7 ms·

> which allowed them to have their own country That's a weird thing to say, I thought it was because they set up governance amid a collapsed empire and defende

> which allowed them to have their own country That's a weird thing to say, I thought it was because they set up governance amid a collapsed empire and defended themselves in a war

Sabinus 1y ago
There's a belief in the western left that Israel was set up by Western countries as colonialism. That way they can more easily call for the dissolving of the illegitimate country for a 1 state solution. If you acknowledge that the Jews were elbowing their way into the area of their own desire for a state, against the wishes of the Ottomans and then British, it makes it more difficult to paint them as evil invaders.
- sillyfluke 1y ago
  >against the wishes of the Ottomans and then the British Who has convincingly argued that it was against the wishes of the British? It was the British government's stated objectives.[0][1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Jerusalem had been majority Jewish for decades before the Balfour declaration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...
    - sillyfluke 1y ago
      Your claim has nothing to do with the sentence I quoted or my response to it.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        I was refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. British presence or no British presence, Jerusalem was already Jewish decades before the fall of the Ottomans.
        sillyfluke 1y ago
        You're insisting on responding to some phantom comment no one made in order make it seem other people's opinion is not supported by overwhelming facts. >I was refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. No one said this. What was claimed was that Jews were elbowing into the area against the wishes of the British without any references. I asked for evidence that it was against the wishes of the British because it was news to me and presented references pointing to the contrary. Neither you or the commenter have presented any evidence yet that it was "against the wishes of the British". I will quote you again: >I was refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. How would you wish me to read this sentence? So you are refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state, so by refuting it you're saying that the British had a lot to do with the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine?
        dotancohen 1y ago
        > How would you wish me to read this sentence? I think that Gboard sometimes adds or changes words. Or I just messed up. That should have read: I was refuting the notion that British desires had to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. Rephrased: The Jews were intent on creating a state, whether the British supported the notion or not. In any case, in 1923 the British split Mandatory Palestine into two entities. Everything east of the Jordan river they gave to the Hashemite kingdom, who they helped the house of Saud overthrow after the al-Hashimi family ruled Mecca for ten centuries. The areas west of the Jordan river, 1/3 the original size of the territory, retained the name Palestine in English. The Jews were also calling the area Palestine, but the Arabs rejected the name as being the name of foreign invaders. Which makes sense, the root of the word Palestine literally means "invader" in Semitic languages. וכן, אני מדבר עברית.‫ وانا بحكي عربي كمان.‫ > I asked for evidence that it was against the wishes of the British because it was news to me and presented references pointing to the contrary. After the Arab uprising of 1936, the British outlawed Jewish immigration to the holy land.
    - NaomiLehman 1y ago
      more or less every territory belonged to another tribe in the past. Should descendants of Prussia be allowed to take over Poland and Germany today?
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        That's a great point. Should anyone be allowed to take over Israel today?
        brazukadev 1y ago
        No. But does Palestine still exist or is it Israel? Is Syria Israel? Lebanon? Jordan? Egypt?
        dotancohen 1y ago
        The word Palestine is a geographical term. The only political entity to include the name Palestine was Mandatory Palestine. And that entity no longer exists.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  The Ottomans, needing tax money after losing a war to Prussia, began encouraging immigration to the holy land for all religions. In 1856 they passed a law that anyone who comes to work the untilled land, owns it. They happily accepted what they saw as the Jews returning home, as the area was very sparsely populated (but not empty as some Jews say (and yes, I'm Jewish)). The waves of Arab immigration began after the turn off the century, mostly from Egypt and the Damascus area.
zelphirkalt 1y ago
The idea is, that without the victim role of the Jews in the 2.WW, they would never have had the international support, that they enjoyed for decades. They would never have had the "social credits" among nations, that they had. Countries like Germany, supposedly would have opened their mouth much sooner and sanctioned Israel, if it were not for our perpetrator role in 2.WW. The idea was, that finally the Jews have a safe haven, and that that needs to be protected. Israel has been playing that victim card for decades. It allowed them to get where they are. Now that card is crumbling, as they did the unthinkable. I hope that one day our German politicians will also realize this. It is becoming quite ridiculous, how Germany behaves in foreign policy in that regard, and many people here are ashamed of their own country and government. This is stuff that makes people vote for extremists, which I can tell you, we have no additional need for right now. To me it is unthinkable to ever elect the ruling parties again, due to how shitty they handled everything. Well, already wouldn't vote for them anyway, because of all the corruption in their ranks.

> which allowed them to have their own country That's a weird thing to say, I thought it was because they set up governance amid a collapsed empire and defended themselves in a war

Sabinus 1y ago

There's a belief in the western left that Israel was set up by Western countries as colonialism. That way they can more easily call for the dissolving of the illegitimate country for a 1 state solution. If you acknowledge that the Jews were elbowing their way into the area of their own desire for a state, against the wishes of the Ottomans and then British, it makes it more difficult to paint them as evil invaders.

sillyfluke 1y ago
>against the wishes of the Ottomans and then the British Who has convincingly argued that it was against the wishes of the British? It was the British government's stated objectives.[0][1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Jerusalem had been majority Jewish for decades before the Balfour declaration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...
  - sillyfluke 1y ago
    Your claim has nothing to do with the sentence I quoted or my response to it.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      I was refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. British presence or no British presence, Jerusalem was already Jewish decades before the fall of the Ottomans.
      - sillyfluke 1y ago
        You're insisting on responding to some phantom comment no one made in order make it seem other people's opinion is not supported by overwhelming facts. >I was refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. No one said this. What was claimed was that Jews were elbowing into the area against the wishes of the British without any references. I asked for evidence that it was against the wishes of the British because it was news to me and presented references pointing to the contrary. Neither you or the commenter have presented any evidence yet that it was "against the wishes of the British". I will quote you again: >I was refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. How would you wish me to read this sentence? So you are refuting the notion that British desires had little to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state, so by refuting it you're saying that the British had a lot to do with the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine?
        dotancohen 1y ago
        > How would you wish me to read this sentence? I think that Gboard sometimes adds or changes words. Or I just messed up. That should have read: I was refuting the notion that British desires had to do with the fact the Jews eventually created their own state. Rephrased: The Jews were intent on creating a state, whether the British supported the notion or not. In any case, in 1923 the British split Mandatory Palestine into two entities. Everything east of the Jordan river they gave to the Hashemite kingdom, who they helped the house of Saud overthrow after the al-Hashimi family ruled Mecca for ten centuries. The areas west of the Jordan river, 1/3 the original size of the territory, retained the name Palestine in English. The Jews were also calling the area Palestine, but the Arabs rejected the name as being the name of foreign invaders. Which makes sense, the root of the word Palestine literally means "invader" in Semitic languages. וכן, אני מדבר עברית.‫ وانا بحكي عربي كمان.‫ > I asked for evidence that it was against the wishes of the British because it was news to me and presented references pointing to the contrary. After the Arab uprising of 1936, the British outlawed Jewish immigration to the holy land.
  - NaomiLehman 1y ago
    more or less every territory belonged to another tribe in the past. Should descendants of Prussia be allowed to take over Poland and Germany today?
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      That's a great point. Should anyone be allowed to take over Israel today?
      - brazukadev 1y ago
        No. But does Palestine still exist or is it Israel? Is Syria Israel? Lebanon? Jordan? Egypt?
        dotancohen 1y ago
        The word Palestine is a geographical term. The only political entity to include the name Palestine was Mandatory Palestine. And that entity no longer exists.
dotancohen 1y ago
The Ottomans, needing tax money after losing a war to Prussia, began encouraging immigration to the holy land for all religions. In 1856 they passed a law that anyone who comes to work the untilled land, owns it. They happily accepted what they saw as the Jews returning home, as the area was very sparsely populated (but not empty as some Jews say (and yes, I'm Jewish)). The waves of Arab immigration began after the turn off the century, mostly from Egypt and the Damascus area.

zelphirkalt 1y ago

The idea is, that without the victim role of the Jews in the 2.WW, they would never have had the international support, that they enjoyed for decades. They would never have had the "social credits" among nations, that they had. Countries like Germany, supposedly would have opened their mouth much sooner and sanctioned Israel, if it were not for our perpetrator role in 2.WW. The idea was, that finally the Jews have a safe haven, and that that needs to be protected. Israel has been playing that victim card for decades. It allowed them to get where they are. Now that card is crumbling, as they did the unthinkable. I hope that one day our German politicians will also realize this. It is becoming quite ridiculous, how Germany behaves in foreign policy in that regard, and many people here are ashamed of their own country and government. This is stuff that makes people vote for extremists, which I can tell you, we have no additional need for right now. To me it is unthinkable to ever elect the ruling parties again, due to how shitty they handled everything. Well, already wouldn't vote for them anyway, because of all the corruption in their ranks.