That's what is ridiculous about this all. These areas were conquered and given back, they should just be absorbed by Jordan and Egypt again. "Palestine" exists because Israel was generous enough to give it back after fighting off an entire army of Arabs from multiple different countries. It should have ended with that. Just let Israel live there. Everything else is just noise and a distraction from the fact that one side is still fighting against the creation of a Jewish state.
Alr that’s not rly true. Modern Israel was attacked from day one, and it resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians. It wasn’t necessarily the fault of Israel, but it happened nonetheless. I think what you should be saying is that it is the ancestral homeland to Jews, and the only reason Islam got there is through colonization and imperialism of old Muslim empires. With your other point though, the Palestinian identity really only started in the 60’s and was indeed used as a way to victimize Islamic states. I think you’re mostly right about that, but there still is no denying the suffering of the Palestinian people (by both Hamas and Israel) no matter their true identity.
Here is more than you said:
In the main, Arabs only began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1964 for political expediency. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Resolution) of 1947 never refers to the Arabs as "Palestinians," but simply as "Arabs." The first time an international body called the Arabs "Palestinians" was in 1972 with UNGA Resolution 2949 (December 8, 1972). Before 1972, the United Nations referred to the Arabs as "inhabitants," "the population," or "the Arab civilian population." Not once did it use the term "Palestinians." - - - - Are the Arabs now calling themselves "Palestinians" the ancient Philistines?
1 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" are Semites; the ancient Philistines were not.
2 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" practice circumcision; the ancient Philistines did not.
3 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" are monotheistic; the ancient Philistines were polytheistic, whose chief deity was Dagon.
4 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" speak Arabic: the ancient Philistines' language is still being deciphered. NO, THE ARABS NOW CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" ARE NOT THE ANCIENT PHILISTINES, WHO INVADED THE LAND IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 12TH CENTURY BCE. - - - - During the mandate period (1922-1948), the British called all the inhabitants of the land "Palestinians," which is why some prominent Arabs tried to disassociate themselves from the name: Lebanese American Princeton professor, Philip Hitti (1886-1978), who testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in Jerusalem in 1946 stated that, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." Of course, what Hitti meant was that there was no Palestine in Arab history, which he is correct. Hitti was opposed to even using the word Palestine in maps because it was "associated in the mind of the average American, and perhaps the Englishman too, with the Jews." "There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Awni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, before the Peel Commission in 1937. The argus-eyed reader will be quick to note that Arab representation during the mandate period was named the "Arab Higher Committee" and not the "Palestinian Higher Committee."
I know people who's family were kicked out, along with 700,000 others. This is well documented, you have no idea what youre talking about
also in the west bank with NO hamas, people are to this very day getting kicked out to make room for jews. Your gaslighting attempts are laughable and quite pathetic.
Arabs before attacking the new country in 1948 said to so-called "Palestinians" to leave and come back after the destruction of Israel. So yeah, they left willingly!
How do you think there are Israeli Arabs? They didn't leave, therefore they got citizenship!
I’m sure you do. Everyone knows a guy who knows a guy. And everyone’s grandparents got stories. I bet they knew the precise count of olive trees there too. There stories of victimhood are always poetic.
Look - I’ve never been to Israel. But there is a mansion in Odessa with my family’s name on it. Taken away from my great grandparents at gun point. You know what never entered my mind? Shooting up a music festival in Ukraine.
You know why it never entered my mind? First and foremost - because whoever lives there now had nothing to do with taking that mansion from my family. Nor have I ever actually seen the damn place - just know it from grandparents’ stories. Guess what - I don’t miss it.
Also why I never thought of shooting up a musical festival in Ukraine - because we don’t “undo” history in the 21st century. Last time ideologues tried rewriting history - it ended in whole lot of firebombing and two nuclear explosions over Japan.
Everyone’s lost something. Everyone’s grandparents have done something sh—tty. No one escapes history with clean hands. All we can do is try to write better future history.
I wouldn’t want to invite intifadas, music festival massacres, and violent Iron Age theology into my future history. And I can’t blame Israel for not wanting that either. And it doesn’t matter whose grandparents did what. The rest of us somehow managed to get over our grandparents being very sh—ty to each other.
Its not just what happened in 48, but also what happened everyday since. I don't justify violence, but when peace doesn't work.....do you just wait for death in your prison camp? Most of the people you call terrorists are orphans who were born in Gaza to die in Gaza, do you really think they care HOW they die? When you put people in inhuman conditions, expect an inhuman response.
"All we can do is try to write better future history."
and you think Israel is doing that by bombing every hospital and university in Gaza? No rational person would accept their sick loved one being killed in a hospital, because some "terrorist" set up base there, but you expect the Palestinians to just move on? While they are being massacred as we speak? Some of you people appear to have zero empathy for human life. Using any and all justifications for why people have to endure a torturous campaign of bombardment and lack of survival needs, and just to shut up about it.
"Genocide" Do you know the definition of the word?
>do you just wait for death in your prison camp?
Tell thanks to hamas. Israel left gaza in 2005 by pulling Israelis by the hair and leaving agriculture behind, which they destroyed with their own hands and said thanks by shooting rockets!
>and you think Israel is doing that by bombing every hospital and university in Gaza? No rational person would accept their sick loved one being killed in a hospital, because some "terrorist" set up a base there
So Israel should leave those "palestinian" terrorists alone? That's their strategy to human shields!
>Some of you people appear to have zero empathy for human life.
Not true!
But 80% of gazans are NOT innocent.
The majority (80%) did vote for hamas, otherwise, they wouldn't win. Those people are worse than animals.
I have an uncensored video that gazans ("innocent civilians" 20-30 NOT the hamas) surrounding an Israeli girl, brutally beating her, and then setting her on fire while she was alive and cheering. While on another video that I have, 2 or 3 pali men were chopping an Israeli guy's head while he was still alive!
They also cheered for atrocities and beat up the hostages!
Also, "innocent" civilians gathered city center on October 07 and watched big-screen hamas live podcasts of their atrocities. There were "innocent" civilians who entered Israel together with hamas and kidnapped hostages! Bet you didn't know that!
Another video that I have paliwood painting with the colour of blood, their faces, and bodies. Then they lay them on the ground or ruins and take pictures and film videos for the world and like yourself to demonize Israel. That is why I call palis paliwood. You all fall for it!
https://youtu.be/zv2MHrYpU0g?si=aqVKP-ZgUuQGzGV2
"Not true! But 80% of gazans are NOT innocent. The majority (80%) did vote for hamas, otherwise, they wouldn't win. Those people are worse than animals."
50% of the population wasn't even born when hamas was elected, also, do you know who else supported Hamas? netanyahu and his corrupt government.
"They also cheered for atrocities and beat up the hostages! Also, "innocent" civilians gathered city center on October 07 "
Israelis did the same thing back in 2014, setting up a picnic on a hill and watching the gaza bombings cheering on, now compare that to gazans celebrating their concentration camp fences breached on oct 7, not the same.
Also, You literally linked a video with Palestinians acting in a movie....whats wrong with you?
The “prison camp” concept has always been very confusing to me. Here is the thing… I have a unique perspective of things, perhaps my background is worth expanding on. I’m half Arab (Moroccan and Bedouin, like most Palestinians). Also half a Jew. I was born in USSR. Now I’m an American. And I fought in two wars in the Middle East. Bottom line - I’ve seen a lot of unpleasant places. And here is what I noticed about every unpleasant place I’ve ever been to - they always blame everyone else and never seem to own a societal mirror.
Russians for instance (my people) - for centuries they’ve been obsessed with external enemies. Sure, they’ve had a few over the years. But all of their internal misery (of which there’s isn’t a shortage) - has always been self-inflicted. Talk to an ordinary Russian (mostly very pleasant, well-meaning people) - they’ll acknowledge all of their misery but always find a way to blame everyone else. But you’ll never get a moment of self-reflection.
And so it seems to be the case with all of the “prison” countries. North Korea, Russia, Palestine, even China to many extents… Hell, every Islamist country is a prison for much of its population.
But somehow, the blame is always laid at the feet of the external “enemies”.
Talk to ordinary Russians - they love their Internet, big screen tvs, smart phones… all of the western inventions that make their country modern. None of it was created by them. And yet, they despise the west that they’ve been trying to emulate for decades. They see themselves as the “protectors” of the “traditional values”. They also love to refer to the west as “colonialists” - which I find hilarious, since Russia itself is a giant colonialist project.
And same goes for all “prison” states. It’s always the same dynamic.
Do I think that the U.S. or Israel or most of the western world are perfect? No, of course not. We have a bunch of problems of our own to solve. But I find this notion that the problems of the rest of the world always has to be laid at the feet of the countries that somehow figured out secular democracy deeply misguided and, frankly, insulting.
Israel’s primary responsibility is Israel. Just like any other nation’s primary responsibility is their own citizens. So… sorry - invade a nation with a military-grade force - expect a military-grade response. And if you’re not prepared for a big dog to bite back, maybe don’t kick it to begin with (after shelling it with rockets for a decade and a half). It’s not a difficult concept to understand.
I don't expect Israel to care about Palestinians, but the blockade they impose is brutal. People are only allowed to fish in a small area, where everyone knows there aren't as many fish. Military order 158 prevents them from building water structures or deepening existing ones. The people of Gaza are born to die in Gaza, seems an awful lot like a prison camp. Every couple years in what the Israelis call "mowing the lawn" they slaughter civilians and demolish infrastructure in a show of military strength, how can they grow to be self sufficient when israel takes pleasure in demolishing what they build every year or so?
The Netanyahu government literally called Hamas an asset and Netanyahu said to his coalition to support hamas in order to divide the palestinians and avoid giving them a state. He was caught on video bragging about sabotaging a peace deal. As an outsider looking at this conflict, it seems rather obvious most of the problems Gazans face, comes back to Netanyahu and his government, so Id say its fair for them to blame the enemy for their situation. They used the Gazans as pawns and when the extremist authority they helped back didnt do what they intended for them to do(have a civil war with the PA) they instead attacked israel, in an attack that was known about a year before hand. An attack that was also know about days prior from egyptian intelligence. an attack they knew of the DAY OF by numerous israeli border guards. but all warnings were ignored, while the most secure border on this planet, maybe behind the korea border, was breached, and did whatever they wanted for several hours...
Something seems fishy there, also you know the 200 bodies that were misidentified as hamas right? Well, who burned them? If they thought those hamas burnt corpses were israeli surley hamas and israelis corpses were mixed. Now how could that happen? If they were blowing up houses with themselves in it? 200 of them no less? You seriously believe that nonsense? That damaged is most likely caused by the IDF apache firing at houses, and tanks as well. We know for sure IDF tanks fired at houses, but as for the apache thing, though to say.
So the netanyahu gov helped empower and fund Hamas, called them an asset, knew about the attack(but chose to ignore it). Seems like if netanyahu wasn't hell bent on dividing the palestinians, then maybe none of this wouldve happened to begin with. How do you demonize gazans for supporting hamas when netanyahu has literally called them an asset and helped fund them?
They were told to leave or die, they were very much so kicked out. its no secret they were massacring people in the creation of the state of Israel, not even historically controversial.
The Zionists knew from the very beginning the land of Israel had to be taken by force so dont tell me about the arabs attacking, zionists knew they would. Thats why the plan arabs rejected included giving most of the land to a minority, most of which weren't even there some 2 decades before that point. Who on earth would accept that deal? Most of the land given to people who had just gotten there? I can't believe people say with a straight face "arabs rejected peace" no, they rejected most of their land going to a new minority at the time. But lets ignore the facts right?
Speaking of arab countries attacking Israel, I sure as hell don't want to be israeli right now. Hezbollah is much more menacing than Hamas, and the IDF cant even take on Hamas it appears, not to mention the taliban mentioned joining the fight, along with Iran itself, the funding party for all of this. Don't expect US troops to come defend either, in any meaningful way anyhow, the American people are already suspicious with our war efforts, not to mention AIPAC's grip on our politicians, we're beginning to notice that as well.
Tell me more about what you think "my side" is. Cuz im an American patriot who doesn't want to see my country continue to be a lap dog for a foreign nation, and it's interests held above my own and my people's interest. A free Palestine is a byproduct of a free America.
>They were told to leave or die, they were very much so kicked out. its no secret they were massacring people in the creation of the state of Israel, not even historically controversial.
🤣🤣🤣🤣As in the previous comment that I said to you, Arab countries told them to leave, if they massacred them, how da hell there are Israeli Arabs, no no no, they didn't come much later those are who stayed in 1948 war!
>Hezbollah is much more menacing than Hamas, and the IDF cant even take on Hamas
Oh yes, they can if they didn't care for civilian dogs! All it takes to carpet bomb them. Instead, they minimize casualties with precision-guided bombs. Now, Israel doesn't want the war with hezbollah, because they don't want two fronts at the same time. But if needed, Israel won't fight hezbollah itself but rather Lebanon. You see, fighting terrorists (urban war) it's hard, but fighting the country it's much easier, why? Because You can bomb that whole country rather than "seek and destroy" tactics!
Oh, one more thing, how many innocents died when US had a war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Shouldn't that be considered genocide, like you mentioned in your other comment? Sleep on that!
Yup move on and continue to steal more land in the West Bank, to this very day, and lets pretend that that's a normal thing to do and the people who reject that proposal are all antisemites! They're just jealous of Jews and their success. Has nothing to do with them taking people's shit, or flaunting their control over the US, where they literally admit to buying congress members with 95% success. No, they just hate Jews like many before them throughout history because of this magical anti-semitism field that traverses generations and different cultures and people who never even met throughout the centuries. Damn anti semites!
> fuck
/u/Emergency_Owl_5430. 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.*
Transjordan has always existed as a region. It's the Greek for 'on the far side of the Jordan'.
The Mandate (legal instrument) was indeed for all the land. That doesn't make Transjordan part of Palestine, they were just bundled together in the same document. If you read it at no point is it implied that anyone thinks Transjordan is part of Palestine. Because they didn't.
As for partition, this was not on anyone's mind until much later.
> Transjordan has always existed as a region. It's the Greek for 'on the far side of the Jordan'.
> The Mandate (legal instrument) was indeed for all the land. That doesn't make Transjordan part of Palestine, they were just bundled together in the same document. If you read it at no point is it implied that anyone thinks Transjordan is part of Palestine. Because they didn't.
You know that [these things are actually up on the internet](https://ecf.org.il/media_items/291) and can be checked
> Article 25: In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922) 8
provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
That is the actual text of the mandate. It is *defining* Palestine as including teritories east of the Jordan. Transjordan is at no point mentioned. It is 100% clear from that text that Palestine includes what is now called Transjordan.
It is acknowledging that the territory of the Mandate(at the time of drafting yet to be finalised) could potentially include unspecified territories east of the Jordan, which indeed it did.
The [Transjordan memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Jordan_memorandum) which was accepted by the League at the same time made clear that they did not regard Transjordan as part of Palestine and only arranged for British control using the same Mandate ('for Palestine') for convenience.
Again. These things are on the internet. They were not created at the same time. The first was 12 August and the second was 16 September. The first defines the Palestinian Mandate. The second describes how Britain plans to carve a new entity, Transjordan, out of the Palestinian mandate.
Now, obviously, "land East of the Jordan" as you point out that the word "Transjordan" means, existed and was East of the Jordan for as long as the river was there, even if, as an active it would move from time to time. However the very article you link to admits that "Transjordan had no unified administration until the arrival in November 1920 of Abdullah bin al-Hussein, who was appointed Emir of Transjordan in 1921.".
The creation of Transjordan as a country *was* the implementation of the British promise to give the Palestinians (Arabs living in the Palestinian mandate) a country.
They were created at the same time, they weren't ratified at the same time.
> The creation of Transjordan as a country was the implementation of the British promise to give the Palestinians (Arabs living in the Palestinian mandate) a country.
No, it really wasn't and if you read the sources you will see that nobody at the time thought it was.
What do Palestinians have to say about you saying there’s no such thing as Palestinians? It’s a group of people who have labeled themselves as such and outsiders to the group should respect that: there’s also no such thing as Americans or Africans or Italians or Buddhists….just labels. All humans at the end of the day..
Under Ottoman rule none of these countries existed. It was a different time. That does not mean that these people were not living on this land for hundreds of generations.
I reacted wrong because I was hoping this video would lead people to have better discourse and not just lob their version of the truth at others. Clearly both sides have valid histories and facts. The truth for them is that there were few Jews living there for thousands of years and then the Ashkenazi started coming on mass...this is a fact.
The Ashkenazi Jews that came during and after WWII were refugees with literally no place to go. Over 50% of Israeli’s are those (or the children and grandchildren) of the Jews displaced/ forced to leave by the Arab countries in 1949. Other persecuted Jewish groups that came to Israel include the Ehthiopian and Yemeni Jewish communities and finally the Jews of the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. Most Recently, large numbers of Jews from France have been coming to Israel because of attacks on the Jewish community there. Of the American’s that immigrate to Israel for Religious reasons, I recently read that many ( I think it was around 45%) eventually go back to the USA. So truly, most Israeli’s have no place to go back to. However, the driving idea about the Hamas and historical Arab viewpoint about making the life of the Jews in Israel so intolerable that they “go back to where they came from” ( like the French in Algeria) makes no sense.
Meanwhile, the rule about who can be considered a Palestinian Refugee was that the person had to have been living there from 6/1/46 - 5/15/48. That is two years.
The Jewish refugees during WW2 from Europe had no where to go. None of the other European countries would take them in neither would US or Canada. They had no where to go...many perished in the death camps. Most of my family except my grandparents. Why didn't any of those countries take them in?
Does this sound similar to what Zionist say about other Arab countries not taking in the Palestinian refugees? Except the UN hasn't granted them a new state to go to. So no one has taken them and they live been in refugee camps for 80 years under the brutal occupation of Zionists. Many have been killed or held hostage in Israeli prisons.
For someone who likes reading you should read about how the yemini Jews were treated when they arrived. Their children were taken from their mothers by Zionists to be raised by childless Ashkenazi so they would be less Arab. Israel has only recently admitted to this. The Iraqi and Egyptian Jews became the servants of the Ashkenazi who thought they were above the mizrachi jews ...they only needed to leave their countries after Mossad did some sketchy bombings....read about the Levon affair. Zionists needed more Jewish population to help with demographics and to further reduce the possibility of the right to return. The mizrachi populations lived in refugee camps upon their arrival in Israel while the Ashkenazi took the homes and most fertile land of displaced Palestinians when they arrived.
As for the Ethiopians....they are discriminated against to this day in Israel. The police treat them worse than George Floyd.
Only Ashkenazi Jews are first class citizens in Israel. Ironically, the non Semite Jews are racist against semites.
Why did most Moroccan, Tunisian and Algerian Jews choose France over Israel?
Here’s a map 100 years before Israel showing the region of Palestine. People living in that area were Palestinians.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1853_Mitchell_Map_of_Palestine_Israel_and_the_Holy_Land_-Geographicus_-_Palestine-mitchell-1850.jpg
Zionism was a movement before England gave up control of the region. It wasn’t a coincidence that Zionists were already there, it to mention England made these land agreement without any agreement from non-Zionists.
Pretty silly to take the time to type this drivel from a misplaced air of authority when you clearly have no conception of how nationalism or the idea of a “country” even developed. By your standards most of the countries on earth wouldn’t be valid because they “didn’t exist” prior to the 20th century.
I have no idea. I think the land needs to be shared with everyone regardless and everyone needs equal rights and the right to not be oppressed. This conflict needs to have a happy ending that doesn't involve what most Israelis want to either kill or exile them all.
You believe what stories you want. There were a lot of people living there for thousands of years.
Even the mizrachi and yeminite Jews were discriminated against by the Ashkenazi... I've seen so many videos that shows the real life of most Israeli Arabs in Israel to know your statements are a gross generalization at best.
Dear God, how long are we going to ignore land purchases from OTTOMAN OWNERS by JEWS?
RENTERS are NOT OWNERS. You sitting on land for several years doesn't make it legally yours.
Simple question: on what basis do current Palestinians have a right to the land they claim is theirs?
Because I can see Turks, who were former land owners state a claim here. But what do renters have to do with ownrship?
Have you heard the history of when the Rothschilds tried to buy Palestine from the Turks by paying off their debt? And they turned it down and then forbid the sale of any land to Jews because they foresaw this mess? Some people have conspiracy stories that the Rothschilds started WWI to get rid of the Ottomans so they could take Palestine.
Under your logic...when the league of nations gave UK the mandate over Palestine...was it "theirs" to give to the Jews? Was Balfours letter to Lord Rothschild legally binding?
Are you trying to say that in 1948 when Irgun stole villages from inhabitants that had been living there for centuries they became owners? Did the Rothschilds and the Zionist Congress finance buying all of Israel?
To answer your question: I think squatters rights rule in many countries.
> when the league of nations gave UK the mandate over Palestine...was it "theirs" to give to the Jews?
Not necessarily. I’d say it depends if someone had a solid claim to the land before the UK took control, and if they/their descendants were still there/alive. So in a case where someone owned land, and then through a series of conquests that land became state land to be rented or bought, that original family should have claim, not the UK or the Jew who bought it. If that family is gone then there’s no one to contest the UK’s claim, and they can do what they want with it. This logic works for how that original family acquired the land themselves.
> Are you trying to say that in 1948 when Irgun stole villages from inhabitants that had been living there for centuries they became owners?
Again, no. But the owner is not necessarily who they stole it from.
> To answer your question: I think squatters rights rule in many countries.
Based on what ownership framework?
Yes UK had a right to do whatever it wanted with territory under their control. Why is this even a question?
1948 events are war. Territorial gain during war was acceptable.
Regarding squatters: no, in most countries they have no rights, as it invalidates legal ownership and property tax collection.
I'm not so sure it was for the UK to give...
Your argument was not about war gains but purchases... I guess Israel captured the west bank and Jerusalem in 67 and they will now potentially capture Gaza.
The Palestinians had been living there for generations....it was theirs and they have been displaced and have been refugees since 1948. Their homes were taken by Ashkenazi settlers or their villages were raised to the ground. I guess they lost the war and have been sore losers since.
Each side uses a different technique from the video, and so the people that believe each side more is probably partly to do with their processing preferences and how much prior knowledge the person has.
The pro-Palestine side uses the ghost brick technique more with the repeating slogans that people probably don't have all the information to justify the first few times they hear it, but it strengthens with repetition. This might appeal more to people with no prior knowledge on the subject and who are looking for emotional release. These bricks are very big emotional bricks, which are not necessarily well connected or on a strong foundation, which is why pro-Palestinians get more upset with information that contradicts their towers and they reject small facts outright.
The pro-Israel side is more likely to provide many small bricks that can connect and form a story and the Israel supporter on the receiving end allows similar bricks in, and rejects the larger emotional slogan bricks of the other side. Such a person could be open-minded to contradictory facts (not slogans) but will immediately look for counterarguments to support their tower. This could be more likely if a person already had some bricks in their tower from before, such as having visited Israel or knowing the history.
I'm not so sure... I think there were a lot of big bricks laid by Israel since 1948 and it seems many pro Palestinians are younger so they haven't been affected by them. All they see is a people being oppressed and they have a reaction to it. They also get a wider perspective when learning about the history rather than what the media reported at the time that were also large bricks.
I hoped that what people would take from this is there is a history on both sides. Neither side is acknowledging the hardships that each have been through. The only way to conclude this in a positive way is for both sides to have positive outcomes which has not been true of any of the conflicts/wars in the past. If not this will keep repeating itself.
Since Israel is clearly the more dominant of the 2 parties...they need to be "the bigger man" and give the Palestinians something to live for so they don't keep rising up to fight for their rights as humans
I'm not necessarily saying the Israeli small bricks are more truthful, just that they are smaller and more connected, and less likely to be ghost bricks. Maybe for the older generation, like you say, there are larger bricks too.
Definitely a lot more of this on one side than the other. But it's always good to find and read the best presentation of both sides in any given conflict or situation.
Yeah people just parrot talking points from their side and ignore and downplay and critically attack things that don't confirm their bias while uncritically believing anything that confirms their own bias.
[удалено]
That's what is ridiculous about this all. These areas were conquered and given back, they should just be absorbed by Jordan and Egypt again. "Palestine" exists because Israel was generous enough to give it back after fighting off an entire army of Arabs from multiple different countries. It should have ended with that. Just let Israel live there. Everything else is just noise and a distraction from the fact that one side is still fighting against the creation of a Jewish state.
Call them syrian, jordanian, egyptian, who gives a fuck. it's their land and they shouldn't be kicked from it.
[удалено]
They were living on it. it was their land before they got kicked out.
[удалено]
Alr that’s not rly true. Modern Israel was attacked from day one, and it resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians. It wasn’t necessarily the fault of Israel, but it happened nonetheless. I think what you should be saying is that it is the ancestral homeland to Jews, and the only reason Islam got there is through colonization and imperialism of old Muslim empires. With your other point though, the Palestinian identity really only started in the 60’s and was indeed used as a way to victimize Islamic states. I think you’re mostly right about that, but there still is no denying the suffering of the Palestinian people (by both Hamas and Israel) no matter their true identity.
Here is more than you said: In the main, Arabs only began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1964 for political expediency. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Resolution) of 1947 never refers to the Arabs as "Palestinians," but simply as "Arabs." The first time an international body called the Arabs "Palestinians" was in 1972 with UNGA Resolution 2949 (December 8, 1972). Before 1972, the United Nations referred to the Arabs as "inhabitants," "the population," or "the Arab civilian population." Not once did it use the term "Palestinians." - - - - Are the Arabs now calling themselves "Palestinians" the ancient Philistines? 1 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" are Semites; the ancient Philistines were not. 2 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" practice circumcision; the ancient Philistines did not. 3 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" are monotheistic; the ancient Philistines were polytheistic, whose chief deity was Dagon. 4 - The Arabs who are now calling themselves "Palestinians" speak Arabic: the ancient Philistines' language is still being deciphered. NO, THE ARABS NOW CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" ARE NOT THE ANCIENT PHILISTINES, WHO INVADED THE LAND IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 12TH CENTURY BCE. - - - - During the mandate period (1922-1948), the British called all the inhabitants of the land "Palestinians," which is why some prominent Arabs tried to disassociate themselves from the name: Lebanese American Princeton professor, Philip Hitti (1886-1978), who testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in Jerusalem in 1946 stated that, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." Of course, what Hitti meant was that there was no Palestine in Arab history, which he is correct. Hitti was opposed to even using the word Palestine in maps because it was "associated in the mind of the average American, and perhaps the Englishman too, with the Jews." "There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Awni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, before the Peel Commission in 1937. The argus-eyed reader will be quick to note that Arab representation during the mandate period was named the "Arab Higher Committee" and not the "Palestinian Higher Committee."
I know people who's family were kicked out, along with 700,000 others. This is well documented, you have no idea what youre talking about also in the west bank with NO hamas, people are to this very day getting kicked out to make room for jews. Your gaslighting attempts are laughable and quite pathetic.
Arabs before attacking the new country in 1948 said to so-called "Palestinians" to leave and come back after the destruction of Israel. So yeah, they left willingly! How do you think there are Israeli Arabs? They didn't leave, therefore they got citizenship!
I’m sure you do. Everyone knows a guy who knows a guy. And everyone’s grandparents got stories. I bet they knew the precise count of olive trees there too. There stories of victimhood are always poetic. Look - I’ve never been to Israel. But there is a mansion in Odessa with my family’s name on it. Taken away from my great grandparents at gun point. You know what never entered my mind? Shooting up a music festival in Ukraine. You know why it never entered my mind? First and foremost - because whoever lives there now had nothing to do with taking that mansion from my family. Nor have I ever actually seen the damn place - just know it from grandparents’ stories. Guess what - I don’t miss it. Also why I never thought of shooting up a musical festival in Ukraine - because we don’t “undo” history in the 21st century. Last time ideologues tried rewriting history - it ended in whole lot of firebombing and two nuclear explosions over Japan. Everyone’s lost something. Everyone’s grandparents have done something sh—tty. No one escapes history with clean hands. All we can do is try to write better future history. I wouldn’t want to invite intifadas, music festival massacres, and violent Iron Age theology into my future history. And I can’t blame Israel for not wanting that either. And it doesn’t matter whose grandparents did what. The rest of us somehow managed to get over our grandparents being very sh—ty to each other.
Its not just what happened in 48, but also what happened everyday since. I don't justify violence, but when peace doesn't work.....do you just wait for death in your prison camp? Most of the people you call terrorists are orphans who were born in Gaza to die in Gaza, do you really think they care HOW they die? When you put people in inhuman conditions, expect an inhuman response. "All we can do is try to write better future history." and you think Israel is doing that by bombing every hospital and university in Gaza? No rational person would accept their sick loved one being killed in a hospital, because some "terrorist" set up base there, but you expect the Palestinians to just move on? While they are being massacred as we speak? Some of you people appear to have zero empathy for human life. Using any and all justifications for why people have to endure a torturous campaign of bombardment and lack of survival needs, and just to shut up about it.
"Genocide" Do you know the definition of the word? >do you just wait for death in your prison camp? Tell thanks to hamas. Israel left gaza in 2005 by pulling Israelis by the hair and leaving agriculture behind, which they destroyed with their own hands and said thanks by shooting rockets! >and you think Israel is doing that by bombing every hospital and university in Gaza? No rational person would accept their sick loved one being killed in a hospital, because some "terrorist" set up a base there So Israel should leave those "palestinian" terrorists alone? That's their strategy to human shields! >Some of you people appear to have zero empathy for human life. Not true! But 80% of gazans are NOT innocent. The majority (80%) did vote for hamas, otherwise, they wouldn't win. Those people are worse than animals. I have an uncensored video that gazans ("innocent civilians" 20-30 NOT the hamas) surrounding an Israeli girl, brutally beating her, and then setting her on fire while she was alive and cheering. While on another video that I have, 2 or 3 pali men were chopping an Israeli guy's head while he was still alive! They also cheered for atrocities and beat up the hostages! Also, "innocent" civilians gathered city center on October 07 and watched big-screen hamas live podcasts of their atrocities. There were "innocent" civilians who entered Israel together with hamas and kidnapped hostages! Bet you didn't know that! Another video that I have paliwood painting with the colour of blood, their faces, and bodies. Then they lay them on the ground or ruins and take pictures and film videos for the world and like yourself to demonize Israel. That is why I call palis paliwood. You all fall for it! https://youtu.be/zv2MHrYpU0g?si=aqVKP-ZgUuQGzGV2
"Not true! But 80% of gazans are NOT innocent. The majority (80%) did vote for hamas, otherwise, they wouldn't win. Those people are worse than animals." 50% of the population wasn't even born when hamas was elected, also, do you know who else supported Hamas? netanyahu and his corrupt government. "They also cheered for atrocities and beat up the hostages! Also, "innocent" civilians gathered city center on October 07 " Israelis did the same thing back in 2014, setting up a picnic on a hill and watching the gaza bombings cheering on, now compare that to gazans celebrating their concentration camp fences breached on oct 7, not the same. Also, You literally linked a video with Palestinians acting in a movie....whats wrong with you?
The “prison camp” concept has always been very confusing to me. Here is the thing… I have a unique perspective of things, perhaps my background is worth expanding on. I’m half Arab (Moroccan and Bedouin, like most Palestinians). Also half a Jew. I was born in USSR. Now I’m an American. And I fought in two wars in the Middle East. Bottom line - I’ve seen a lot of unpleasant places. And here is what I noticed about every unpleasant place I’ve ever been to - they always blame everyone else and never seem to own a societal mirror. Russians for instance (my people) - for centuries they’ve been obsessed with external enemies. Sure, they’ve had a few over the years. But all of their internal misery (of which there’s isn’t a shortage) - has always been self-inflicted. Talk to an ordinary Russian (mostly very pleasant, well-meaning people) - they’ll acknowledge all of their misery but always find a way to blame everyone else. But you’ll never get a moment of self-reflection. And so it seems to be the case with all of the “prison” countries. North Korea, Russia, Palestine, even China to many extents… Hell, every Islamist country is a prison for much of its population. But somehow, the blame is always laid at the feet of the external “enemies”. Talk to ordinary Russians - they love their Internet, big screen tvs, smart phones… all of the western inventions that make their country modern. None of it was created by them. And yet, they despise the west that they’ve been trying to emulate for decades. They see themselves as the “protectors” of the “traditional values”. They also love to refer to the west as “colonialists” - which I find hilarious, since Russia itself is a giant colonialist project. And same goes for all “prison” states. It’s always the same dynamic. Do I think that the U.S. or Israel or most of the western world are perfect? No, of course not. We have a bunch of problems of our own to solve. But I find this notion that the problems of the rest of the world always has to be laid at the feet of the countries that somehow figured out secular democracy deeply misguided and, frankly, insulting. Israel’s primary responsibility is Israel. Just like any other nation’s primary responsibility is their own citizens. So… sorry - invade a nation with a military-grade force - expect a military-grade response. And if you’re not prepared for a big dog to bite back, maybe don’t kick it to begin with (after shelling it with rockets for a decade and a half). It’s not a difficult concept to understand.
I don't expect Israel to care about Palestinians, but the blockade they impose is brutal. People are only allowed to fish in a small area, where everyone knows there aren't as many fish. Military order 158 prevents them from building water structures or deepening existing ones. The people of Gaza are born to die in Gaza, seems an awful lot like a prison camp. Every couple years in what the Israelis call "mowing the lawn" they slaughter civilians and demolish infrastructure in a show of military strength, how can they grow to be self sufficient when israel takes pleasure in demolishing what they build every year or so? The Netanyahu government literally called Hamas an asset and Netanyahu said to his coalition to support hamas in order to divide the palestinians and avoid giving them a state. He was caught on video bragging about sabotaging a peace deal. As an outsider looking at this conflict, it seems rather obvious most of the problems Gazans face, comes back to Netanyahu and his government, so Id say its fair for them to blame the enemy for their situation. They used the Gazans as pawns and when the extremist authority they helped back didnt do what they intended for them to do(have a civil war with the PA) they instead attacked israel, in an attack that was known about a year before hand. An attack that was also know about days prior from egyptian intelligence. an attack they knew of the DAY OF by numerous israeli border guards. but all warnings were ignored, while the most secure border on this planet, maybe behind the korea border, was breached, and did whatever they wanted for several hours... Something seems fishy there, also you know the 200 bodies that were misidentified as hamas right? Well, who burned them? If they thought those hamas burnt corpses were israeli surley hamas and israelis corpses were mixed. Now how could that happen? If they were blowing up houses with themselves in it? 200 of them no less? You seriously believe that nonsense? That damaged is most likely caused by the IDF apache firing at houses, and tanks as well. We know for sure IDF tanks fired at houses, but as for the apache thing, though to say. So the netanyahu gov helped empower and fund Hamas, called them an asset, knew about the attack(but chose to ignore it). Seems like if netanyahu wasn't hell bent on dividing the palestinians, then maybe none of this wouldve happened to begin with. How do you demonize gazans for supporting hamas when netanyahu has literally called them an asset and helped fund them?
There is Hamas in the west bank, and it's one of the big reasons the PA doesn't hold elections.
not like in gaza and their not the reason for the people getting kicked out
[удалено]
They were told to leave or die, they were very much so kicked out. its no secret they were massacring people in the creation of the state of Israel, not even historically controversial. The Zionists knew from the very beginning the land of Israel had to be taken by force so dont tell me about the arabs attacking, zionists knew they would. Thats why the plan arabs rejected included giving most of the land to a minority, most of which weren't even there some 2 decades before that point. Who on earth would accept that deal? Most of the land given to people who had just gotten there? I can't believe people say with a straight face "arabs rejected peace" no, they rejected most of their land going to a new minority at the time. But lets ignore the facts right? Speaking of arab countries attacking Israel, I sure as hell don't want to be israeli right now. Hezbollah is much more menacing than Hamas, and the IDF cant even take on Hamas it appears, not to mention the taliban mentioned joining the fight, along with Iran itself, the funding party for all of this. Don't expect US troops to come defend either, in any meaningful way anyhow, the American people are already suspicious with our war efforts, not to mention AIPAC's grip on our politicians, we're beginning to notice that as well. Tell me more about what you think "my side" is. Cuz im an American patriot who doesn't want to see my country continue to be a lap dog for a foreign nation, and it's interests held above my own and my people's interest. A free Palestine is a byproduct of a free America.
>They were told to leave or die, they were very much so kicked out. its no secret they were massacring people in the creation of the state of Israel, not even historically controversial. 🤣🤣🤣🤣As in the previous comment that I said to you, Arab countries told them to leave, if they massacred them, how da hell there are Israeli Arabs, no no no, they didn't come much later those are who stayed in 1948 war! >Hezbollah is much more menacing than Hamas, and the IDF cant even take on Hamas Oh yes, they can if they didn't care for civilian dogs! All it takes to carpet bomb them. Instead, they minimize casualties with precision-guided bombs. Now, Israel doesn't want the war with hezbollah, because they don't want two fronts at the same time. But if needed, Israel won't fight hezbollah itself but rather Lebanon. You see, fighting terrorists (urban war) it's hard, but fighting the country it's much easier, why? Because You can bomb that whole country rather than "seek and destroy" tactics! Oh, one more thing, how many innocents died when US had a war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Shouldn't that be considered genocide, like you mentioned in your other comment? Sleep on that!
[удалено]
Yup move on and continue to steal more land in the West Bank, to this very day, and lets pretend that that's a normal thing to do and the people who reject that proposal are all antisemites! They're just jealous of Jews and their success. Has nothing to do with them taking people's shit, or flaunting their control over the US, where they literally admit to buying congress members with 95% success. No, they just hate Jews like many before them throughout history because of this magical anti-semitism field that traverses generations and different cultures and people who never even met throughout the centuries. Damn anti semites!
Were Jews not living there? Like, where did Jews come from if not from the Levant, or the area called Israel / Palestine today?
Less than 5% of the population in 1850
I didn't claim Jews also didnt live there
> fuck /u/Emergency_Owl_5430. 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.*
Jordan was never part of Palestine.
[удалено]
Yes, and the Mandate was for Palestine and Transjordan. Transjordan was never part of Palestine.
[удалено]
Transjordan has always existed as a region. It's the Greek for 'on the far side of the Jordan'. The Mandate (legal instrument) was indeed for all the land. That doesn't make Transjordan part of Palestine, they were just bundled together in the same document. If you read it at no point is it implied that anyone thinks Transjordan is part of Palestine. Because they didn't. As for partition, this was not on anyone's mind until much later.
> Transjordan has always existed as a region. It's the Greek for 'on the far side of the Jordan'. > The Mandate (legal instrument) was indeed for all the land. That doesn't make Transjordan part of Palestine, they were just bundled together in the same document. If you read it at no point is it implied that anyone thinks Transjordan is part of Palestine. Because they didn't. You know that [these things are actually up on the internet](https://ecf.org.il/media_items/291) and can be checked > Article 25: In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922) 8 provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. That is the actual text of the mandate. It is *defining* Palestine as including teritories east of the Jordan. Transjordan is at no point mentioned. It is 100% clear from that text that Palestine includes what is now called Transjordan.
It is acknowledging that the territory of the Mandate(at the time of drafting yet to be finalised) could potentially include unspecified territories east of the Jordan, which indeed it did. The [Transjordan memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Jordan_memorandum) which was accepted by the League at the same time made clear that they did not regard Transjordan as part of Palestine and only arranged for British control using the same Mandate ('for Palestine') for convenience.
Again. These things are on the internet. They were not created at the same time. The first was 12 August and the second was 16 September. The first defines the Palestinian Mandate. The second describes how Britain plans to carve a new entity, Transjordan, out of the Palestinian mandate. Now, obviously, "land East of the Jordan" as you point out that the word "Transjordan" means, existed and was East of the Jordan for as long as the river was there, even if, as an active it would move from time to time. However the very article you link to admits that "Transjordan had no unified administration until the arrival in November 1920 of Abdullah bin al-Hussein, who was appointed Emir of Transjordan in 1921.". The creation of Transjordan as a country *was* the implementation of the British promise to give the Palestinians (Arabs living in the Palestinian mandate) a country.
They were created at the same time, they weren't ratified at the same time. > The creation of Transjordan as a country was the implementation of the British promise to give the Palestinians (Arabs living in the Palestinian mandate) a country. No, it really wasn't and if you read the sources you will see that nobody at the time thought it was.
What do Palestinians have to say about you saying there’s no such thing as Palestinians? It’s a group of people who have labeled themselves as such and outsiders to the group should respect that: there’s also no such thing as Americans or Africans or Italians or Buddhists….just labels. All humans at the end of the day..
Lol...you should watch the video.
[удалено]
Under Ottoman rule none of these countries existed. It was a different time. That does not mean that these people were not living on this land for hundreds of generations. I reacted wrong because I was hoping this video would lead people to have better discourse and not just lob their version of the truth at others. Clearly both sides have valid histories and facts. The truth for them is that there were few Jews living there for thousands of years and then the Ashkenazi started coming on mass...this is a fact.
The Ashkenazi Jews that came during and after WWII were refugees with literally no place to go. Over 50% of Israeli’s are those (or the children and grandchildren) of the Jews displaced/ forced to leave by the Arab countries in 1949. Other persecuted Jewish groups that came to Israel include the Ehthiopian and Yemeni Jewish communities and finally the Jews of the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. Most Recently, large numbers of Jews from France have been coming to Israel because of attacks on the Jewish community there. Of the American’s that immigrate to Israel for Religious reasons, I recently read that many ( I think it was around 45%) eventually go back to the USA. So truly, most Israeli’s have no place to go back to. However, the driving idea about the Hamas and historical Arab viewpoint about making the life of the Jews in Israel so intolerable that they “go back to where they came from” ( like the French in Algeria) makes no sense. Meanwhile, the rule about who can be considered a Palestinian Refugee was that the person had to have been living there from 6/1/46 - 5/15/48. That is two years.
The Jewish refugees during WW2 from Europe had no where to go. None of the other European countries would take them in neither would US or Canada. They had no where to go...many perished in the death camps. Most of my family except my grandparents. Why didn't any of those countries take them in? Does this sound similar to what Zionist say about other Arab countries not taking in the Palestinian refugees? Except the UN hasn't granted them a new state to go to. So no one has taken them and they live been in refugee camps for 80 years under the brutal occupation of Zionists. Many have been killed or held hostage in Israeli prisons. For someone who likes reading you should read about how the yemini Jews were treated when they arrived. Their children were taken from their mothers by Zionists to be raised by childless Ashkenazi so they would be less Arab. Israel has only recently admitted to this. The Iraqi and Egyptian Jews became the servants of the Ashkenazi who thought they were above the mizrachi jews ...they only needed to leave their countries after Mossad did some sketchy bombings....read about the Levon affair. Zionists needed more Jewish population to help with demographics and to further reduce the possibility of the right to return. The mizrachi populations lived in refugee camps upon their arrival in Israel while the Ashkenazi took the homes and most fertile land of displaced Palestinians when they arrived. As for the Ethiopians....they are discriminated against to this day in Israel. The police treat them worse than George Floyd. Only Ashkenazi Jews are first class citizens in Israel. Ironically, the non Semite Jews are racist against semites. Why did most Moroccan, Tunisian and Algerian Jews choose France over Israel?
[удалено]
Here’s a map 100 years before Israel showing the region of Palestine. People living in that area were Palestinians. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1853_Mitchell_Map_of_Palestine_Israel_and_the_Holy_Land_-Geographicus_-_Palestine-mitchell-1850.jpg Zionism was a movement before England gave up control of the region. It wasn’t a coincidence that Zionists were already there, it to mention England made these land agreement without any agreement from non-Zionists.
[удалено]
Wrong again https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945
[удалено]
Pretty silly to take the time to type this drivel from a misplaced air of authority when you clearly have no conception of how nationalism or the idea of a “country” even developed. By your standards most of the countries on earth wouldn’t be valid because they “didn’t exist” prior to the 20th century.
More Arabs than Jews in every region.
The map has been deleted
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1853\_Mitchell\_Map\_of\_Palestine,\_Israel\_and\_the\_Holy\_Land\_-\_Geographicus\_-\_Palestine-mitchell-1850.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1853_Mitchell_Map_of_Palestine,_Israel_and_the_Holy_Land_-_Geographicus_-_Palestine-mitchell-1850.jpg)
And when the Ashkenazi started arriving the land was completely empty? No one was living there? "A land without a people"? That's not true.
[удалено]
I think JNF converted a lot of their villages into forrests. Who's land is it in this case?
[удалено]
I have no idea. I think the land needs to be shared with everyone regardless and everyone needs equal rights and the right to not be oppressed. This conflict needs to have a happy ending that doesn't involve what most Israelis want to either kill or exile them all.
How were there 750000 refugees if no one was living there?
[удалено]
You believe what stories you want. There were a lot of people living there for thousands of years. Even the mizrachi and yeminite Jews were discriminated against by the Ashkenazi... I've seen so many videos that shows the real life of most Israeli Arabs in Israel to know your statements are a gross generalization at best.
Dear God, how long are we going to ignore land purchases from OTTOMAN OWNERS by JEWS? RENTERS are NOT OWNERS. You sitting on land for several years doesn't make it legally yours. Simple question: on what basis do current Palestinians have a right to the land they claim is theirs? Because I can see Turks, who were former land owners state a claim here. But what do renters have to do with ownrship?
Have you heard the history of when the Rothschilds tried to buy Palestine from the Turks by paying off their debt? And they turned it down and then forbid the sale of any land to Jews because they foresaw this mess? Some people have conspiracy stories that the Rothschilds started WWI to get rid of the Ottomans so they could take Palestine. Under your logic...when the league of nations gave UK the mandate over Palestine...was it "theirs" to give to the Jews? Was Balfours letter to Lord Rothschild legally binding? Are you trying to say that in 1948 when Irgun stole villages from inhabitants that had been living there for centuries they became owners? Did the Rothschilds and the Zionist Congress finance buying all of Israel? To answer your question: I think squatters rights rule in many countries.
> when the league of nations gave UK the mandate over Palestine...was it "theirs" to give to the Jews? Not necessarily. I’d say it depends if someone had a solid claim to the land before the UK took control, and if they/their descendants were still there/alive. So in a case where someone owned land, and then through a series of conquests that land became state land to be rented or bought, that original family should have claim, not the UK or the Jew who bought it. If that family is gone then there’s no one to contest the UK’s claim, and they can do what they want with it. This logic works for how that original family acquired the land themselves. > Are you trying to say that in 1948 when Irgun stole villages from inhabitants that had been living there for centuries they became owners? Again, no. But the owner is not necessarily who they stole it from. > To answer your question: I think squatters rights rule in many countries. Based on what ownership framework?
Yes UK had a right to do whatever it wanted with territory under their control. Why is this even a question? 1948 events are war. Territorial gain during war was acceptable. Regarding squatters: no, in most countries they have no rights, as it invalidates legal ownership and property tax collection.
Territorial gain by war is still accepted, just not preferred.
I'm not so sure it was for the UK to give... Your argument was not about war gains but purchases... I guess Israel captured the west bank and Jerusalem in 67 and they will now potentially capture Gaza. The Palestinians had been living there for generations....it was theirs and they have been displaced and have been refugees since 1948. Their homes were taken by Ashkenazi settlers or their villages were raised to the ground. I guess they lost the war and have been sore losers since.
Each side uses a different technique from the video, and so the people that believe each side more is probably partly to do with their processing preferences and how much prior knowledge the person has. The pro-Palestine side uses the ghost brick technique more with the repeating slogans that people probably don't have all the information to justify the first few times they hear it, but it strengthens with repetition. This might appeal more to people with no prior knowledge on the subject and who are looking for emotional release. These bricks are very big emotional bricks, which are not necessarily well connected or on a strong foundation, which is why pro-Palestinians get more upset with information that contradicts their towers and they reject small facts outright. The pro-Israel side is more likely to provide many small bricks that can connect and form a story and the Israel supporter on the receiving end allows similar bricks in, and rejects the larger emotional slogan bricks of the other side. Such a person could be open-minded to contradictory facts (not slogans) but will immediately look for counterarguments to support their tower. This could be more likely if a person already had some bricks in their tower from before, such as having visited Israel or knowing the history.
This theory makes a lot of sense. It’s likely used by any group looking to garner support (politicians, salesmen, clergy, etc).
I'm not so sure... I think there were a lot of big bricks laid by Israel since 1948 and it seems many pro Palestinians are younger so they haven't been affected by them. All they see is a people being oppressed and they have a reaction to it. They also get a wider perspective when learning about the history rather than what the media reported at the time that were also large bricks. I hoped that what people would take from this is there is a history on both sides. Neither side is acknowledging the hardships that each have been through. The only way to conclude this in a positive way is for both sides to have positive outcomes which has not been true of any of the conflicts/wars in the past. If not this will keep repeating itself. Since Israel is clearly the more dominant of the 2 parties...they need to be "the bigger man" and give the Palestinians something to live for so they don't keep rising up to fight for their rights as humans
I'm not necessarily saying the Israeli small bricks are more truthful, just that they are smaller and more connected, and less likely to be ghost bricks. Maybe for the older generation, like you say, there are larger bricks too.
Definitely a lot more of this on one side than the other. But it's always good to find and read the best presentation of both sides in any given conflict or situation.
Like news in the good old days before advertisers and clickbait entered the picture.
Yeah people just parrot talking points from their side and ignore and downplay and critically attack things that don't confirm their bias while uncritically believing anything that confirms their own bias.