3 ms·

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 t

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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
      > 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 fact that you consider that a blond ashkenazi ukrainian jew has the same "legitimate claim" than a Palestinian to live in the West Bank tells me all about your bias here. A large part of Palestinians have lived uninterrupted for 2000 years there - you can find sects such as the Samaritans that were referenced in the Bible. And even then, it's stupid to consider a religious book as a sufficient proof for a "claim". > Irgun Most of the actions of the Irgun were assassinations against the British, which weren't exactly doing pogroms in Palestine at the time. The Irgun was a terrorist organization, Israel continued to operate with the same rulebook after. > Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically Israel decided unilaterally to steal, colonize and support settler violence. The argument "but both parties don't want peace" is really a manipulation when there are 250 settler attacks per month and the Israeli police refuses to act.[0] What are the options for Palestinians, when every night settlers come to their houses, point guns and lasers at them, wait for half an hour, then leave? (Documented in Louis Theroux's "The Settlers"). The only option is to leave, which is why settlers do this with the support of the military. If Israel wanted peace, it would stop this: the balance of power is so unbalanced that it's hard to blame Palestinians for not wanting to give their last sovereignty rights. With the same line of thinking one could argue that Afghani women could do some efforts to be nice to their husbands, heh. > 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. It is well defined, stop lying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_areas_in_the_Oslo_II... [0] https://apnews.com/article/settler-violence-netanyahu-palestinians-israel-502ad2d020a6ff0a1b525c52bd72c8ed https://apnews.com/article/settler-violence-netanyahu-palest...

jameshilliard 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
    > 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 fact that you consider that a blond ashkenazi ukrainian jew has the same "legitimate claim" than a Palestinian to live in the West Bank tells me all about your bias here. A large part of Palestinians have lived uninterrupted for 2000 years there - you can find sects such as the Samaritans that were referenced in the Bible. And even then, it's stupid to consider a religious book as a sufficient proof for a "claim". > Irgun Most of the actions of the Irgun were assassinations against the British, which weren't exactly doing pogroms in Palestine at the time. The Irgun was a terrorist organization, Israel continued to operate with the same rulebook after. > Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically Israel decided unilaterally to steal, colonize and support settler violence. The argument "but both parties don't want peace" is really a manipulation when there are 250 settler attacks per month and the Israeli police refuses to act.[0] What are the options for Palestinians, when every night settlers come to their houses, point guns and lasers at them, wait for half an hour, then leave? (Documented in Louis Theroux's "The Settlers"). The only option is to leave, which is why settlers do this with the support of the military. If Israel wanted peace, it would stop this: the balance of power is so unbalanced that it's hard to blame Palestinians for not wanting to give their last sovereignty rights. With the same line of thinking one could argue that Afghani women could do some efforts to be nice to their husbands, heh. > 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. It is well defined, stop lying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_areas_in_the_Oslo_II... [0] https://apnews.com/article/settler-violence-netanyahu-palestinians-israel-502ad2d020a6ff0a1b525c52bd72c8ed https://apnews.com/article/settler-violence-netanyahu-palest...