6 ms·

You are still trying to restrict the concept of a nation to a narrow definition that suits your needs. Palestinians have been continuously living in the area f

You are still trying to restrict the concept of a nation to a narrow definition that suits your needs. Palestinians have been continuously living in the area for as long as Jews. But their claim to the land is stronger since they were still living there at the turn of the century, while the European and other Jews who emigrated after the establishment of Israel did not. I suggest you look into the history of Palestinians, their genetics and history. For example, Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians are genetically very similar. Some hypothesize that Palestinians are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam. Regarding the solution to the problem of Jewish people lacking a homeland, I don't have an easy solution for that. But at the very least a solution would involve acknowledging the similarities between Zionism and European Nationalism. You say the Jewish story is incomparable to other situations, but I think the parallels I've drawn are sufficient for most people to see that there is some discrepancy between how American liberals approach Israel, vs other kinds of ethnic nationalism.

bsaul 11y ago
I'm sorry but the only similarity i see is that some people moved to another place for some reason. The people are different, the reasons are different, the people's histories are different, the places are different and the place's histories are different... I have seen more relevant analogies. As for the legitimity of arabs to live in that place as well, i don't know who you're trying to convince, because to my knowledge nobody denied that right, as the OP proves. The difference between the various zionists parties lies in regard to the importance of maintaining good relations between arabs and jews to prevent wars, and its ability to prevent them (or not).
- formulaT 11y ago
  My point regarding Palestinians is that only the Palestinians had a right to sovereignty in that area (just like only Aboriginal Australians had a right to sovereignty over Australia). Unlike the old yishuv, the Palestinians were the vast majority, making them the only legitimate rulers of that area of land, and also making the establishment of Israel and mass immigration by Jews illegitimate. I can't help you see an analogy that you are unwilling to see. At some point people have to use judgment and intuition, beyond mere facts. In any case, here are the key points 1. A group of people wish to establish a new society in an area of land. 2. There are already people living in that land. 3. Some attempts are made to justify this by claiming that the people living there do not comprise a nation. 4. Arguing for peaceful coexistence in such circumstances is hollow.
  - bsaul 11y ago
    I see your point, but the land itself has a very different history. European never lived in america, or in australia, no matter how far you go in the past. Jewish people only historical land is in judea ( where it got its biblical name) / palestine. English or french or spanish didn't claim to "return" to america, and not a single archeological american item features scrolls written in english telling how life was when english lived there.. No palestinian kingdom or nation has ever existed, and this land was under the ruling of turks since the 13th century, and it has belonged to many different people througout history. Saying that only the arabs are legitimate there is a strange view of history. It is just one of the multiple people that has a strong connexion with that land ( the most recent one, that is right , and as such a very important one).
    - Udik 11y ago
      The history of the land is irrelevant here. The idea that you can claim ownership of a land because it used to be your homeland thousands of years ago is completely abstract. While the hard reality is that in order to take, or retake, ownership of that land, you have to displace other people that has been living there for many generations. You can't do it peacefully. You have to take their houses, their fields, evacuate and destroy their villages, steal their property, and push them back each time they try to defend themselves against all this. Remote history won't convince anybody, anywhere, to leave their houses and live in a refugee camp. Though it might work to give a veneer of reasonableness to this expropriation, for the exclusive benefit of those who won't lose anything in the process.
      - bsaul 11y ago
        They didn't claim "ownership". People seem to forget jews didn't invade this land militarely. Under the ottoman empire or the british empire that would have been foolish. They purchased pieces of land. Only when the empire collapsed after two world wars, and israel was created, did people start to fight overall the country. Let's not inverse the chronology here. They didn't come from russia and ukraine with guns, but with agricultural tools. The Tel aviv region was built from scratch out of swamps and rocks that noone wanted. It wasn't "claimed". The fact that population got displaced is a result from wars, that happened after the state was created, and which were absolutely not part of the initial project.

bsaul 11y ago

I'm sorry but the only similarity i see is that some people moved to another place for some reason. The people are different, the reasons are different, the people's histories are different, the places are different and the place's histories are different... I have seen more relevant analogies. As for the legitimity of arabs to live in that place as well, i don't know who you're trying to convince, because to my knowledge nobody denied that right, as the OP proves. The difference between the various zionists parties lies in regard to the importance of maintaining good relations between arabs and jews to prevent wars, and its ability to prevent them (or not).

formulaT 11y ago
My point regarding Palestinians is that only the Palestinians had a right to sovereignty in that area (just like only Aboriginal Australians had a right to sovereignty over Australia). Unlike the old yishuv, the Palestinians were the vast majority, making them the only legitimate rulers of that area of land, and also making the establishment of Israel and mass immigration by Jews illegitimate. I can't help you see an analogy that you are unwilling to see. At some point people have to use judgment and intuition, beyond mere facts. In any case, here are the key points 1. A group of people wish to establish a new society in an area of land. 2. There are already people living in that land. 3. Some attempts are made to justify this by claiming that the people living there do not comprise a nation. 4. Arguing for peaceful coexistence in such circumstances is hollow.
- bsaul 11y ago
  I see your point, but the land itself has a very different history. European never lived in america, or in australia, no matter how far you go in the past. Jewish people only historical land is in judea ( where it got its biblical name) / palestine. English or french or spanish didn't claim to "return" to america, and not a single archeological american item features scrolls written in english telling how life was when english lived there.. No palestinian kingdom or nation has ever existed, and this land was under the ruling of turks since the 13th century, and it has belonged to many different people througout history. Saying that only the arabs are legitimate there is a strange view of history. It is just one of the multiple people that has a strong connexion with that land ( the most recent one, that is right , and as such a very important one).
  - Udik 11y ago
    The history of the land is irrelevant here. The idea that you can claim ownership of a land because it used to be your homeland thousands of years ago is completely abstract. While the hard reality is that in order to take, or retake, ownership of that land, you have to displace other people that has been living there for many generations. You can't do it peacefully. You have to take their houses, their fields, evacuate and destroy their villages, steal their property, and push them back each time they try to defend themselves against all this. Remote history won't convince anybody, anywhere, to leave their houses and live in a refugee camp. Though it might work to give a veneer of reasonableness to this expropriation, for the exclusive benefit of those who won't lose anything in the process.
    - bsaul 11y ago
      They didn't claim "ownership". People seem to forget jews didn't invade this land militarely. Under the ottoman empire or the british empire that would have been foolish. They purchased pieces of land. Only when the empire collapsed after two world wars, and israel was created, did people start to fight overall the country. Let's not inverse the chronology here. They didn't come from russia and ukraine with guns, but with agricultural tools. The Tel aviv region was built from scratch out of swamps and rocks that noone wanted. It wasn't "claimed". The fact that population got displaced is a result from wars, that happened after the state was created, and which were absolutely not part of the initial project.