3 ms·

> Israel came to Palestine, not the other way around. Palestine wasn't ever an independent state. Israel was formed by the division of a British Mandate. > If

> Israel came to Palestine, not the other way around. Palestine wasn't ever an independent state. Israel was formed by the division of a British Mandate. > If someone took over your home, and offered even 90% of it to you, and invader keeps 10%, you would reject it. Jews immigrated often by purchasing land in the region from landowners(often absentee) and then sometimes evicting the tenants, so it's a bit more complex. Characterizing it as a foreign invasion is somewhat misleading, Palestinians also rejected the UN partition plan and started a war to try and remove all the Jews as well, with many Jews subsequently being driven from their homes throughout the middle east, so it's not like they have any other homes to go back to either. Being on the losing side of a war also tends to result in people losing land/homes in any case, I have grandparents that lost their home due to living in country that was on the losing side of a war as well and they made no attempts to get their homes/land back at all, sometimes you just have to move on. > Hopefully we can get rid of the evil parts of both governments, and make a new single state for everyone. This is basically unworkable from both sides for various reasons. Israel will essentially never give up their Jewish majority by giving citizenship to all Palestinians, especially given the security threats to Jews historically. That's one reason a two state solution is widely considered the only viable option. > All peace interested parties can be a part of the new government, ridding Netanyahu/Hamas types from the process. This seems pretty unlikely to ever work in practice, at least not without massive changes in opinions amongst both Palestinians and Israelis. > Also by any chance if you have a response to the Netanyahu quote I gave. What about it? I'm not much of a fan of Netanyahu in general for various reasons, but Israel is a democracy so he can be replaced.

Saline9515 10mo ago
Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks
- jameshilliard 10mo ago
  > Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence. There were also a number of of Pogroms as well as back and forth retaliation/attacks, organizations like the Irgun did not just pop up randomly out of nowhere. You seen to have a very one-sided view of history when the reality of the situation has a lot more nuance. That's the thing with this conflict, you can somewhat easily create a narrative that any particular side is at fault depending on how far back you go in history(Jews lived in the region well before Muhammad was even born which certainly makes any notion of one side being more native highly problematic) as well as by cherry-picking facts. It's basically a sort of endless back and forth retaliation.
  - Saline9515 10mo ago
    The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before. The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? The Irgun was a political organization at its core, which also heavily targeted the British administration, including assassinations and bombings. I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Which is simply an application of the international law.
    - jameshilliard 10mo ago
      > The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before. My point was just that both sides have arguably legitimate claims to being native to the region, depending on how you look at things. > The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? My point was that this conflict is characterized by lots of back and forth retaliation. I'm not justifying terrorism from either side however. In any case the Irgun was disbanded following the establishment of the state of Israel. > I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically, I agree there should be a negotiated peace but at the moment neither side seems to be all that interested in figuring out a solution. > Which is simply an application of the international law. International law is far from clear in general, especially since the original occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank(Egypt and Jordan) relinquished all claims to the land.

Saline9515 10mo ago

Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

jameshilliard 10mo ago
> Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence. There were also a number of of Pogroms as well as back and forth retaliation/attacks, organizations like the Irgun did not just pop up randomly out of nowhere. You seen to have a very one-sided view of history when the reality of the situation has a lot more nuance. That's the thing with this conflict, you can somewhat easily create a narrative that any particular side is at fault depending on how far back you go in history(Jews lived in the region well before Muhammad was even born which certainly makes any notion of one side being more native highly problematic) as well as by cherry-picking facts. It's basically a sort of endless back and forth retaliation.
- Saline9515 10mo ago
  The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before. The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? The Irgun was a political organization at its core, which also heavily targeted the British administration, including assassinations and bombings. I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Which is simply an application of the international law.
  - jameshilliard 10mo ago
    > The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before. My point was just that both sides have arguably legitimate claims to being native to the region, depending on how you look at things. > The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? My point was that this conflict is characterized by lots of back and forth retaliation. I'm not justifying terrorism from either side however. In any case the Irgun was disbanded following the establishment of the state of Israel. > I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically, I agree there should be a negotiated peace but at the moment neither side seems to be all that interested in figuring out a solution. > Which is simply an application of the international law. International law is far from clear in general, especially since the original occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank(Egypt and Jordan) relinquished all claims to the land.