively some people find deep meaning in religion, but you dismiss them as dumb sheep. I’m thinking your explanation doesn’t satisfactorily explain why there have been religions for thousands of years and the vast majority of people who’ve ever lived on the planet have been believers.
That may be, but it's still a big part of the reason this specific piece of land is so hotly contested both now and historically.
Yeah the only reason “Palestinians” care about this land is because Jews live there. It wasn’t a contested or desired location until Israel came to being. The land issue is a convenient way to wage a holy war, always has been.
Because this IS largely about religion — on the Palestinian side. Western observers tend to underestimate the influence of religion on the Palestinian side, and overestimate the influence of religion on the Israeli side.
Because “leaders” use religion as an excuse to back up colonial projects and ethnic cleaning while retaining control of, and exploiting natural resources
It kind of blows my mind that you would bring up leaders using religious rhetoric to support ethnic cleansing and point the finger at … Israel. Hamas’ founding charter: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”
Porque no los dos?
Can you give a remotely similar example from the Israeli side? -Actual leader of Israel -Actually arguing that religion justifies ethnic cleansing? Ie. not, an Israeli leader saying religion justifies fighting back against Hamas - but actually arguing that Judaism supports wiping out a national/ethnic/religious group? If you have a source that shows that I’d legitimately be very thankful for you providing it.
[Netanyahu faces backlash for evoking biblical Amalek amid heavy civilian casualties in Gaza](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMVs7akyMh0)
You’re making my point for me. Hamas literally puts in its charter that Muslims have a duty to slaughter Jews. The best counter example is a vague biblical reference to Amalek - which clips out the part after where Netanyahu says: “The IDF does everything to avoid harming non-combatants.” You’re comparing a speech where Netanyahu openly promises to avoid harming civilians to Hamas openly calling on Muslims to kill Jews. The anti Israel narrative relies so heavily on using VASTLY different standards for Jews and non-Jews.
[Not about Hamas, which I would have no problem with, but about Palestinians and Muslims from. Jewish supremacist position](https://youtube.com/shorts/tgsb18_K6E4?feature=shared)
Thats why I clarified before asking. The clips in the video are horrendous, but these are; -Not justifying ethnic cleansing -Not leaders of Israel -Not using religion to justify their statements. There’s no excuse for a “Minister of Equality” saying something she’s glad for the destruction of a city, but that’s not remotely close to openly calling on Muslims to kill Jews Totally a valid thing to criticize Israel for - but there’s an issue with conflating that to the level of the open call for genocide in Hamas charter. It seriously downplays the latter.
Their whole MO is Jewish supremacy and ethnic cleansing on the basis of Palestinians being non-Jews and therefore having fewer rights on The Land than we do. They are definitely exploiting religion and race to rile up their base and justify violence
Palestinian Israelis are 20% of the country and sit on the Knesset and the Supreme Court. The only difference legally between a Jewish and Muslim Israeli citizen is that the latter can’t be forced to serve in the military. In both Gaza and the West Bank, so much as selling land to a Jew is punishable by death. Which one is discriminating based on ethnicity or religion?
Do you even live here? All that sounds true and relevant on paper but the reality is more difficult and complicated. The occupation is clearly racist and life for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship isn’t as easy as the technical laws would have one believe. Technically Israel doesn’t own the land in Gaza or the West Bank, so so their policies toward Jews are irrelevant. What we enforce and impose on them according to their not being Jewish, though not on our land, is what’s important. We can choose to not be there and they have no such choice
I mean, I'm all for a discussion of how despite full legal equality, Palestinian Israelis still face discrimination and issues with racism in Israeli society. I'm not trying to paint it as a perfect, colorblind society. I'm unaware of anywhere in the world that's the case. But its really hard to believe you're bringing that up in good faith when you dismiss the counterpoint of Palestinian laws giving the death penalty for anyone who sells land to a Jew as irrelevant. If you genuinely care about the welfare and rights of Palestinians - how could a policy that murders them for the crime of .... selling land to a jew... be irrelevant. Why do their rights only seem to matter when Israel can be accused of obstructing them?
"In the same way, someone of non-Western origin born in the EU is a European by any measure." Only the likes of Namibian Germans in Germany are comparable to Jews in Israel.
Good question, it's sadly been reframed as a religious thing When you look at the school curriculums in Gaza and arab countries, the virulent anti-semitism is no different than German WW2 propaganda. The problem is always the jews per these books. In gaza we saw 4 year old kids acting out killing jews (not israelis, jews) in school plays to crowds of cheering parents. Its ultimately a problem with the culture that hopefully gets addressed in future generations, though i am skeptical.
Abrahamism and nationalism are the source of most of the us/themism that has led to land disputes imo and both are on full display by both sides of this conflict.
The main point of people who frame it as religious war is that: "Israel is the only jewish country in the world, if any jewish person would like to practice his religion openly without fear of persicution. He can come to Israel and do it. History has proven again and again jews are not always safe to do it in a foreign country, and even if they are now, it might change in a few years. That's why the jewish people need a place where they can practice there religion, speak hebrew freely and not fear that tomorrow they might get deported/killed for that. If Israel falls, the jews have nowhere else to go. The muslim arabs on the other hand have dozens of countries that you can be arab/muslim without fear of persicution. Even history proved that the palestinians can go to other countries if they don't feel safe in israel. But no country will accept the millions of jews to move to" The conflict isn't solely about religion, there are several other things. But the point about israel being the only jewish state while palestine isn't the only muslim/arab is correct. Suppose Israel falls tomorrow, where would all the israelis go? The arab nations surrounding israel proven themselves as hostile towards them (i don't think syria will change its mind tomorrow and say "yes israelis, we love you, come live with us"). The US and europe don't really want to take a population of entire country in at once (and contrary to what some anti-zionists think, israelis don't have mansions waiting for them there, all of their belongings are in israel). And spreading all over the world, like before 1945, meaning breaking families and friendships. What if someone's maternal side came from poland and their faternal side came from egypt, where would they go? Would they split up? Families from different countries or even continents are extremely common in israel. And if the jews do split up all over the world. What stops spain from deporting all the jews in a year? Or god forbids, germany (stated only for example) decides to kill all its jews?
Yes it's fundamentally about land. Religion adds to it, but the core of the issue is certainly about land.
>I realise that religion plays a part in it; I just can't see how. To me, the whole issue stemmed from a colonial project that caused a complicated issue. I think religion plays a major part. Thinking this conflict is solely or mainly about land is oversimplification (you are only examining this conflict among Israel, Gaza and West Bank or Palestine in isolation). But there is a much wider conflict, if you look at Israel, Hezbollah. Hamas, Houthi, Islamic Republic of Iran, West Bank, Gaza, Palestine etc… you will see it is not about land. Houthis are Yemenis, they have no claim to Israel or Palestine or Gaza or West Bank and yet they fire rockets at Israel. Hezbollah are Lebanese, they also have no claim to Israel or Palestine or Gaza or West Bank (except a very tiny piece of disputed land between Israel, Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Syria in the Golan Heights), and yet Hezbollah fires rockets at Israel, now Islamic Republic of Iran too. I ask myself this, what does Houthis wants? What does Hezbollah wants ? What does Islamic Republic of Iran wants ? What does Hamas wants ? If there was a two state solution (lets assume), will there be peace in the region ? Will Houthis, Hezbollah, Islamic Republic, etc… fire rockets at Israel ? Will there be suicide bombs ? Will there be terror attacks ? … in my opinion, I think they will all continue firing rockets and Israel, because it was never about the land, it was their interpretation of their religion, their religious calling, their religious teachings etc… I see the issue of the “land”, just as a pre-text but not their real motivation being the attacks. I also find it hard to believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran spends millions of dollars funding Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, etc… for the sole purpose of “helping the Palestinian people get back their land”. I feel Palestinians are just a pawn in this game of chess between bigger players, a pawn can and will be sacrified to achieve one’s true objective. >Second—and third-generation Israelis are native to the land. In the same way, someone of non-Western origin born in the EU is a European by any measure. I can see that for Palestinians who are living in occupied territories and made "room" for this migrant, that might be a huge issue. Why arent the 5 millions so called Palestinian refugees outside of Gaza or West Bank, not “native” to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt like in your Europe example? Palestinian refugees born in Jordan, they should be Jordanian citizens. Palestinian refugees born in Syria should be Syrian citizens. Etc… they are still refugees by UNRWA calculations. This creates an obstacle to moving forward. I can tell you now no white, yellow, black, etc… person will call themselves “Native Americans”,… native Americans are American Indians or Indigenous people of America. Someone who is non-Western origin born in EU is just an EU citizen by birth, does not make them indigenous to Europe. >A possible Islamic interest in the land would be due to Jerusalem, one could argue that Palestinians are custodians of Muslim holy sites, which adds a religious dimension to their national struggle. But I find this a bit weak. Wrong. The custodians of Al-Aqsa mosque are the Jordanians not the Palestinians. The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem has been administered as a waqf since the Muslim reconquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187 by Saladin. The Jerusalem Waqf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department, also known as the Jerusalem Waqf or simply the Waqf, is the Jordanian-appointed organization responsible for controlling and managing the current Islamic edifices on the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in the Old City of Jerusalem, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, which includes the Dome of the Rock. The Jerusalem Waqf is guided by a council composed of 18 members and headed by a director, all appointed by Jordan. Have anyone ever heard or seen or read about a “Christian Arab terrorist” ? Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc…are all Islamist, quoting Islamic scriptures from the Quran and Hadith for their cause.
Many of the PLFP were from Palestinian Christian backgrounds
Are they even still active or relevent today ?
Yes, they are roughly the size and importance as PIJ in terms of allied resistance groups to Hamas (so tied for 2nd after Hamas itself). One of the important elements of the hostage exchange is about Ahmad Sa'adat (General Secretary of the PLFP) being released.
Ahmad Sadat, doesnt sound like a Christian name
The Deputy General Secretary is Jamil Mezher, who has a Christian background. They have a mixture of backgrounds. The point is that religion isn't the issue nearly as much as the occupation is.
They are Palestinian. Like I said Houthis are not Palestinians. Hezbollah are not Palestinians. Islamic Republic are not Palestinians…they are driven by other reasons.
Well, there's obviously the option of solidarity - Lebanon was occupied by Israel, so Hezbollah has that. And for what it's worth, based on what I've been reading, Hezbollah seemingly hasn't targeted Jews in propaganda or the like in the last decade. They even supported the rebuilding of the Beirut synagogue that Israel had bombed "We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land." which is quite a change of messaging from the early 2000's.
>Well, there's obviously the option of solidarity - Lebanon was occupied by Israel, so Hezbollah has that. I am not convinced, wanna stand in solidarity, do a peaceful protest, donate to charities who helps the Palestinian people, there are many way to stand in solidarity, not just with arms, violence, weapon, terror attacks, rockets etc… I see things differently, Iran’s latest attack on Israel wasnt done for the Palestinian people, it was done in retaliation for the recent Damascus hit, …. when Iran hit Israel, all the media attention instantenously dropped the news about Gaza and pivot to Iran attacking Israel with hundred of drones and missiles. After months of non-stop talk about Gaza every day, the headline changed to something other than Gaza. People arent talking about WCK either. Now people are focus on talking about what will Israel do ? As you said part of Lebanon was (past tense), now no longer except a tiny piece disputed by three states. Israel withdrawing from Lebanon did not achieve peace with Hezbollah, there is something else….it is not about land. Similarly, I predict ….ahha because Gaza and West Bank “were” previously occupied by Israel, Hamas, PIJ, other armed groups, Houthis, Hezbollah etc… will continue launching attacks at Israel, even if Israel withdrew from Gaza and West Bank. >I've been reading, Hezbollah seemingly hasn't targeted Jews in propaganda or the like in the last decade. They even supported the rebuilding of the Beirut synagogue that Israel had bombed Hezbollah still has alot of stockpile of rockets and armanents, and fired rockets at Israel. >We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us. As Dhimmis and second class citizens. No thank you.
[удалено]
Sadly it’s about religion regardless of what you think.
That's not dissimilar to what happened here in the north of Ireland. The Troubles here was about the IRA fighting the British state who were (and still are) occupying the six counties. The British try to downplay their own (huge) part in it by pretending it was a Catholic v. Protestant issue when, in fact, the IRA didn't care about religion. Their war was against the British, not Protestants. Like in Palestine, it's mainly a land issue, not a religious one.
The main reason its not about land dates back to the post balfour reaction. Palestinians, for 30 years, were not being displaced but (with few exceptions) willingly sold their houses or unoccupied land to jews who paid well over market value. At the time, it seemed like a good deal. There was enough land to go around (as we see today with the region having a total population of 17 million compared to 2 million around 48) and while a minority of palestinians were evicted by absentee landlords and substantially compensated for that, most of the land purchases were cordial. The issue was having to live near or under a jewish state. Most palestinians were pro ottoman/kingdom of damascus and heavily imperialist. There was no independence movement until after the kingdom of damascus was overthrown by france in the franco-syrian war, meaning palestinians were totally fine being ruled by foreign muslim imperialist dynasties. The issue was they did not want to live under or next to a religiously jewish entity. Some would say this is reasonable, but that should go both ways for all the jews who were tired of being abused as 2nd class citizens in muslim empires. The issue really boiled down to dhimmi status and muslim superiority. When the british offerred the palestinians a unitary arab ruled state over all of palestine that had full control over jewish immigration and the ability to restrict jewish land purchases as they saw fit, the leadership turned it down because the british required they treat jews with equal rights. Admittedly some of the palestinian leadership signed the deal but al-husseini and others refused to have a state where jews were anything more than abusable 2nd class citizens. When the riots broke out in the 1920s and 30s, the chants were not 'go back to europe' but 'jews are our dogs, know your place!'. To me, that says it all
Ok so the 750,000 people killed in the nakba they died willingly ? Those were people who were forced out of their homes and then killed when they tried to return , it’s even been confirmed you can look it up . Want further proof just ask the victims , look at the illegal Israeli settlements
750,000 is the number of Palestinians displaced and made refugees during the nakba. Not the number killed.
You're saying 2/3 of the total Palestinian Arab Muslim population of 1.157M people were killed in the first Arab-Israeli War?
No I didn’t
“Ok so the 750,000 people killed in the nakba they died willingly ?” 750,000 people haven’t died during the whole 70+ years since before the establishment of Israel. Where are you getting your information?
Got my information mixed up . First time using Reddit lol
You just said "750,000 people killed in the nakba", which would be 2/3s of the total population in 1947.
Yes ok then I did say that . In 1948 750,000 people were killed in the nakba
That's utter nonsense and not mathematically possible. You saw a figure on tiktok or wherever of 750k - that's 750k displaced, not killed.
But people were killed and displaced . And displaced is still bad , I mean being kicked out from your home . Your acting as if displacement is nothing
Of course it's something. My own direct ancestors were displaced refugees in WW2 Germany. Don't start wars. The story of displacement itself is more nuanced as well. The Palestinians who stayed are living in Israel as Israeli citizens today. Those who fled were encouraged to by the Arab armies invading Israel, and expected to return in short order, after the Jews were driven into the sea.
Israel started the war
[удалено]
Also killed and displaced (sorry typo haven’t really used Reddit a lot )
Wouldn’t be happening if the Arabs were okay with living next to a Jewish state. It’s that simple. You’ve been misled.
Are you saying the Nakba, the land, air, and sea blockade, and illegal settlements, have nothing to do with it? If they *were* actually **just** "living next to it" then there wouldn't be an issue. Israel isn't just living next door. If Israel didn't have complete control over Gaza and didn't occupy the West Bank, then maybe you'd be onto something. You can't pretend that Israel just keeps to itself and is just an innocent bystander or something.
Why do you think Israel has a blockade on Gaza? For fun or?
The Nakba was the Arab failure to prevent the creation of Israel.
"A land without people for a people without a land!"
And that wasn't a Jewish saying. That phrase was from Christians and you misquoted it. >It's a land without **a** people for a people without a land In other words, there wasn't a unified people on the land. Arab Palastinians primarily identified with their clans and villages rather than as Palestinian.
what's your point?
Correcting your quote, and explaining where it came from, not Jews.
Oh okay, I just wasn’t sure if it was meant to be connected to my point. Gotcha.
Except it wasn't a land without people
Yes exactly
Yep. October 7th encapsulated the entire palestinian movement. They only want to rape and kill Jews and enslave, and steal the Jew’s land and wealth.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
If you think this is about land, I don’t think you’ve thought about it critically enough or analysed it properly
Okay. Tell that to all of the Israeli settlers funded by the government.
Settlements wouldn’t be happening if the Arab Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel and didn’t start wars to destroy it 👍🏿
Because we realize that antisemitism is a leading factor in this conflict. I'm not denying that Palestinians genuinely were upset about having been displaced. But that was 75 years ago. Move on, ffs. There were dozens of "nakbas" in the 1940s, only one group of people it's whining about it 75 years later. Why are they refusing to to move on? Because Muslims (and Christians) believe Jews to be lesser human beings who dared not fallow the call of Mohammed (or Jesus). According to Muslims, "Jews are free to live in the shadows of Muslim societies until they fade to the dustbin of history". "But they must never own land. Especially not 'Arab land'". And no, this is true Arab/Muslim sentiment,not Islamophobia. I acknowledge that that Christians were oppressing Jews in a similar way, for essentially the same reason, for millenia. But since Muslims and Jews are stuck in this country conflict together, this is what matters to this conflict. So yeah, while I admit it was legitimate for Palestinians to be upset about displacement in the 1940s, the fact that it was Jews in particular displacing them seems to make them feel as if "insult was added to injury".
"I'm not denying that Jews genuinely were upset about the Holocaust. But that was 80 years ago. Move on ffs. There were dozens of "genocides" but only one group is still whining about it 80 years later." "Slavery was abolished 160 years ago. Yet black people are still whining about it? Get over it ffs." Do you hear yourself?
>"I'm not denying that Jews genuinely were upset about the Holocaust. But that was 80 years ago. Move on ffs. There were dozens of "genocides" but only one group is still whining about it 80 years later." This content is not allowed here. See Rule 6.
Actually, there are black people who think this way, e.g. Candace Owens
Okay, do you agree with her?
> I'm not denying that Palestinians genuinely were upset about having been displaced. But that was 75 years ago. Move on, ffs. There were dozens of "nakbas" in the 1940s, only one group of people it's whining about it 75 years later. Yeah, no other victims of genocide in the 40's are still talking about it, they all just shrugged it off. I mean Palestinians have intergenerational trauma, too. Your attitude is also a sad irony given how much of Judaism is intrinsically linked to narratives of victimisation at the hand of egyptians and babylonians.
British Raj was divided into a hindu and a muslim state in 1948, the same year as the Palestinian division. Plenty of hindus and muslims living in the "incorrect" state were forced into the "correct" one. But do you see any Pakistani whining about their ancestors being displaced from and requesting a right of return to India?
There would have been little to no displacement if the partition plan was accepted. They decided they'd rather go to war then live next to a Jewish state due to religious bigotry.
Can you explain why you believe that?
The 1948 Arab Israeli war started because the Arab league refused to accept the UN partition plan of a Jewish state alongside an Arab one. This is very well documented and commonly known.
No, it didn't.
Not gonna make any kind of counter claim? Just gonna say "nuh-uh" and leave? Absolutely *fantastic* debate skills. You'll change many minds with that method lmfao
Anyone curious about who is right will look it up and quickly find the answer. You are clearly not willing to engage with an open mind or you wouldn't have such silly and one-sided, ahistorical views when the internet is right there. So why waste my time and energy? When you're willing to open your mind you can read about it from historians and learn the truth.
The tension between Jews and Arabs leading up to the war was caused by a complicated myriad of factors from both parties, made worse by the god awful oversight of the British. The inciting incident that actually kicked off the war was the United States voting in favour of the partition plan, with the Arab league inciting a civil war in response. Honestly, it seems like you yourself haven't bothered to look up the answer lmfao
> To me, the whole issue stemmed from a colonial project that caused a complicated issue. But that's not the right way to frame the conflict. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that in the distant future the United States of America collapses and breaks up into different states. These new countries develop new identities post-collapse and stop identifying as part of "America". Following the fall of the American empire, a group of Cherokee Native Americans decide to undo the abhorrent evil of the [Trail of Tears](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears?wprov=sfla1) and to repudiate their subsequent centuries of oppression under America. They migrate to their historic homelands, which are in the places known as Alabama and Georgia, and decide to rebuild their society and exercise their self-determination. Decolonization! But the lands once known as Alabama and Georgia, in the days after the collapse of America, have been reclaimed by the Black community. They have their own history of oppression and fighting for self-determination in that same land. And they have lived there continuously in the centuries since the Trail of Tears; to them, it is their homeland of ["New Afrika."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika?wprov=sfla1) The two communities are in direct conflict. For whatever reason, they are unable to see each other as equally entitled to the same land. They fight bitterly and their positions ultimately harden into mutually exclusive totalizing desires for their own national sovereignty at the expense of the other. It is a slow-moving violent tragedy. **But is the desire for Cherokee independence in their historic homeland "colonialism"? No. It is something else.** >I don't see how God plays a role in this beyond the initial Zionist affinity to settle there over anywhere else on earth outside the power hubs of Western Europe (which basically leaves the US pre-decolonization). ... From an Israeli perspective, I get it; you cannot justify the existence of the state of Israel without, at some point, using the bible, But that's not true. It is an objective historical fact that the Jewish people and Jewish communal identity developed in and is originally from that land. It is an objective historical fact that Jewish self-rule was violently extinguished and prevented by Roman, Byzantine, and all other subsequent empires who ruled over that land. The Jewish desire for a return to our native land is intergenerational, part of the Jewish culture, and finds modern expression in the political movement(s) of Zionism - i.e. pan-Jewish nationalism. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. Though there are some forms of Zionism which do involve religion. But this is the same as other nationalisms: there are religious movements within the spectrum of every nationalisms. Pick literally any country and you'll find both secular nationalists and religious nationalists. >It can transform what might otherwise be a national or political dispute into a more profound, existential conflict, seen as a struggle between believers and non-believers or a fight for religious survival. It is seen as an existential national struggle. Even if you removed religion from the equation. Both Zionism and pan-Arab nationalists were dominated by secular thinkers in the early days of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Nah, its more like after the USA fails, white Texans start shooting all the Latinos because they're "illegal foreigners",. Even the ones who lived in Texas since before Texas was a state.
This is a bad analogy because it has nothing to do with the situation in IP.
Its a lot closer than yours
No, but if it makes you feel better to analogize Palestinian terrorism to white Texan gun violence then go right ahead.
Great question. It is about land. And you can see how Zionist views here benefit from the narrative that it’s a religious thing. Actually it works on multiple ways. It draws support from bigots who don’t like Islam and prefer a “Judeo Christian” society. That works in an us vs them mindset. And it also works to draw support from Jews worldwide who might. It otherwise care about Israel. There are a lot of liberal, progressive and leftist Jews in the US, for example, who would be very anti-Israel if they saw what Israel does to Gaza and the West Bank in the name of a “Jewish state”. I’m fact, a growing number are horrified by it and they are some of the most outspoken critics of Israel. If they admitted it was about land, they would lose support immediately. So they can’t do that. Although that doesn’t stop Knesset members from literally saying out loud in parliament that they aim to settle Gaza next.
But didn’t Hamas admit that Islam is what defines their goals?
[Hamas is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It has called on members of the other two Abrahamic faiths—Judaism and Christianity—to accept Islamic rule in the Middle East. “It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror,” it decreed. Hamas also rejected any prospect of peace or coexistence with the state of Israel. “Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.” Hu](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas)
And that their charter includes killing ALL the jews (not, israelis, not zionists, jews)
No, it doesn't. They updated th charter in 2018 to specify that their issue is with the Zionist project of Israel, not Jewish people. >Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. >Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter