4 ms·

The Palestinians did not start war over land - they were occupied and their home land stolen.

by za3faran 2y ago

breppp 2y ago
The 1929 Hebron massacre and thirties arab revolt beg to differ
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- za3faran 2y ago
  Revolt against what? Who was occupying Palestine at the time?
  - breppp 2y ago
    Exactly, they spontaneously killed Jews that were not occupying anyone
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - za3faran 2y ago
      It was a rhetorical question. You will find an article in the NYT from 1899 talking about the plan to occupy Palestine. They knew and saw it coming. Of course we are against attacking civilians, but nothing happens in vacuum.
      - breppp 2y ago
        That's an incorrect version of Zionist history which in the 19th century until the British left were more concerned with legally buying land, and many were trying to coexist with the Palestinians. Also, the Hebron community that was massacred and ethnically cleansed in 1929 predated both Zionism and the Arab colonization which brought most Palestinians to the area Also right after being against attacking civilians, you are saying that's actually alright because they had had done that as a reaction. That logic applies to anything in the conflict, including the civilian dead the Palestinians are now suffering after the massacre/kidnapping they have conducted. That's why I think you should rethink that line of thinking
        za3faran 2y ago
        The british were not there in 1899 when colonization was being prepared[1]. Jews coexisted with the native Palestinians before the british occupation[2][3], but this clearly is something else. Palestinians are native to the area, they were not "brought in". This is something that is well known and established except among the deniers of history. [1] https://imgur.com/a/BlTdfKy https://imgur.com/a/BlTdfKy [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bmm_We6xDU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bmm_We6xDU [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVMcqNOqdek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVMcqNOqdek
        breppp 2y ago
        I am not sure if we know that Palestinians are native to this area, we have many things pointing otherwise. For example waves of migrations from Arabia after the arab conquest and soldiers being given land and settled there as reward. Wikipedia is not the best of sources for this topic, but you can read more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_migrations_to_the_Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_migrations_to_the_Levant Your perception of colonization is a bit anachronistic. Your understanding of what colonizing means is a bit different than what they had in mind, as evident by the difference of what Zionism means and what colonization means today. Main differences are, no host country, no goal of economic exploitation, no goal of subjugating the locals and most importantly, as a means to return a people to its historical homeland by creating a national movement. This never happened anywhere else, which means colonization is a misnomer, decolonization in this case, if was not overloaded would be the closer term, but also non-exact
        za3faran 2y ago
        We know very well in fact. The Palestinians are the original Canaanites and even descendants of the original Israelites. This is well established. What happened is that europe continued their colonization and used what Germanhy did to the jews as yet another excuse to push the jews out of europe. They're the antisesmites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92CEAZjCOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92CEAZjCOo
reissbaker 2y ago
They were not occupied in 1948 by any definition. The British territory of Mandatory Palestine was being split into two countries: Israel, and Palestine, much like British India had been split a year prior into the new countries of India and Pakistan based on Hindu/Muslim religious groupings. The Israelis accepted the U.N. partition plan, and the Palestinians rejected it and invaded Israel, attempting to control the entire territory. They lost the war, although almost all of the Palestinian territory was taken by their supposed "allies" of Egypt and Jordan. Israel captured that territory from Egypt and Jordan in 1967, and eventually offered most of it back to the Palestinians to form a Palestinian state in 2000; the offer was rejected by Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Authority at the time, who instead chose to launch the Second Intifadah (yet another bloody uprising) which largely ended the Oslo Accords based peace process. A short-lived attempt to reboot the process after Arafat's death happened in 2007 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, which was aborted when Hamas won the Palestinian elections and triggered a Palestinian civil war. There were again direct talks in 2010, which ended when Hamas (who by then fully controlled Gaza) said they wouldn't accept a peace deal and would continue attacking Israel; from the Israeli perspective there was no point in continuing land-for-peace talks if the other side was firmly refusing the "peace" part. Of course the Palestinian situation is quite sad. But that is in large part a consequence of horrendous leadership that has repeatedly insisted on maximalist territorial demands and refuses to give up hope of destroying Israel and ruling the region in its entirety; they have been offered many options over many years that are far better than their current semi-state and refused them, since they would need to give up on destroying Israel. Even blaming "horrendous leadership" is a bit generous... After all, Hamas was popularly elected into power in part based on their claims that violence could extract territorial gains from Israel. Just as Trump couldn't have done much without being elected by his massive MAGA base, Hamas couldn't have ruled Gaza without their large Palestinian base that voted them into power — and Hamas continued to be extremely popular in Palestinian polls until late 2024, when the consequences of their actions began to become clear even to their ardent supporters.
- za3faran 2y ago
  They were occupied by the British, you said it yourself. They had no right to "split" anything. Muslims and Jews lived in Palestine pre european occupation just fine. The present day "Middle East" (a colonialist term) is carved out by european colonilism through sykes-picot. The plan to occupy Palestine started way before 48.

The Palestinians did not start war over land - they were occupied and their home land stolen.

breppp 2y ago

The 1929 Hebron massacre and thirties arab revolt beg to differ

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
za3faran 2y ago
Revolt against what? Who was occupying Palestine at the time?
- breppp 2y ago
  Exactly, they spontaneously killed Jews that were not occupying anyone
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - za3faran 2y ago
    It was a rhetorical question. You will find an article in the NYT from 1899 talking about the plan to occupy Palestine. They knew and saw it coming. Of course we are against attacking civilians, but nothing happens in vacuum.
    - breppp 2y ago
      That's an incorrect version of Zionist history which in the 19th century until the British left were more concerned with legally buying land, and many were trying to coexist with the Palestinians. Also, the Hebron community that was massacred and ethnically cleansed in 1929 predated both Zionism and the Arab colonization which brought most Palestinians to the area Also right after being against attacking civilians, you are saying that's actually alright because they had had done that as a reaction. That logic applies to anything in the conflict, including the civilian dead the Palestinians are now suffering after the massacre/kidnapping they have conducted. That's why I think you should rethink that line of thinking
      - za3faran 2y ago
        The british were not there in 1899 when colonization was being prepared[1]. Jews coexisted with the native Palestinians before the british occupation[2][3], but this clearly is something else. Palestinians are native to the area, they were not "brought in". This is something that is well known and established except among the deniers of history. [1] https://imgur.com/a/BlTdfKy https://imgur.com/a/BlTdfKy [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bmm_We6xDU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bmm_We6xDU [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVMcqNOqdek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVMcqNOqdek
        breppp 2y ago
        I am not sure if we know that Palestinians are native to this area, we have many things pointing otherwise. For example waves of migrations from Arabia after the arab conquest and soldiers being given land and settled there as reward. Wikipedia is not the best of sources for this topic, but you can read more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_migrations_to_the_Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_migrations_to_the_Levant Your perception of colonization is a bit anachronistic. Your understanding of what colonizing means is a bit different than what they had in mind, as evident by the difference of what Zionism means and what colonization means today. Main differences are, no host country, no goal of economic exploitation, no goal of subjugating the locals and most importantly, as a means to return a people to its historical homeland by creating a national movement. This never happened anywhere else, which means colonization is a misnomer, decolonization in this case, if was not overloaded would be the closer term, but also non-exact
        za3faran 2y ago
        We know very well in fact. The Palestinians are the original Canaanites and even descendants of the original Israelites. This is well established. What happened is that europe continued their colonization and used what Germanhy did to the jews as yet another excuse to push the jews out of europe. They're the antisesmites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92CEAZjCOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92CEAZjCOo

reissbaker 2y ago

They were not occupied in 1948 by any definition. The British territory of Mandatory Palestine was being split into two countries: Israel, and Palestine, much like British India had been split a year prior into the new countries of India and Pakistan based on Hindu/Muslim religious groupings. The Israelis accepted the U.N. partition plan, and the Palestinians rejected it and invaded Israel, attempting to control the entire territory. They lost the war, although almost all of the Palestinian territory was taken by their supposed "allies" of Egypt and Jordan. Israel captured that territory from Egypt and Jordan in 1967, and eventually offered most of it back to the Palestinians to form a Palestinian state in 2000; the offer was rejected by Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Authority at the time, who instead chose to launch the Second Intifadah (yet another bloody uprising) which largely ended the Oslo Accords based peace process. A short-lived attempt to reboot the process after Arafat's death happened in 2007 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, which was aborted when Hamas won the Palestinian elections and triggered a Palestinian civil war. There were again direct talks in 2010, which ended when Hamas (who by then fully controlled Gaza) said they wouldn't accept a peace deal and would continue attacking Israel; from the Israeli perspective there was no point in continuing land-for-peace talks if the other side was firmly refusing the "peace" part. Of course the Palestinian situation is quite sad. But that is in large part a consequence of horrendous leadership that has repeatedly insisted on maximalist territorial demands and refuses to give up hope of destroying Israel and ruling the region in its entirety; they have been offered many options over many years that are far better than their current semi-state and refused them, since they would need to give up on destroying Israel. Even blaming "horrendous leadership" is a bit generous... After all, Hamas was popularly elected into power in part based on their claims that violence could extract territorial gains from Israel. Just as Trump couldn't have done much without being elected by his massive MAGA base, Hamas couldn't have ruled Gaza without their large Palestinian base that voted them into power — and Hamas continued to be extremely popular in Palestinian polls until late 2024, when the consequences of their actions began to become clear even to their ardent supporters.

za3faran 2y ago
They were occupied by the British, you said it yourself. They had no right to "split" anything. Muslims and Jews lived in Palestine pre european occupation just fine. The present day "Middle East" (a colonialist term) is carved out by european colonilism through sykes-picot. The plan to occupy Palestine started way before 48.