4 ms·

> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of

> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.

pcthrowaway 3y ago
So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were
- bawolff 3y ago
  The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    > If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today. But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Irrelevant
- rayiner 3y ago
  Seems pretty relevant.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory. The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story: > Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      > It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.

pcthrowaway 3y ago

So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were

bawolff 3y ago
The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  > If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today. But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
jazzyjackson 3y ago
See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Irrelevant

rayiner 3y ago
Seems pretty relevant.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory. The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story: > Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]