Comment by smoothjazz
1 year ago
It's not about religion, it's about occupation. Zionists got permission to occupy the land from the British with The Balfour Declaration then started the invasion in full in 1948 with Nakba. When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily. This is why colonization most often leads to genocide or permanent apartheid.
>Zionists got permission to occupy the land from the British with The Balfour Declaration
This is not an accurate representation. Jewish people were given the legal ability to purchase land in Mandatory Palestine. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were tenant farmers or landless labourers. Jewish land purchases inevitably led to the displacement of these tenants, but this was the lawful outcome of a lawful land sale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palest...
The issues surrounding occupation of land after the 1948 and 1967 wars are significantly more complex and arguably do involve violations of international law by Israel.
So what if that's true (and it's not entirely true - there was forced takeovers of land, and there continues to be land theft in the West Bank today).
If I sell you my land, does that make it right for you to form a separate state with it? Perhaps I would rethink that decision with the advance knowledge of your intentions.
When Israel declared independence, that land was not governed by any state due to the withdrawal of the British Mandate. The Palestinians had previously been offered statehood through the 1947 UN Partition Plan, but had rejected it. They did not take steps to establish their own state in anticipation of the British withdrawal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_British_Mandate_for...
The majority of land purchases were made by the Jewish National Fund. Their aspiration to form a state was explicit and overt.
1 reply →
If I understand what's happened elsewhere correctly, then we have an example of this elsewhere at the world stage -- the separation of Kosovo from Serbia is in a large part due to land purchases from Albanians, who then vied for independence when their population grew enough.
This isn't an accurate accounting of history.
Zionists were living in the area long before British Mandatory Palestine or the Balfour Declaration - they bought land and legitimately immigrated there while it was under control of the Ottoman Empire. The UN chose to partition the region in 1947 due to ongoing violence on both sides - and the British actually voted against it I believe. The Arab states then chose to go to war against the newly formed Israel - not the other way around, as your comment implies.
I have read a bit about this and I understand the explanation but I still don’t understand how a group of people subject to genocide can turn around and a few generations later be behaving in many (obviously not all) of the same ways toward another group. I would think that if anything the Israeli people would have some empathy and try to find a two state solution that exists in peace.
Because propaganda works everywhere. Teach people that “the other” seeks their destruction and then reframe any violence as tragically necessary self-defense.
The history books don’t mention the Nakba and civilian casualty statistics in Gaza are dismissed as Hamas propaganda.
And I don’t mean to suggest Israel is unique in this. There are many parallels for instance with American “world police” patriotism.
>Teach people that “the other” seeks their destruction
I think recent events have taught this to Israel without any help from propagandists.
Reminds the cases of child abuse that run in families, with former child victims becoming perpetrators against their own children[1]. But on on a whole society level.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
There are many Jewish people, born in Israel and outside of Israel, who do long for a two-state solution or a one-state solution where everyone lives as equals. But sadly those are not the people who hold political or military power.
The Palestinians have been offered a two-state solution on more-or-less reasonable terms on at least two occasions. It isn't for me to say whether they were right to reject those offers, but the human cost of continued conflict has obviously been borne disproportionately by the Palestinians, particularly Palestinian civilians. Sadly, the actions of extremists on both sides have made the possibility of a two state solution increasingly remote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
You're right. It's incomprehensible. In such a situation I can recommend resolving the impasse by broadening what you consider to be the possibly solution space. More specifically, consider the possibility that what you think is happening is not an accurate reflection of what is actually happening.
Eliminating Hamas is not genocide though. Pretending that war is a video game only helps their propaganda.
I refer in my comment to the impact to non-Hamas Palestinians. Eliminating the terrorist organization of Hamas is not controversial (at least in my mind), but the civilian casualties to regular Palestinians seems to be indefensible (again, at least in my mind)
4 replies →
[flagged]
The UN does not corroborate the accusations you levy against Hamas. Israel has (documented) killed hundreds of UN or general aid workers; to my knowledge, Hamas has killed none.
6 replies →
> there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily
That's very much not true.
Compromises are possible and are often the only way. Do I need to start listing examples?
> When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily.
I can certainly think of some other ethnicity in that region who had their land occupied and was cleansed from the region. They even somehow managed to survive an attempt to fully exterminate them! Surely there will be peace once they get all of their land back :)
> I can certainly think of some other ethnicity in that region who had their land occupied and was cleansed from the region.
And I can certainly think of some other ethnicity in that region who that ethnicity cleansed from the region according to their own holy book. :)
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (God telling Joshua, leader of the Israelites, to go to war)
> 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
Well, it was a joke (hence the :)) showing that the quoted statement also applies in reverse and to continue with that joke it certainly seems like this case satisfies the "or are fully exterminated" criteria, so point taken :)
Slightly more seriously (Though only very slightly more seriously :)), IIRC our current understanding of history is that the jews are Canaanites. Quoting from Wikipedia "Ancestors of the Israelites are thought to have included ancient Semitic-speaking peoples native to this area.[59]: 78–79 Modern archaeological accounts suggest that the Israelites and their culture branched out of the Canaanite peoples through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh.", so at the very least one of those peoples survived until today :)
> When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily
I don’t understand why people think this is a good argument. Lots and lots of places shifted in control since 1948. Poland moved half a country to the left, world empires got decolonized, India and Pakistan split and then the latter split once more, all with enormous population movements, the list is nearly endless. “All of that should revert to how it was before, even if at the cost of kicking out or killing everybody who live there” is a pretty extreme revisionist take.
In all these countries, “we should restore our borders to $maximumSizeEver” is widely understood to be a far right take (the Russians want Ukraine, the Greater Hungary people want Transylvania, the Greek neonazis want Trabzon (!), everybody wants Kashmir, etc etc etc). It’s a far right talking point. But for Palestine it’s somehow a mainstream opinion. I don’t get it.
I mean, there’s lots of good arguments to be made for the Palestinian case IMO but I don’t find “they once had more land and therefore they should get it all back no matter the consequences” very compelling.
Thank you for bringing some perspective to the discussion, because there are so many counterexamples to the GP post.
Karelia is another one. Whether or not such situations are resolvable peacefully is entirely up to the nations involved.
I don't see why revanchism gets a free pass in the specific case of the Palestinians.
Forcing people off of their land is the definition of ethnic cleansing and I don't think that's ever ok nor generally accepted in the world. I think Israel is a lot like apartheid South Africa. You can end the apartheid government and start making reparations, including land back to the native inhabitants.
Yeah it's never OK but do you also think Finland should get Viipuri back? That was the second-largest city of Finland, the Soviets took it in WWII and kicked out all the Finns and that was that. It's now Vyborg, a sleepy Russian town of little importance. That was a catastrophe too.
Do you also think Lviv should be Polish? And Wrocław German? And Trabzon Greek? No wait I mean Armenian, which do we even pick, seriously everybody wants Trabzon! Should the entire Arabian peninsula be Turkish again?
Where does it stop? Why should Palestine be restored to its one-time borders but not the rest? All this happened in a time when moving populations around at the whim of a few imperialist rulers was considered a super normal thing to do. That doesn't make it right, but the Nakba isn't a particularly unique historical event. Get over it, and focus on the actual current events that are also bad, such as the settlements, decades of effective imprisonment of everybody in Gaza, and so on. There's plenty of good arguments! But "from the river to the sea" is a far right revisionist talking point and in my opinion it does an enormous disservice to the Palestinian case.
14 replies →
Are you aware of any laws in Israel that discriminate against non-Jews?
Note: Gaza and West Bank are not Israel.
1 reply →
[flagged]
They can handle them, plenty lycans in Hungary proper.
> there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily.
I think you could add assimilation to this list. In this particular instance though, it looks almost entirely unlikely (due to Israel being fundamentally defined as a Jewish state).
By this logic I should be driving a tank into Polish Silesia. But no, some 20yo in Gaza is not a refugee of a war lost shortly after WW2.
[flagged]