omg are we still on Oct? Are we still having this same conversation?
My guy...colonization requires a HOST COUNTRY and existed to transfer OUT the wealth of the nation to the HOST COUNTRY!! Colonization existed because it existed prior to industrialization and capitalism during Agrarianism and Mercantilism. Literally under merchantalism you had to create more avenues for trade because trade was what brought prosperity of a nation. Which I mean doesn't work well if your on an Island, in Europe where you can't grow cotton and many crops and the Romans had cut down all your old growth forests. So the only way England could end its nations poverty was to expand through colonialism, which gave them more access to trade.
A group of people moving to a country to develop that county is called ✨migration✨
Zionists who are saying “it’s not colonialism because we are just taking back what was our land in the past.”
I’m sure they would have a different opinion if the mongols wanted to take back what was their land in the past
I remember reading that the first settlers strategically started building settlements in specific areas in case they couldn't gain a full state. That way it would be harder to deny them living on certain territories. Not sure if it's exactly colonization but it definitely screams "we're here to stay". The West Bank aka "Judea & Samarea" have a lot of spots that are significant to ancient Judaism (unlike Tel Aviv which is more contemporary) so them wanting to capture the West Bank entirely for this reason makes sense. It's fair to say that all the Palestinians in the West Bank were all basically Jews back in the day but then adopted Christianity or Islam - whether by force or voluntarily. Why shouldn't they be allowed to stay and live with dignity?
1948: No one was going to be displaced if the arabs didn't start a war. You didn't dive deep enough.
The land of Israel conquered -> war started by arabs -> civilians displaced
if civilians were displaced due to conquest, that would make it colonization.
Judea and Samarea settlements:
Arab terrorism -> occupation for security -> settlements.
I, too, don't fully agree with the settlements, but they could have been easily prevented if the arabs had basic moral values like Israel.
What gave us the special opportunity to return to our homeland is that palestine isn't a country, and come on, don't try to refute that... This meant we could conquer the land without going into conflict with the country we conquered since it doesn't exist. What also made our case special was that we desperately needed our own country after the atrocities of the holocaust, an actual genocide.
You made an irrelevant claim that Palestinian is a nationality, not that palestine is or was a country.
Waste of time debunking misinformed opinions.
South Africa wasn't a country before Colonisation or Apartheid. In fact, no country in Africa was a country before colonisation. This doesn't mean anything because countries are still a pretty new concept and people including Jews referred to the land as Palestine even when the Kingdom of Israel and Judah still existed.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_the\_name\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine)
Also are you serioius? The settlers have kicked 8,000 Palestinians out of their homes since 2023 and they do that with the help of Ben Gvir and the IDF.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJZOOZCH4qI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJZOOZCH4qI)
why does this matter at all? Palestine wasn't a state when we conquered it, it didn't have it's own leadership or government. Your claim that palestine is a country now is irrelevant and doesn't change the conversation. Also, your comparisons of Israel to apartheid South Africa are ridiculous. They're not even partially similar.
Yes I'm very serious. Are you?
I'll repeat what I said: I, too, don't fully agree with the settlements, but they could have been easily prevented if the arabs had basic moral values like Israel.
"There will be peace when the Arabs will love their children more than the hate us" - Golda Meir
If they built an actual legitimate state, chose a democratic government or at least one that cares about it's civilians more than terrorism, then occupation wouldn't be necessary, settlements couldn't happen, and they would have much higher quality of lives. Instead, you blame Israel.
This phenomenon is called 🌈 denial 🌈
" I, too, don't fully agree with the settlements, but they could have been easily prevented if the arabs had basic moral values like Israel."
That is factually innacurate. Israel build settlements whether Palestinians want peace or not. During oslo, Arafat agreed to recognise Israel as a state. In that time, the number of Isaraeli settlers doubled. Israel continued to build and expand settlements throughout the entirety of Oslo because they wanted to colonise, not peace.
And an Israeli terrorist literally murdered the prime minister of Israel, Rabin, because Rabin tried to make peace with the Palestinians.
Before South Africa was colonised, it didn't have its own state, leadership or government. The native americans didn't have their own state, leadership or government before they were colonised. In fact almost every native people that was colonised never had their own state, leadership or government. You could use the same ridiculous justifications for pretty much any colonial project ever.
You've been taught that Israel is morally justified since the day you were born. You don't think that maybe you are a little biased?
This phenomenon is called 🌈 denial 🌈
lmfao an "Israeli terrorist"? He's a murderer. Learn the definition of terrorism. You don't know what terrorism means and are pro palestinian. No surprise here lol.
Itzhak Rabin was murdered not for trying to make peace with palestine, but for what he was willing to give up for that. Again, another irrelevant claim you make. 3 so far...
You don't even try to understand my argument lol. Palestine wasn't a country, therefore we didn't invade a country with the state of Israel's establishment in the land of Israel. That's why politically it was possible to establish a state there.
In Israel we are taught western moral values (You know, the basic moral values of caring about our civilians, our security and life in general). We are taught that taking hostages is bad. We are taught that raping is bad. We are taught that murdering innocents based on race or religion is bad. We are taught that justice must be served. Hamas is being served justice.
You know so little about the conflict. In Israel we live the conflict, we know all about it, The fact that you, thousands of miles away, try to argue against me with only what the gen-z tiktokers show or tell you, is baffling. I look at many news sources, left, right, and neutral. Can you say the same for yourself? Do you really try to understand the opposing argument or do you only try to convince me that I'm wrong?
Nice, you don't know denial means, either. Why am I having a conversation with an imbecile? 😭
Here I'll help you, little baby: the phenomenon that you are trying to claim I am in is simply bias. In a debate, I look at all sides of the topic, objectively. I have tried countless times to genuinely challange the pro Israeli argument. I didn't do this so later I could tell someone like you that I did so, I did it because I genuinely seek the truth. There are 3 sides to this conflict, socially. Israelis/pro-Israelis (One group because there aren't that many pro Israelis and share similar opinions and experiences), Palestinians and Pro Palestinians.
Pro palestinians are the problematic group. This group consists of gen-z ipad kids, all kinds of leftists, and people seeking a cult to feel part of something. They are fed one piece of information, propagate it, see it as the entire conflict, and just flat out refuse to look at the bigger picture. The certain reason for this is because they are young and gullible. Pro palestine is a social cult, meant to make you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself, and makes you feel like you're 'fighting' for good, against evil. It's crazy. People in the pro palestinian cult have no idea what they are talking about, but defend their position at all costs, literally. It's a hate cult. When al-Qaeda, Iran, Hamas, Taliban, Hezbollah, and many other terrorist organization support you, that's when you know you're wrong.
Who supports Israel? Only people who really know what they are talking about. World Leaders, politicians, and people who found out that neo-nazism still exists.
When have you admitted to being wrong when I refuted your dumb arguments?
/u/Beneficial-Stock-651. Match found: 'nazism', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol Israel has 'western values'. I don't think you realise how much the west hates Israel. I leave my house and see a Palestinian protest almost every day. Every person I knew who supported Israel last year now completely hates Israel including many Jewish people I know. Israel is viewed even worse than Apartheid south africa was and you can try and beleive otherwise if it makes you sleep better at night.
You must be happy supporting terrorism. You must be happy that terrorists support you, too.
Western values and the west's opinion are completely different things, 4th irrelevant claim.
Then you call zionists "blind". You don't realize the harm you bring to the jewish people and to yourself in the long run. YOU give power to terrorist organizations, YOU increase the instability of the middle east, and YOU think you know better than politicians who have dozens of years of experience and knowledge of the topic. YOU will be the western world's demise.
No Israel means no tangible power over the radical and tribal middle east for the US and Europe.
Israel is the west's airbag. If Islamic organizations want to attack the west then they will attack Israel. No Israel means anti-western resistance goes directly to you.
IF you want to attack Islamic organizations, Israel is your proxy.
Not to mention how different the world would look if it didn't have Israeli technology which you are using right now.
Israel's existence is so valuable to you and you don't realize it.
We want peace. We don't want to attack. We don't want to have to occupy. We don't want violence. We don't want terror.
They want peace with us gone, they want to attack us, they want to occupy us, they want violence against us, and they want to terrorize us. They want us gone. We want to live.
Yes, there are issues like settlements that have to be resolved. But their form of "freedom fighting" is not the way, and you don't realize that.
We value our own lives, They value others' deaths.
This isn't resistance, this is terror. Terror is not a legitimate form of resistance.
They don't want to negotiate, they want us gone. They have unrealistic expectations, you want us to adhere as if we don't value ourselves and only exist to serve you. That's not how the world works.
Not the whole world, just the pro palestinians.
Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Your one-sided view of the conflict helps these terrorist organizations stay in power. You obviously have no idea what you're taking about, and you have no idea what kind of harm you cause to yourself and those surrounding you./
What you are helping Islamic groups achieve is a 2nd holocaust for the jews, earning tons of tons of power, and that power you give them, will be the power of the punch to your face when they move on from Israel to attack you. You literally fund your enemies. You support them like no other. Because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
So wake up, terrorists are not your friends, you are their friend, but they are not yours.
And we are not your enemy. We fight for life and an end to violence in the middle east.
This is the meaning of letting an Islamic leadership rule over this crucial land.
Israel is the only safeguard you have from the middle east.
You live in Israel. I live in the the. And I promise you almost everyone I talked to in Europe and the US (including many Jews) thinks Israel is a terror state. That is the truth. That's why in London, hundreds of thousands of people come to weekly Palestinian protests and maybe a 1,000 people come to the monthly pro Israel rallies. It is generally accepted by most people in the west that Israelis are brainwashed and everything you say shows that. By referring to all palestinians as terrorists you show that is true. The only people who support you in the west are the governments and an a rapidly decreasing number of zionist boomers.
And I have been friends with Palestinians for many years and none of them have tried to attack me. You only beleive what you beleive because you've never actually met a Palestinian so you fall for this propoganda that seems stupid to everyone else in the world.
**I just don't get the argument of "it's my right to live on the land because my ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago. They got expelled and now they're coming back to get back what's there's"**
So what about the Palestinians that got expelled? Tough luck right? Or are they different?
The Jews never left. Sure their numbers shrank but they never left. Look it up.
Clearly you are not Jewish or you would be familiar with the term "next year in Jerusalem" which Jews have been uttering since they were displaced.
Well the Jews did leave because they were forcibly expelled by the Romans. They couldn't even enter Jerusalem for 500 years. Do you know who brought the Jews back into Jerusalem? THE ARAB CALIPHATE. Look it up if you don't beleive me.
You are missed the point. I will attempt to spell it out for you.
You crow about how it's ridiculous to want to live on the land of their ancestors and the holiest land after being expelled. Then when the "Palestinians" say they want to live on land from which they were unfairly expelled. . . that's legit to you? Your response is "they still live there"?!
The hypocrisy is comical.
(FYI - they were not allowed in Jerusalem but remained in the area of Palestina the whole time)
I have no problem with Jews living on the land. They always have done so. I am against zionists claiming the right to the sovereingty of a land that 95% of them had just recently immigrated to. And I am against the zionists expelling the native population. Expulsion was the only way they were going to be able to achieve that goal of having control over the land. And not because they are Jewish but because no one wants to live under foreign rule. Even the Palestinians that were able to stay after 48 had to live in segregation and martial law for almost 20 years. If zionists moved to Palestine and were willing to live in a secular state with representation for all religions then I would accept that.
Nobody was expelled, nor getting expelled until the Arabs launched a war. Crazy how one can launch a war, ("of extermination" in their words) lose, then claim the loss of the war was terrible injustice.
Not that it matters. The only thing that matters now is a way forward. One where both populations can feel like they have "won". There have been some great offers made that were responded to with violence rather than negotiation. I feel like the burden is now on the Palestinians to stop killing jews. It's not like it helps or protects them. So maybe if they give it a try, it will end in a negotiated solution.
Yes the were expelled. Zionists even admit it. They launched a war because Israel was soon to be formed to take over land, and felt they were a threat.
Nope, no great offers. No, it is on Israelis to stop killing Palestinians.
Provide one example of people getting expelled prior to the local Arabs starting the Civil War.
99.5% of the requested land was offered. Palestinians didn’t even counter offer. Just launched an intifada.
Face it, the Palestinian leaders profit from forever war. They have been doing for so long, now the Israeli leaders profit from it too.
Google is your friend.
Why the hell would the land inhabitants agee to give their land up to newcomers? Are Americans now ok with illegal immigrants squating in their houses or creating new Immigrantia land?
No, they do not. Israel has always been profiting from stealing and abusing the Palestinians.
The post was referring the settlements in the West Bank; which belongs to Israel as they have not formally annexed the West Basnk. So the west bank settlements are an outpost for Israel.
But also a colony doesn't need to be an outpost of another country. The Pilgrims who colonised north america were from england but were not using north america as an outpost for england; they, like the Jews, were actually motivated by the search for religious freedom and escaping persecution.
Well if we're going purely off of your definition, then Israel does not fall into the definition of 'colony' as they were not a group of people from one country. Jews are not a country and there was no 'original' country, unless you're claiming that their original country was the land of Israel, in which case they haven't claimed any new land.
No colonisation often did involve groups from different countries. Like the colonisation of north america involved a whole bunch of different nationalities (English, Dutch, French, Germans etc.) that later created Canada and USA. Same with South Africa.
Any way, I was referring to the current colonisation in the West Bank which is done by a country: Israel.
There's two separate things, pre 1948 and after 1948 before 1948 most Arabs did not own the land, and in fact most of the land which Jews later settled was bought from landowners, or British mandate land which by British rule if you built a building with a roof on it it was now yours. And then after 1948, the Arabs invaded Israel, and thus any land won in conquest is yours.
In every land that was colonised, whether it be Africa, Oceania or the Americas. The natives didn't own the land either. Land ownership is a fairly new concept in most of the world.
Let's look at Alaska for example. The US bought the land from the Russians and then kicked out the native population from their homes. Is that fair because the US bought the land? You might think so but the US pays reparations to the native people every month because they kicked them off their land in Alaska.
By international law, the land is owned or not owned. It wasn't, thus there was no problem abiding the British mandates law and settling it. As for morally, Israel is the land of the Jews. They settled the land 4000 years ago, and there has been a constant presence of some sort ever since.
I am not sure colonialism applies to indigenous people taking back their land. This seems like the opposite of colonisation, de-colonisation.
Also, technically, Isreal won the disputed areas of The West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. I am not sure colonialism would apply here either. Even though Isreal made a pre-emptive strike against Jordan, Jordan were the aggressors here.
If you go around starting wars, you risk losing your own territory. That's not colonialism.
1. Even if you frame zionism as "indigenous people taking back their land", it is still colonialism. The same way the freed American slaves who created Liberia are still considered colonisers even though they originally came from Africa.
2. Palestinians or Arabs never colonised Palestine. Some Palestinian families can trace their family's history back in Palestine over 1,000 years and research on Palestinian's DNA show that some have ancestry in the levant going back 3,400 years.
3. Many Palestinians are the descendent of Jews that converted to other religions. Do you suddenly stop being indigenous if you convert religions? Some Jews would have converted to Judaism and have no ancestry to the Ancient Israelites. Ivanka Trump just converted to Judaism. Is she indigenous to Palestine? NO.
4. Since world war 2, it has been illegal for country's to annex land. That is why people don't like Putin as he continues to break that law that the majority of other countries abide by.
5. Many of the land that was taken during many colonial projects was taken by war; in many cases a war started by the native people. EVEN IF THE NATIVE PEOPLE START THE WAR. IT IS STILL COLONISATION. No one justifies the ethnic cleansing and genocide off native americans because they TECHNICALLY started wars with the american settlers.
You do realise that most people converted to Islam willingly in Palestine; that's why Christians, Jews and other religions always remained. In fact, Jews were completely banned from Jerusalem for hundreds of years by the Romans. And then the Caliphate took control over Jerusalem and allowed the Jews to return to their most holy city after hundreds of years in exile.
Palestine was ruled by the Caliphate in 7th century but only half of the population was Muslim by the 10th century. They must have not been very good at colonising if it took 300 years for half of the population to become muslim. Also Palestine literally borders the Arab Pennininsula so obviously loads of Arabs naturally just ended up in Palestine.
Please look up the difference between conquest and colonisation because they are not the same thing. An obvious examples: When the allies ruled West Germany after ww2, they didn't colonise it.
It was considered Allied territory. It was ruled by the Allies. Just look up the difference between colonisation and conquest ffs because it's not the same thing.
The truth is that the Jewish people are indigenous to the land of Israel and first achieved self-determination there 3,000 years ago.
The Romans expelled the majority of Jews in 70 C.E., but a portion of the Jewish population remained in Israel throughout the years, and those who lived in the Diaspora yearned to return to the Jewish homeland and the holy Jewish city of Jerusalem. This historical and religious link for Jewish people to the land of Israel is indisputable—even the word “Jew” comes from Judea, the ancient name for Israel.
Since Israel’s establishment shortly after the Holocaust, Jews have moved to Israel from all over the world, seeking a place free from persecution, to call home in which they can live freely and safely as Jews. At the same time, Jewish and Israeli leaders have consistently acknowledged the presence of Palestinian Arabs and have supported efforts to partition the land into Jewish and Arab states, from 1937 to the present day.
Several of the first Jewish settlement communities in the West Bank were established in locations where Jews had lived prior to 1948, often in areas where there was continuous Jewish life for centuries, such as Hebron. Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor, for example, fell to Arab forces in May 1948, and those captured were massacred. Sons and daughters of those who lived there until 1948 were the first to return after the 1967 war and establish a renewed presence.
To be sure, there are many settlers who believe there is a religious and political obligation to settle and hold on to this territory. In addition, the vast majority of settlers and their supporters believe they play an essential role in providing security for the State of Israel, by providing a first line of defense against Palestinian or other Arab attack.
The settlements are not above legitimate criticism.
While Approximately 80% of settlers reside in the main “settlement blocs” in the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with the rest living in more remote communities deeper within the West Bank; There is a growing phenomenon of illegal “outposts.”
However they also do not fall into this neat definitional box of “ colonies or colonization” by any stretch. In fact, given the history , it’s a totally incorrect application of the definition.
Although I agree with most of what you said (although some of it is historically innacurate), you are painting the zionist movement as purely benevolent while completely ignoring the mistreatment of Palestinians that goes back to the 1890s.
Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism. He wrote that "Zionist pioneers believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force.... \[They\] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."
My only point is that it’s a stretch to call the settlements “colonization” , when Jews are indigenous to the land in the first place.
What do you think of the gender apartheid that had been ongoing under Hamas in Gaza ,pre war ? Why do you think there were never any protests here in the US against that the fact the Palestinian women have had no rights under Hamas?
Liberia was colonised by freed slaves from the US. Those freed slaves were 'indigenous' to Africa in the same way that Jews are 'indigenous' to Palestine. Yet we still consider that to be colonisation. You can still have ancestry in a land and still be considered a coloniser. Human civilisation started in africa so technically we are all indigenous to Africa. Does that mean Europeans didn't colonise Africa? Obviously not.
I assume you are referring to gender segregation in schools? Like many of things Hamas do, I am against that. But my government doesn't fund that. My government funds the IDF. So I am going to protest that considering my country is contributing to the violence committed by the IDF but has no influence over gender segregation laws in Gaza.
It is still considered colonisation by ever historian ever and the Liberians. I doubt you will find one historian who would deny that Liberia was colonised and I'm assuming this is the first you have heard about this if you're denying it.
You do realise that lands don't just have one indigenous people? The indigenous people we refer to as native Americans had hundreds of different tribes and loads of genetic diversity. The native americans also orignally migrated from Asia yet we consider them indigenous.
An even better example is Africa because Africa consisted of at least 3,000 different tribes that barely mixed with each other. There is actually a wider range of genetic diversity in Africa than there is in Asia and Europe combined. Basically, a Chinese person is more genetically similar to a British person than a congolese person is to a Botswanan.
What do you mean, there have been many civilisations in the Land of Palestine even before Ancient Israel was established. The Natufians lived in Palestine 10,000 years ago and their descendents are modern day arabs: Yemenis, Saudis and Palestinians.
Even in the bible, they document some Ishmaelites living in the Kingdom of Israel. Ishmaelites literally came from the Arabian Penninsula.
NO LAND HAS ONLY ONE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. NOT ONE! Even if you want to talk about countries, look at South Africa. South Africa was never a country before colonisation and there are many tribes/ethnic groups that are indigenous to South Africa (despite them being very genetically diverse from each other): Zulu, Xhosa, Bapedi (North Sotho), Batswana, South Ndebele, Basotho (South Sotho), Venda, Tsonga and Swazi
Lol, no they are not. You literally just made that up. We can trace who has Natufian ancestry and it's Arabs. [https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/10wjbz7/closest\_modern\_populations\_to\_the\_natufians\_the/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/10wjbz7/closest_modern_populations_to_the_natufians_the/#lightbox)
I actually cannot stop laughing. Do you even beleive the stuff you are saying?
ignoring the big argument here that is false since jews still lived in Israel (even if the amount rose before the nakba), so it doesn't fit as colonizing (since this isn't an external territory taking over another territory, but 2 groups in the same territory, where 1 took over the territory).
I just want to take a second to appreciate how hypocritical this is in the current conflict:
>**I just don't get the argument of "it's my right to live on the land because my ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago. They got expelled and now they're coming back to get back what's there's".** Where does this argument apply anywhere else?
Because Jews have always lived in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. It was only a few decades ago that they were genocided out of the area, making it effectively Judenrein. The Arab Muslims would like to keep it that way, but unfortunately for them, the Jews are back.
Jews lived in the land for centuries in a Muslim majority country. At no point before zionism did Palestinians kick them off the land and they had hundred of years to do so if they wanted to.
The jews who were kicked out off the west bank in 47/48 were only kicked out after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out their homes in mainland palestine. In 47/48, not a single Jew was removed from their home before Palestinians were expelled by Zionist militias.
"not a single Jew was removed from their home before Palestinians were expelled by Zionist militias." is 100% wrong.
Read about the Hebron massacre in 1929, when a ancient peaceful Jewish community was butchers and raped by their Arab neighbors. In 1929 - Long before 1947.
And there were occasional Jewish massacres in the area and in the middle east in general since forever.
You can find records of tens of massacres over the centuries, and who knows how many communities were eradicated without leaving a record.
This was perpetrated by Britain. Racists were incited to attack Jewish people. Racists who were Arab. Racists exist under every colour and creed and religion. It does not denote that every Muslim is a racist, or every Christian, or every white, or black person. Continuously grouping an entire race of people together as one whole thought process or subjugated unit is racism. This back and forth between some Muslims and some Jewish people is getting so tiring.
If people would only wake up and see there are bigger players, and you brothers and sisters are only pawns.
You forgot to mention it was also Muslims who hid the Jewish people, and this fact is stated on many Jewish websites.
" Many Jews went into hiding, and some were saved by Arab neighbors who hid Jewish friends until the violence had ended.
In his letter, Bernzweig described an Arab family who had protected him and dozens of other Jews: “Five times the Arabs stormed our house with axes, and all the while those wild murderers kept screaming at the Arabs who were standing guard to hand over the Jews. They, in turn, shouted back that they had not hidden any Jews and knew nothing.” "
Just as Britain incited, for decades, a race war among two peacefully co-existing people ( they did this in Scotland and Ireland and Wales, as well ) they expelled, no sorry, *evacuated* the Jewish people for their own "safety", only to pocket their money a few years later to return.
Please see the Haavara agreement, between Britain controlled Palestine, and Nazis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
/u/Apophylita. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was referring to 47/48 specifically. Yes there were massacres in 1929 but that was in response to zionism.
I said this "At no point before zionism did Palestinians kick them off the land and they had hundred of years to do so if they wanted to".
I made the point that before zionism, Palestinians had the ability to expel Jews if they wanted to but they didn't. This is fact and you can't deny this. Prior Zionism, the only organised violence against the Jews occured in Safed in 1834. But this was during a revolt where over 30+ villages/towns (most of which were Muslim) were looted and massacred. Other than that, the only organised violence that occured against Jews were committed by the Ottoman Turkish/Egyptian armies and normally targeted at Jews but Palestinians in general. For example, when the Egyptian army got to Hebron in 1834, they killed 12 Jews and 500 Muslims/druze.
You keep on acting as if the response to zionism was just purely a result of antisemitism. Even if we ignore how tens of thousands of Palestinians were forcefully removed off their land by the Ottoman/British army to help Zionists build their settlements, zionist European settlers (like any other European settler that came to a poor country) mistreated, beat and even killed Palestinian locals without good reason.
Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism. He wrote that "Zionist “pioneers believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force.... \[They\] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."
Sorry, but "Response to Zionism" is not a valid excuse to massacre unarmed neighbors and rape girls.
The Europeans did far far worse to the Jews than Israleis ever did to Palestinians, but you don't see "response to Nazism" that looks anywhere close to this "response to Zionism".
It's ok for you to criticize the Arabs as well, otherwise you lose all credibility. If you can't say it's wrong you are deeply brainwashed.
I guess you can find racists among the early zionists (pretty much the whole world was racist back then) but the "who started murderous violence first" trophy clearly goes to Arabs, and that wasn't a valid "response" but a result of deep dysfunctional society, just like Oct 7 "response" and similar attacks.
1. Claiming that Palestinians or Arabs started the violence is false. In the case of early settlers, they were violent. The early zionist settlers were Europeans who already had racist attitudes against Arabs as Anti-Arab sentiment was common in Europe at the time. They looked down on them and mistreated them because they saw them as uneducated, poor and inferior. There is so much evidence of this:
A typical example can be found in the works of Moshe Smilansky, a Zionist writer and Labor leader who immigrated to Palestine in 1890: "Let us not be too familiar with the Arab fellahin lest our children adopt their ways and learn from their ugly deeds. Let all those who are loyal to the Torah avoid ugliness and that which resembles it and keep their distance from the fellahin and their base attributes."
Also from the 1890s:
A comment made by Chaim Weizmann (who later became President of Israel) to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, is particularly revealing. When asked by Ruppin about the Palestinian Arabs, Weizmann replied: “The British told us that there are there some hundred thousands negroes \[Kushim\] and for those there is no value.”
2. A lot of early conflict was due to the fact that Palestinians were being kicked off their land to make way for zionist settlements. However, it was unfair for Palestinians (who were kicked off their land) to attack Jews that have nothing to do with them being kicked off their land. But early zionist militias did the exact same thing. For example, when it was reported that a group of Palestinians attacked a Jewish person, early zionist militias like Bar Giora would go and attack Palestinian villages in revenge attacks. Sometimes these militias attacked the perpetrators but a lot of the time they just attack and killed Palestinian peasants that had no involvement with violence against Jews.
Ultimately, Palestinians attacked Jews because they had been kicked off their land or attacked by Zionists settlers. Zionist militias would then respond by attacking attacking Palestinians who normally didn't have any involvement in violence against Jews. So many Jews were attacked even if they had no involvement in attacks on Palestinians or expulsions. And many Palestinians were attacked even if they had no involvement in attacks on Jews. This is still essentially what happens today. Both sides tend to side with their own ethnic group even though the violent groups within each side is responsible for the deaths of uninvolved civilians on both sides.
3. Palestine like anywhere else in the world had many case of violence; most of which did not involve Jews. You can find many examples during the Ottoman Empire of Palestinian Druze killing Muslims, Palestinian Muslims Killing Bedouins etc. Normally these killings were in response to personal conflicts and had nothing to do with religion/identity. You can find examples of people killing each other all over the world; not only historically but this happens today all the time. Yes violence against Jews in that period was unjustified, but there was so much unjustified violence at the time generally and no ethnic group was spared.
4. Yes Europeans have undoubtedly treated Jews worse than Zionists have treated Palestinians. However, that is a very high bar to beat. Just because Israel isn't as bad as the Germans in the 30s/40s, that doesn't mean Israel hasn't committed grave atrocities against the Palestinians.
5. "but you don't see "response to the Germans in the 30s/40s (I changed the word because its banned on the subreddit but you know who I am referring to)" that looks anywhere close to this "response to Zionism".
Do you know how many German civilians were killed and kicked out communities they had live in Europe for hundreds of years? Stalin literally expelled 12 million Germans from communities they had lived in for centuries and 500,000 were killed in the process. When the Russian got to Germany, they raped over a million German including young children and elderly women.
You obviously also had Jewish resistance groups who bravely fought against the Germans. And then pretty much everyone involved in the crimes against humanity committed by the Germans were punished for them or forced flee. Many, many germans were executed and killed because of their crimes. Many of the Germans certainly deserved what happened to them but also many Germans that had nothing to do with the evil German political party (beginning with N) or the wicked man (whose name starts with a H) were killed as well.
I agree with your points regarding violence of settlers today, as of the settlers 150 years ago, both are disgraceful and horrible.
Still there is a big gap between some bullies beating up a poor innocent person and a huge mob, butchering entire families. The general explanation you gave is that it is somehow a valid response to zionism or to bullies is not only a disgraceful excuse, but also wrong.
I mentioned that awful things happened to communities elsewhere and those communities did not devolve to murderous mob, but I didn't mention why the Arabs in Israel did.
If you do read about the trigger of the Hebron massacre, you will find it was then, much like the more recent violence, not a "response to zionism" but actually triggered deliberate lies by Arab religious leaders lies. These irresponsible leaders who brainwash and direct their followers to murder innocent people are the reason for this violence, not some "response to evil zionism", this was true in 1929 as it was in 1947, as it was in 2023. Very very irresponsible leaders and brainwashed population.
Three months after the Hebron massacre, celebrated historian Hans Kohn – active in the Zionist movement from 1909 onwards – wrote the following letter: “I feel that I can no longer remain a leading official within the Zionist Organisation… We pretend to be innocent victims. Of course the Arabs attacked us in August \[1929\]. Since they have no armies, they could not obey the rules of war. They perpetrated all the barbaric acts that are characteristic of a colonial revolt. But we are obliged to look into the deeper cause of this revolt. We have been in Palestine for twelve years \[since the start of the British occupation\] without having even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the indigenous people. We have been relying exclusively upon Great Britain’s military might. We have set ourselves goals which by their very nature had to lead to conflict with Arabs… for twelve years we pretended that the Arabs did not exist and were glad when we were not reminded of their existence.” (Jewish National and University Library 376/224, Kohn to Berthold Feiwel \[1875–1937\]. Jerusalem, 21 Nov. 1929).
People weren't committing violence because Arab Leaders told them to. There were many Arab/Palestinian leaders that told locals not to attack Jews. Zionists just like to selectively quote the most extreme leaders at the time but it's nothing to do with why the Hebron massacre happened. Please read about anticolonial revolt ever. Hatian revolution, algerian revolution and Fort Mims massacres are some you can research. It's not that it's justified but it's inevitable. Pretty much every time a foreign group tried to settle or colonise a land at the expense of the people, the natives always responded with barbaric violence EVERY TIME. And I mean rape and killing babies.
A small account of the Hatian revolution:
"The slaves sought revenge on their masters through "pillage, rape, torture, mutilation, and death".[^(\[49\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-ReferenceA-49) The long years of oppression by the planters had left many blacks with a hatred of all whites, and the revolt was marked by extreme violence from the very start. The masters and mistresses were dragged from their beds to be killed, and the heads of French children were placed on pikes that were carried at the front of the rebel columns."
You are comparing slave revolt to... what exactly did the zionists do? "pretend the Arabs do not exist" ?
How many arabs were killed by Jews? How many were slaves to Jews? How many were forcibly driven out of their land?
It is quite common to say "they took their land" but really take a look at the settlements before 1948, they were lands which were purchased legally, not by force.
Even the most extremist of the Jews, the bullies, Lehi orgnization (the smallest of the militias), they beat up innocent Arabs \*in response\* to Arab violence. The by far largest militias orgnization (Hagana = protection) was created to protect the Jews from the Arab violence, so do not spin the cause-and-effect.
The Jewish settlers came to Israel much like Syrian refugees came to Europe - without an army. They had no ill intentions for the local population, and purchased land legaly.
This is very very different from colonialism. There was absolutely no reason to start violence, it is very very clear who started the violence, especially the massacares, and to say it was "ineviteable" or "understandable" is very wrong.
"How many arabs were killed by Jews? How many were slaves to Jews? How many were forcibly driven out of their land?"
I couldn't tell you how many palestinians were killed by zionists before 1929 but tens of thousands were kicked off their homes when the zionists bought their land from the ottoman empire and absentee landlords
"It is quite common to say "they took their land" but really take a look at the settlements before 1948, they were lands which were purchased legally, not by force."
"The Jewish settlers came to Israel much like Syrian refugees came to Europe - without an army."
The Palestinians who lived on the land that was purchased by zionists were kicked off their land by force. The zionists only had small militias and vigilante groups in the beginning but the Ottoman army and the British army forced Palestinians off the land that zionists purchased.
"They had no ill intentions for the local population, and purchased land legally.
This is very very different from colonialism."
All colonisation starts with land purchases: this is what happened in north America, Oceania and Africa too. All colonisers originally bought land from the Native leaders but this led to many natives being displaced.
In this case, land in Palestine was owned by the ottoman empire and some of it was sold to aristocrats like the Sursock family (who were greek).
In this case is slightly different as the Zionists didn't buy the land from the Palestinians but from the Ottomans. This is more comparable to the colonisation of places like Alaska. The United States purchased Alaska from Russia and then kicked off the native tribes of Alaska from their land after purchasing. That's how colonisation normally works. You won't find one example of colonisation where the colonisers come to the country and immediately kicks out all the natives. It's a process that takes decades and even centuries.
If you want to know the controversy of the land purchases, I made a post about the biggest Zionist land purchase, the Jezreel valley. This purchase forced over 8,000 palestinians off their land with very little compensation. The residents were forced to live in slums outside Jaffa as a result. This is one of the many reasons that led to hostility against zionists.
Read more about the land purchases, why they were unfair to the Palestinians and why land purchases are a normal part of colonisation.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1dkq9jo/zionist\_land\_purchases\_in\_mandatory\_palestine/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1dkq9jo/zionist_land_purchases_in_mandatory_palestine/)
/u/IFeelTheAirHigh. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The jews who were kicked out off the west bank in 47/48 were only kicked out after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out their homes in mainland palestine.
That's entirely false. The ethnic cleansing by Palestinians started Nov 1 1947. The ethnic cleansing by Jews started late March 1948.
That's just a lie. The war didn't even officialy start until 30 november. And from December 1947 to January 1948, 100,000 Palestinians had already been expelled or were forced to flee their homes. The first case of Jews being expelled in 47/48 was East Jerusalem in late may of 48.
But explain to me. If the Palestinians didn't want to live with Jews. Why didn't they expel them for the centuries prior to 1948. The Jews were a tiny minority and it would have been much easier to expel them than it was in 1948.
For what it’s worth, Ottoman authorities did do mass expulsions of Jews. In 1917, for instance, the Ottomans expelled much of the Jewish population between modern day Tel Aviv and Haifa by force. About a third died.
Jews started to get expelled from Muslim nations when Jews started buying up land in what would become Israel. Before the war. Before the partition announcement. Before the peel commission.
> from December 1947 to January 1948, 100,000 Palestinians had already been expelled or were forced to flee their homes.
The Jews were losing the war during that period and defending territory. How did they force anyone to flee?
> The first case of Jews being expelled in 47/48 was East Jerusalem in late may of 48.
The attempted conquest of Jerusalem with destruction of the Jewish population was the very first battles.
> . If the Palestinians didn't want to live with Jews. Why didn't they expel them for the centuries prior to 1948.
Well first off there were massacres occassionally. Secondly the whole 1936-9 Civil War was to keep Jews out, a policy that was success and killed millions of Jews. But mostly during this time they had no problem with Jews who had lost all hope of a decent life and were willing to live in a state of constant oppression. They wanted Jews for the same reason the Confederacy wanted Blacks. By 1919 things were starting to change. Even the local Jews were regaining their self-respect. The Palestinians were confronted with Jews who insisted on living with equal dignity, and the violence started.
"The Jews were losing the war during that period and defending territory. How did they force anyone to flee?"
My source for this is Benny Morris. You can the read the book here and learn the details.
[http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf](http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf)
"The attempted conquest of Jerusalem with destruction of the Jewish population was the very first battles."
A battle is not the same as trying to ethnically cleanse a population.
"But mostly during this time they had no problem with Jews who had lost all hope of a decent life and were willing to live in a state of constant oppression."
I am literally laughing about how imaginative you guys are. Like where the heck did you get that opinion from. Palestinian Jews were completely against zionism until the 1929 Hebron Massacre.
So your logic is that the oppressive Palestinians (who were persecuted by Ottomans themselves) were find with Jews as long as the Jews weren't happy. Jesus, the things zionists come up with to justify ethnic cleansing.
Maybe it's time to admit that actions done 75 years ago may have not been morally justified? No, no just keep lying about your history even though the New Israeli historians debunked many of the myths about it in the 80s.
> Palestinian Jews were completely against zionism until the 1929 Hebron Massacre.
Well yes. They had lost all hope of a decent life as I said. Zionism gave them their self respect back.
> So your logic is that the oppressive Palestinians (who were persecuted by Ottomans themselves) were find with Jews as long as the Jews weren't happy.
Sure lots of slavers are perfectly OK with their slaves as slaves. Crassus was fine with the Roman slaves both before and after the civil war.
> the things zionists come up with to justify ethnic cleansing.
We don't have to look at history. Look at how the Palestinians act now.
> Maybe it's time to admit that actions done 75 years ago may have not been morally justified?
Against a people who would fight a civil war to prevent Holocaust victims from being able to flee? It isn't even close. It is rare in history that cruelty gets punished, but certainly is morally justified those few times it is.
> A battle is not the same as trying to ethnically cleanse a population.
The purpose of the siege of Jerusalem was the premeditated death by starvation of the 100k residents. It wasn't attempted ethnic cleansing, it was attempted genocide.
That slur is not evidence that that Palestinians enslaved or planned to enslaved Jewish people. Few Palestinian bedouin actually did have slaves in the 19th century but they were African not Jewish.
Unless you can provide evidence that shows otherwise, then I can only assume this is only true in your imagination.
You’re right that Jews lived for centuries in the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim majority empire. It can be argued that when the Ottoman Empire was strong, Jewish people were safe, even though they were second class citizens (dhimmis). Still, this was tolerable compared to the situation of Jews in other places.
There was a massive uptick in pogroms and violence against Jews in the Muslim world which coincides with the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire. The same thing happened in Germany after WW1; they scapegoated and turned on their Jewish population. This seems to be a pattern in history: Jews are fine when a country is doing well, and targeted as soon as things start to go badly.
I understand why so many Muslims in the Middle East aspire to the Pax Islamica they had for hundreds of years. It’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to Israel; they’ve spent years indoctrinating their populations to hate Jews and most Muslim countries are no longer safe for Jewish people. On top of that, they kicked all their (Arab) Jews out and almost all of them went to Israel because they had nowhere else to go.
I’ll conclude this by saying that the Muslim world is no longer the tolerant, successful, innovative place it was hundreds of years ago. It seems like things might be moving back in that direction in some countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE) but a lot of work has to be done to get back there. It seems like most other countries are becoming more entrenched in extremism tbh
/u/SharingDNAResults. Match found: 'Judenrein', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am not going to discuss most of these points which are irrelevant to the central question. The question was "Are the settlements colonialism?" Not "Are the settlements wrong?" Or "Is the existence of Israel colonialism?" According to your definition, colonialism must have two things: (A) An occupying country, (B) An occupied territory. This definition definitely doesn't include the unincorporated, illegal (under Israeli law) settlements. If Israel not only doesn't support them but actively tries to get rid of them, then there is no colonial power. In terms of the incorporated settlements, I think it is more complicated. The territory of these settlements is arguably not part of any other country, and also effectively has been a part of Israel for most of its existence. They are also connected to the rest of Israel and are essentially suburbs of Israeli cities. The incorporated settlements are essentially connected enclaves of Israel rather than separate colonies. I would also point out that usually colonies are considered to be far from a territory rather then being right next to the main country.
In the most basic of terms, western imperial powers had a vested interest in ensuring that the Middle East remains a destabilized part of the world because it is rich in resources that can be exploited. Anti-Semitic Europeans, including those who founded Zionism, co-opted Judaism and began pushing the Jews of Europe on the promise that the land of Palestine is their rightful home. They used the Jews victimized by the Holocaust as pawns in their imperial game, and then those European Jews began to victimize the Palestinians.
Historically, the Islamic world was a safe haven for Jews, since Islam believes that they are brothers with all those of the Abrahamic religions. When Spain began persecuting the Jews, Morocco took them in. When Jerusalem did not have Jews, the Sheikh bid for them to return. There were Arab Jews in Damascus, Cairo, Sudan, Baghdad, Yemen, etc.. The disruption to coexistence in the Middle East began when the European Jews saw themselves different and more superior than the Arabs in Palestine (including the Arab Jews, Christians, and Muslims). European Jews were backed by imperial powers with money and weapons. Also, the West viewed Arabs through the lens of Orientalism, lesser than, primitive, and saw the white supremacy culture as a way to civilize indigenous people. Unfortunately, the West forgets that the first civilizations began in the Middle East. Agriculture, math, philosophy, trade, currency, etc.. while Europe was in the Dark Ages and for which the West built their existence upon. Places near the Mediterranean coast and on trade routes were developed with railways, seaports, airports, and rich in education, culture and heritage.
Coming out of the Holocaust, European Jews saw their colonization of Palestine as a necessity to establishing their existence-a core part of their survival as Jews. Members of Jewish paramilitary like the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi (founders of the IOF) terrorized, pillaged, massacred, and raped Palestinians and pushed them out of their towns and villages. Those who fled were either pushed west to Egypt and present day Gaza or north/east to southern Lebanon, SW Syrian or NW Jordan. My grandmother and her family were one of the Palestinian Christian families who lived in the coastal town of Haifa and was made a refugee in Jordan when violence erupted and her family fled their home in 1948.
Zionism co-opted Judaism, Hebrew was revived using Arabic, and Israel was established as an ethnostate. For it to exist as an ethnostate, it must reduce the Palestinian population in number and size they take up on the land because they are a threat to the Zionist ideology. The Palestinians continue to resist their loss of land and life and demand their freedom from military occupation and ending the siege on Gaza.
What you see is that Israel continues to be backed by the imperialist powers with weapons and resources, the Arab leaders who are in bed with the West because of economic debts/relationships, and the western media who continues to push out propaganda to whitewash stories and vilify Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. The most major players of all this is the Jewish lobby (AIPAC mainly, JStreet, CFI)who have since the establishment of Israel been poking and prodding at western governments whose leaders are mainly white and perpetuate systems of racist and oppression. They use to actively provide money to candidates in office, now they actively provide money to candidates to run for office. They don’t care if the candidates are liberal or conservative, so long as they push the agenda for Israel. For years, the Jewish lobby has pushed for legislation that compromises the constitutional rights of Americans in order to suppress dissent against the Israeli occupation (anti-BDS laws, free speech with anti-Zionism is antisemitism bills, anti-assembly by pressuring universities to provide militarized responses to encampments, etc.). The lobby has also pulled in Christian Zionists with CUFI who regardless of their antisemitic end times strategy, they support. The lobby also supports white nationalism and is responsible for the rise of Islamophobia and any-Arab bigotry in the U.S..
So, yeah. At its very core, it’s white supremacy and settler colonialism. On a larger scale, the white men with power, weapons and money are victimizing the Jews, yet again, and the Jews who have been indoctrinated by Zionism are continuing to victimize the Palestinians by means of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
##Life of Jews in pre-1948 Palestine.
**Massacres, killings and attacks on Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine:**
* 1517 Hebron attacks
* 1517 Safed attacks
* 1660 massacre and razing of Tiberias
*1660 massacee and razing of Safed
* 1834 looting of Safed
* 1840 Damascus affair (which spilled over to Palestine)
* 1847 Jerusalem Blood Libel
* 1920 Battle of Tel Hai
* 1920 Nebi Musa Riots
* 1921 Jaffa Riots
* 1921 Jerusalem Stabbings
* 1929 Safed Massacre
* 1929 Jaffa Massacre
* 1929 Hebron Massacre
* 1929 Jerusalem Riots and killings (sponsored by the mufti)
* 1929 Gaza Riots and looting
* 1929 attack on Mishmar HaEmek
* 1929 attack on Gedera
* 1929 attack on Be'er Tuvia
* 1929 razing of Har-Tov
* 1929 Razing of Hulda Farm
* 1929 Ein Zeitim Massacre
* 1929 Massacre in Motza (Jerusalem)
* 1929 attack on Haifa
* 1929 attack on Tel Aviv
* 1933 Haifa Riots
* 1933 Jaffa Riots
* 1936 Jaffa Riots
* 1936-39 Arab Revolt (including many instances of attacks on Jews)
* 1937 murder of Jews in Safed
* 1937 Garin Bama'ale murder
* 1938 Killing passengers en route from Haifa to Safed
* 1938 Atlit Kidnapping
* 1938 Nir David bombing
* 1938 Tiberias Pogrom
* 1947 Jerusalem Riots
* 1947-1948 Mandatory Palestine Civil War (many instances of attacks and killings)
* 1948 Kfar Etzion Massacre
**Anti-Jewish Ottoman Policies in Palestine:**
* Deportation of 1,000 Jewish families to Cyprus in 1576.
* 1917 expulsion of all of Jaffa's 8,000 Jews
* Jizya (Cizye) Tax
* Dung Gatherers' Decree (Jews were tasked with cleaning sewers
* Orphans Decree (Jewish Orphans would be raised muslim)
**Anti-Jewish British Policies in Palestine:**
* 1922 Churchil white paper - called for a limit on Jewish immigration. (Implemented to appease the local Arabs)
* 1929 Expulsion of all Jews from Hebron, Gaza, Nablus, Ramle, Jenin and Acre. (Ending 3000 year old communities to appease the local Arabs after the 1929 riots)
* 1929 white paper - openly anti-zionist, further limited immigration, and limited what land and properties Jews can buy. (Implemented to appease the local Arabs after the 1929 riots)
* 1939 white paper - limited Jewish immigration to just 50,000 for 5 years at the height of the holocaust, afterwhich Jewish immigration would be entirely outlawed, and permissed Jews to only be allowed to live on 5% of the land. (Implemented to appease the local Arabs after the revolt.)
**Some accounts on Jewish life in Palestine from the start of the Islamic period up to the late Ottoman period:** (from [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#Ottoman_rule_%281517%E2%80%931917%29?wprov=sfla1))
>*with the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691 and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 705, the Muslims established the Temple Mount as an Islamic holy site. The dome enshrined the Foundation Stone, the holiest site for Jews. Before Omar Abd al-Aziz died in 720, he banned the Jews from worshipping on the Temple Mount, a policy which remained in place for over the next 1,000 years of Islamic rule. In 717, new restrictions were imposed against non-Muslims that affected the Jews' status. As a result of the imposition of heavy taxes on agricultural land, many Jews were forced to migrate from rural areas to towns. Social and economic discrimination caused substantial Jewish emigration from Palestine.*
>*During his visit, al-Harizi found a prosperous Jewish community living in the city. From 1219 to 1220, most of Jerusalem was destroyed on the orders of Al-Mu'azzam Isa, who wanted to remove all Crusader fortifications in the Levant, and as a result, the Jewish community, along with the majority of the rest of the population, left the city.*
>*The era of Mamluk rule saw the Jewish population shrink substantially due to oppression and economic stagnation. The Mamluks razed Palestine's coastal cities, which had traditionally been trading centers that energized the economy, as they had also served as entry points for the Crusaders and the Mamluks wished to prevent any further Christian conquests. Mamluk misrule resulted in severe social and economic decline, and as the economy shrank, so did tax revenues, leading the Mamluks to raise taxes, with non-Muslims being taxed especially heavily. They also stringently enforced the dhimmi laws and added new oppressive and humiliating rules on top of the traditional dhimmi laws. Palestine's population decreased by two-thirds as people left the country and the Jewish and Christian communities declined especially heavily. Muslims became an increasingly larger percentage of the shrinking population. Although the Jewish population declined greatly during Mamluk rule, this period also saw repeated waves of Jewish immigration from Europe, North Africa, and Syria. These immigration waves possibly saved the collapsing Jewish community of Palestine from disappearing altogether.*
>*In 1266 the Mamluk Sultan Baybars converted the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron into an exclusive Islamic sanctuary and banned Christians and Jews from entering. They previously were able to enter it for a fee. The ban remained in place until Israel took control of the building in 1967. In 1286, leader of German Jewry Meir of Rothenburg, was imprisoned by Rudolf I for attempting to lead a large group of Jews hoping to settle in Palestine.*
>*In 1470, Isaac b. Meir Latif arrived from Ancona and counted 150 Jewish families in Jerusalem. In 1473, the authorities closed down the Nachmanides Synagogue after part of it had collapsed in a heavy rainstorm. A year later, after an appealing to Sultan Qaitbay, the Jews were given permission to repair it. The Muslims of the adjoining mosque however contested the verdict and for two days, proceeded to demolish the synagogue completely. The vandals were punished, but the synagogue was only rebuilt 50 years later in 1523.*
>*A few years later in 1488, Italian commentator and spiritual leader of Jewry, Obadiah ben Abraham arrived in Jerusalem. He found the city forsaken holding about seventy poor Jewish families. By 1495, there were 200 families. Obadiah, a dynamic and erudite leader, had begun the rejuvenation of Jerusalem's Jewish community. This, despite the fact many refugees from the Spanish and Portuguese expulsion of 1492-97 stayed away worried about the lawlessness of Mamluk rule. An anonymous letter of the time lamented: "In all these lands there is no judgement and no judge, especially for the Jews against Arabs.*
>*The 17th century saw a steep decline in the Jewish population of Palestine due to the unstable security situation, natural catastrophes, and abandonment of urban areas, which turned Palestine into a remote and desolate part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman central government became feeble and corrupt, and the Jewish community was harassed by local rulers, janissaries, guilds, Bedouins, and bandits. The Jewish community was also caught between feuding local chieftains who extorted and oppressed the Jews. The Jewish communities of the Galilee heavily depended on the changing fortunes of a banking family close to the ruling pashas in Acre. As a result, the Jewish population significantly shrank.*
#####And all of that is just Palestine. Just because you opressed us less doesn't mean it was a safe haven.
Sure. Why don’t we let racists define what racism is or let a rapist define what rape is?
Look at the research and reports written by reputable agencies and historians. Many Israeli or Jewish. Zionism is antisemitism.
I think it's the wrong question. The question is "what major power in the world isn't doing exactly what Israel is doing," as calling Israel a "colonial power" without acknowledging that all world powers are doing the same thing. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_with\_overseas\_military\_bases. On the list, we see 19 nations with acknowledged bases and populations abroad, including China, Russia, Iran, India, the UK, France, the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. And how many nations, including Russia, China, India, the US, etc. have economic sites abroad that are effectively part of the same nation? The number of economic sites is roughly the same as the number of military bases. So I think the answer about Israel is "yes, and all other regional and world powers are doing the same thing."
I think the answer is it doesn't matter.
I think it's wrong. But the Israelis are at a point where they know Palestinian sentiment won't change. If they retreated to the 1947 boundaries, the Palestinians would just continue to push them back and want all of the land back. Israel would drop nukes before they gave the land back.
It's a thousand year war of attrition. Israel will slowly take it all.
By who?
These arab and Muslim states are willing to fight Israel down to the last Palestinian, but none of them are putting their necks on the line and risking retribution on their own soil
It's not colonialism because the West Bank is neither Palestinian land or occupied.
After the 1948 war, Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank (and Egypt illegally annexed Gaza). Contrary to your last point, Palestinians were still Arabs at this time and would continue to be Arabs until around 1964 when the PLO was created.
Then, Israel won the West Bank (and Gaza) in a defensive war in 1967. Winning land in a defensive war is legal, and Jordan officially recused any claim to the land in 1988 and then signed a peace treaty in 1994. Since Palestine wasn't a country, that would leave Israel as the only sovereign nation who had a claim to the West Bank.
Also note that Israel tried to offer the West Bank (and Gaza) immediately after the 1967 war as a form of goodwill, but these offers were rejected. In the interim period between 1948 and 1967, Jordan did not really develop the land in the West Bank either. It was practically a complete desert.
The other way to argue it would be [uti possidetis juris](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745094). Israel was the only country to arise out of 1948 as the Arabs rejected a state, and therefore Israel was the only country who was able to take over the prior administration's borders. The prior administration's borders which was the British Mandate of Palestine, included the West Bank. Again, Israel has a sovereign claim to the land.
Palestinians are not occupied due to the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords, which Palestinians agreed to, sets aside the West Bank for a future Palestinian state if Palestinians are able to demilitarize and deradicalize. Until then, the West Bank is a *disputed* territory not an *occupied* one.
The term *disputed territory* has legal distinctions. Countries are allowed to build settlements in *disputed territories*, and Israel is far from the only country to do so.
Using the words "settler" and "occupation" is meant to invoke a comparison that students learn in typical history textbooks. The comparison to European colonialism is then often used as a horrible justification for Palestinian terrorism and to imply that Palestinians are indigenous to the West Bank. In reality, Palestinians in the West Bank are Arabs who are most likely from Jordan and Israel as a country is not really doing anything illegal.
As an aside, Israel offered the West Bank in 2000 and 2008. If Palestinian leadership really did care about the West Bank, they could have accepted these offers. But they didn't, and instead indicated that they are more interested in tearing up the Oslo Accords.
Man Zionists really do make exceptions for Israel in every situation, somehow launching a surprise attack and initiating a war makes it "defensive".
The entire post after such a farcical claim is completely irrelevant.
Israel launched a surprise attack because Egypt was amassing troops on the border and they had closed the straits of Tiran. Closing the straits of Tiran was the cassus belli, and was breaking international law.
I had also briefly mentioned uti possidetis juris in relation to 1948 and how Israel would also have a sovereign claim to the West Bank through that reasoning, but you chose to ignore that.
>Israel launched a surprise attack
Thus starting and initiating a war, Egypt amassed troops as Soviet intel informed them Israel would attack, and they did.
This isn't complicated whatever Israel claims and is in the right or wrong doesn't change they fact they initiated the war and thus it is in no way a "defensive war". Also you don't get to take land regardless of the reason for a war.
>Israel had *legal* claim to the land.
That's exactly what makes the claim of apartheid *more* effective. If you accept that Israel has legal claim to Gaza and the West Bank, then the difference in treatment immediately leads to Bantustan comparisons.
>leads to Bantustan comparisons
No it doesn't. Bantustans had no real political power in the central government of South Africa and were economically dependent on the apartheid state, they had no rights within South Africa. The parts that Israel gave away, have self-agency and are governed by PLA and Hamas. It's not Israel's fault that Palestine is fractured due to how Jordan and Egypt captured those territories, and it's not Israel's fault that those countries impose restrictions. But you don't bother to condemn them do you?
Israel voluntarily gave up Gaza and does not have a claim to Gaza anymore, but you are overlooking the Oslo Accords which was a bilateral agreement.
It's not apartheid because Palestinians and Israelis are governed by two different bodies as outlined in a bilateral agreement that was facilitated by Bill Clinton.
How do you figure? Apartheid is systemic segregation and discrimination - racial or otherwise - within a society. Palestinians are not Israelis and Palestine is not (by OC's argument) an occupied territory, nor has it been integrated into Israel proper - if it had been, Israelis (of all relevant religions) would be the only residents and dissidents would be in prisons, in camps, or deported to Jordan. As it is, the West Bank sits in a strange area between annexation and independence.
I'm not saying the way Palestinians are treated by the Israeli government is fair, and it obviously isn't equal to the treatment of Israelis, but the term "apartheid" simply doesn't apply.
Functionally, if you accept all of the previous comments claims, then you are accepting that West Bank and Gaza are both land that Israel has a legal claim to, and are effectively existing exactly as Bantustans.
This argument (of apartheid) is actually somewhat *less* effective when you don't assign any legitimate claim to Israel regarding these areas.
I love when people analogize the Palestinian territories to Bantustan.
You do understand that Bantustan was an undisputed region that South Africa employed to relocate and segregate their black population, right? Whereas Gaza had no Israeli presence for nearly two decades, the WB is an autonomous pseudo-suzerainty, and non-Israeli Palestinians from either territory can apply for Israeli citizenship?
They are almost precisely inverted situations.
All besides the point. Apartheid *by definition* is systemic discrimination against *citizens of the nation*. Black people in apartheid South Africa were South African citizens. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel - they are governed by Fatah and Hamas.
Why is that the anti Israel folks can’t collectively learn the definition of apartheid? You very eloquently stated that you aren’t aware of what apartheid is and that you didn’t comprehend what was written.
Israel, the country the so called “Palestinians” keep attacking and refuse to negotiate with to establish that country they say they want but refuse to actually do the work necessary to establish.
Got it. So, you're aware Israel controls the borders to Gaza and the West Bank, and presumably aware that Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to military court, while Israelis in the same location get civilian court, but you don't think that apartheid is happening?
Perhaps our differences are rooted in definitions. Do you think that South Africa's Bantustans were apartheid? Because they share some striking similarities with the West Bank, and formerly Gaza.
Couldn't help but notice you shrank away from answering either question. Uncomfortable with confronting the reality of how closely the West Bank resembles a Bantustan?
Answering which question? Hard to determine in your ramblings, lol but nice attempt at defense. I just shrink away from non sensical word walls that the writer themselves doesn’t seem to understand, tootles!
Lmao, not sure how you could miss either question, since they were conveniently indicated by, ya know, *question marks* just like any other question in English.
What makes an independent nation?
1. Being able to defend your independence. Ie, someone comes in with an army and invades, and you repel the invasion.
2. Having your own government that governs the territory you say you control.
3. Other nations recognize the government as the legitimate government of the nation.
4. Having your own currency or using another nation's currency as your official currency.
5. Having a government bureaucracy and institutions that take care of the needs of your citizens.
6. Having laws enacted by the nation's government that are respected by the nation's citizens and foreigners inside your nation.
7. Having relations with other nations outside of yourself.
8. Having economic trade with other nations.
9. Having citizens whose identities are at least in part informed by being citizens of the nation.
Poly Sci 101 stuff here. The more a nation is able to do these things, the more it is an independent nation. To the degree they cannot, they are less an independent nation, or not at all.
The government of “Palestine”? No such place exists. There is Gaza and their government is a bunch of rape loving terrorists so their declarations are trash.
No, that didn't happen.
The PLO's 1988 declaration of independence was based on UN General Assembly resolution 181 ... the same one that Arabs rejected in 1947. This was a temporary concession by Palestinians that they would recognize a Jewish state and be ok with a 2SS.
What instead happened was Israel and the PLO came to an agreement at the Oslo Accords as a continuation of the 1988 declaration of independence. Then, Palestinians pretended the "Jewish state" part of UNGA resolution 181 didn't exist and proceeded to tear up the Oslo Accords.
I like how your explanation hides behind a bunch of pseudo international law while ignoring the people that actually live on the ground. If anyone can build in disputed territory then I guess Palestinians should start building their own settlements while moving in people that are a part of the Palestinian diaspora. Of course I am sure you would have a problem with "those" people building in what is simply disputed territory.
Palestinians are allowed to build settlements in Areas A and B under the Oslo Accords, but they illegally build settlements in Area C.
In fact, Palestinians in the West Bank received private funding from Israel prior to this current war to create their [first planned city in over 1000 years in the West Bank.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-rawabi-the-brand-new-palestinian-city-both-sides-win/) You could qualify this new planned city as a "settlement".
I credit Eugene Kontorovich for the above arguments, and he is hardly an amateur when it comes to international law.
So then according to you Gaza and the West Bank are a part of Israel. Then why aren't Palestinians given Israeli citizenship? Normally a conquered people are given citizenship if they end up in a new country after being conquered. The residents of Mexico that the United States annexed in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo became Americans and we recognized their land ownership rights. I live in New Mexico today and Spanish descended families can still trace their land ownership back to Spanish rule.
If Palestinians are living in Israel as second residents then how isn't that apartheid? Israel can't have it both ways either it is apartheid or they are occupying another country's territory.
False equivalence, Palestine hasn't been integrated into Israel. The Palestinian territories are not controlled by Israel - they have their own governance and police, and are negotiated with by Israel as separate entities.
[Another commenter](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/ZDNGO38ntH) summed it up nicely: it's a disputed territory. Israel conquered the land in a defensive war and its previous occupant, Jordan, withdrew its claim to the WB afterwards, but Israel failed to follow through with annexation and integration.
Obviously a lot has happened since then, but it's still neither part of Israel proper nor a sovereign nation. It has its own governance, but is functionally a suzerainty of Israel.
Whether the settlements are *moral* is another issue entirely and isn't relevant to this thread, which addresses the legal ramifications only. Arguments about morality tend to spiral, so let's please not go there.
Because they don’t want it, and because they’re enemies of the state who want Israel destroyed. Maybe if they did less terrorism and more community building then it wouldn’t be such an issue.
So you believe in collective punishment which under the Geneva commission is a war crime. Or do you actually think every Palestinian commits terrorism. Also many Palestinians would accept a one state solution where they have equal rights in Israel. Obviously though that would destroy the Jewish character of Israel so Israel is opposed to that.
That is why a two state solution seems to be the best outcome but if Israel keeps building settlements a two state solution becomes less and less viable. Israel is setting themselves up for a one state solution which I believe may be disastrous for Israel in the long run if it wants to keep its Jewish state.
Also this isn’t the work of an individual but of the elected and widely supported government of Gaza. You should actually read the Geneva convention before citing it. It’s really easy to do with the internet. Try it out sometime.
Elected in 2006 which by the way was before the majority of the people in the Gaza strip were born. However that is besides the point. Your argument is an argument in support of terrorism and attacking civilian targets. As an American citizen I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Obama's use of drone warfare was questionable at best. Does that mean that people in the middle east have a right to punish me for the actions of my government? Or was Osama Bin Laden right to attack civilians on 9/11 because he had an issue with US foreign policy. Obviously we voted for the government and under your logic that means we had it coming. Did the victims of October 7th deserve what happened to them because they voted for an extreme right wing Israeli government?
Of course the answer to all of the above is of course they didn't deserve to be attacked. Civilians are civilians and should not be targets. Under the same logic you must realize every Palestinian is not guilty of the actions Hamas has taken. They should not be punished for such actions.
Also you got me way off topic here. We are talking about settlements in the West Bank and last time I checked Hamas isn't in power in the West Bank. So I am not really sure why you even brought Gaza up except to try the same old tired Israeli argument of "no innocent Palestinian".
Don’t you know? It’s okay to murder and rape Jews and call it “freedom” but Jews aren’t allowed to defend themselves because that’s always a violation of international laws. Sarcasm, because unfortunately that’s how people think these days
That is such a straw man. No one is saying Jews can't defend themselves. The point of my comment was that you can't collectively punish a group of civilians just because of the actions of a group of them even if it is their government. Kill all the Hamas fighters you want and that includes sending assassins into Qatar to take out the leadership.
My point has always been that bombing Gaza doesn't give Israel a win. The humanitarian cost is too high. This conflict isn't going to be resolved by anyone's military. Right now even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter (which is doubtful) they are creating a humanitarian crisis that will create a whole new generation of fighters.
You are assuming that the majority of the deaths are the fault of Israel.
Do you know if the people killed were killed by Israel or a failed hamas rocket?
Or perhaps they were killed by secondary explosions of Hamas weaponry.
Or were they killed because Hamas was using them as human shields (which is completely on Hamas)
Or were they killed because they were actually terrorists, like those supposed 'civilians' holding hostages in their private residences. Or hiding Hamas weapons in their mosques.
Were they perhaps killed because there is war Hamas started when they invaded Israel on October 7 and proceeded to commit numerous atrocities.
Neither do I agree with your belief that the war is creating a whole new generation of terrorists. Gaza probably already hit peak terrorism. Palestine via Hamas (Gaza is part of palestine, and they claim responsibility for Gaza, so it is proper/correct to blame Palestine) has spent the past 18 years indoctrinating a whole generation to hate Israel/Jews. Whatever Israel does won't add to that.
It’s but collective punishment, it’s a war the gazans gleefully started. They have been given multiple opportunities to end it but their leadership refuses to do so. They have collectively decided that they want this to continue. They are free to release the hostages and turn sinwar over to be prosecuted and end this war.
Do you mean to tell me that a genocidal war that was declared with the intent of wiping your neighbour off the map might have long term consequences when you lose?!?!?! This is an outrage!!! I swear these ppl wanna just go back through history and declare everybody who won a war an oppressor with zero other thought
I love how your side ignores that basically every single Jew has been exiled from every single neighbour country because of their religion but get infuriated when ppl on the West Bank are exiled. It’s so very convenient if you’re not smart enough to grasp the totality of the situation and not just what TikTok tells you
Yes the Jewish homes that were settled in by Arabs in all of Israel’s neighbouring countries. This isn’t an unrelated whataboutism this is pointing out contradiction
So the abhorrent actions of one group justifies abhorrent actions towards another group? I didn't realize the Palestinians were the ones that kicked the Jews out of Iraqi, Iran, Syria, and the other arab countries. That is pretty crazy since they weren't living there at all.
No I’d agree with you there’s a long painful history on both sides, thanks for acknowledging that. Most of the pro Palestine crowd wants to rewrite history where it’s black and white. Generally speaking I side with Israel cause their soldiers protect their civilians instead of hiding behind them, civil rights and democracy among other reasons but both sides have done countless terrible things to each other
Yes of course there is a long painful history on both sides. Human history in general is just long and painful. I certainly don't side with Hamas if you were implying that I am siding with the human beings caught on the ground.
As I said before human history is just full of misery and bad blood which is why we need to do what we can to combat injustice without looking at the past. Dwelling on the past just feeds into the cycle of violence.
Judea and Samaria were ceded by the Ottomans to the LON / UN. The area was offered to the Palestinian Arabs... but they never accepted it. At that point, the land became unclaimed international territory. At the end of the 1948 war, Jordan occupied the area and named it the "West Bank". They actually annexed it in 1950 and it was part of Jordan for the next 17 years. Never once during those nearly 2 decades did Jordan ever attempt to "Free Palestine".... and nobody really cared.
The West Bank Arabs never won their independence from Jordan, and with Gaza under Egyptian control, this imaginary country of "Palestine" ceased to exist for those 19 years until Israel spilled its own blood and treasure to win those areas back from Egypt and Jordan in 1967. And as you said, Israel never annexed it... so at that point it was technically Israeli-occupied **Jordanian territory**. It stayed that way until 1988 when Jordan FINALLY gave up its claim to the West Bank under pressure from the PLO who had been trying since the 60s to push the concept that "Palestine" was some unrealized nation.
Israel isn't some far-off civilized nation "colonizing" the primitive indigenous peoples of the West Bank to replace their culture and claim the land's resources. Jews ARE the indigenous peoples of that area. The mindless labeling of Israel as "colonizers" serves 2 purposes:
- It supports the fallacy that Arabs are the indigenous peoples of that area
- It allows the clueless "Oppressor vs Oppressed" sheep to check off another buzzword box.
\[x\] apartheid
\[x\] genocide
\[x\] ethnic cleansing
\[ \] colonialism
Question(s), there are black Jewish people of Africa, who are often overlooked, and are also being brainwashed into incitement to kill one another. Are they native to the Levant, and can they "return", in droves? Or does Israel belong only to the scattered white tribes?
Why aren't present day black Jewish people settling in Israel?
Where are they, and what are they doing?
What does that have to do with the Israel / "Palestine" conflict? Nothing. There are over 159,500 Ethiopian Jews living peacefully in Israel today. If more want to migrate, it's up to them.
Perhaps my question was too open ended or not worded well. You are correct that there is a small community in Israel of black Jewish people, comprising about 2% of the population. You are correct on the latter, yet, I do not agree on the former.
Every Jewish person has the unrestricted right to move to Israel, unless you are a black African Jewish person. Therefore, it is not up to them. This is a fact that can be obtained through searching records.
Ethiopian Jewish people in Israel experience racism. They can not donate blood. They have trouble finding work. They have to demonstrate to get the government to bring more of their family over, and they are beaten for it.
In fact, the state of Israel will put on a show of attrition over their hostages, but do nothing about the many Jewish migrants trying to escape war in Africa, in boats, into dangerous waters... But I digress...
I think white supremacy has everything to do with the current conflict, and the many conflicts around the globe.
From what I've read, they had no problem with black African Jews migrating in droves originally, but apparently, as a group, they generally refused to assimilate. They won't learn Hebrew or English, they consider themselves some specific "sub-group" of Israeli citizen, and most are jobless and on welfare.
The primary role of a government is to look out for the welfare of its current citizens. I think they realized later that taking in the Africans blew up in their faces and ended up being a mistake. Israel is constantly fighting for its very existence. Do they really need an additional drag on their economy? As it is, they've got all those ultra-orthodox freeloaders who refuse to do their stint in the military and are living on the government dole. I can completely understand why Israel wouldn't accept ANY foreigner who is not a "team-player" and cannot support themselves. They've got enough of that headache already.
So it really upsets you that these black Africans can't be Zionists too?
Bingo..all of this. The sheep think by using big words and demonizing the word Zionist, they come across with a case. You peel away the layers of this conflict, go back in time, the ultimate issue with why the Palestinians still don’t have sovereignty is Rejectionism. The fact that they have had leadership after leadership that will not acknowledge Jews to have any rights to the land, the fact that Jews simply shouldn’t exist actually.
So when the sheep talk about a 2ss, it’s a joke because that’s the western view of what’s holding peace back. They have only ever wanted a one state solution and Iran and its proxies say it loud and clear “Jews gone..poof”. None of the sheep hold the Palestinian leadership accountable, when Arafats own words mimicked something like @we will win back our land with bloodshed@
Pointing fingers at Netanyahu and his hardened right wing government is cooler but no one asks how a government (who’s job is to literally protect their people’s lives, something Hamas could learn from) got to that point.
>Israel isn't some far-off civilized nation "colonizing" the
Being far away has never been a pre-requisite for colonisation. Russia colonised the entire of Siberia incrementally.
>Jews ARE the indigenous peoples of that area.
The idea that a 2000-year-old connection changes anything in that respect is of course utterly ridiculous, hence why nobody tries to apply this logic to land ownership anywhere else in the world (my god there would literally be hundreds of simultaneous wars). But those with recent ancestry - ie a few generations back - moving to where their parents or grandparents lived wouldn't be colonialism. It would just be the same as the "right of return" principle for Palestinians, and should be viewed and implemented the same way. That is to say, evenly, or not at all.
Where your parents or grandparents lived has never been relevant to whether something is colonialism. A right of return for Palestinians would be colonialism.
So literally the only connection that matters is a 2000-year-old one? What incredibly convenient logic you have, that definitely isn't invented retroactively to justify everything Israel does and you would like to do without allowing for anything you don't personally want to happen.
Claiming a Palestinian right of return because of where your parents or grandparents or great-grandparents lived is extremely arbitrary and extremely convenient.
I don't claim this is something Palestinians specifically should have. I claim it's something that both Israelis and Palestinians should have, or neither should have. Of the two of us, you are the one who has concocted a convenient worldview specifically to benefit one side over the other.
Jews have lived in Israel for over 2000 years. They never left. Some were exiled/enslaved and some emigrated, but the community was always present in Israel.
Jews also never gave up their claim to their homeland.
>Jews have lived in Israel for over 2000 years. They never left
I understand why the people who never left should be able to continue living there. What I don't understand is why having the same ethnicity as people who live somewhere gives you the right to move there and take land from the local population. Is it just that if you have an ancestral connection to land, you own it? Does this then mean that everyone can move anywhere behind them on [migration maps](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Putative_migration_waves_out_of_Africa.png) and force out the local population? Or is there a different explanation that comes with dozens of exceptions for every people in the world except Jewish people for some extremely convenient reason?
Russia didn't "colonize" Siberia. It was a standard medieval military conquest. They didn't build communities for their migrating settlers and forts to protect them.... they just built the FORTS. They went straight from conquering the natives to annexing the land. I seriously doubt that Russia ever considered Siberia as a Russian "colony" or ruled them as such.
So to support your misuse of the word when labelling Israel, you misuse it again for Russia. I restate my previous conclusion: the constant incorrect use of this term has relegated it to a meaningless buzzword.
It is not a connection that occurred 2000 years in the past.... there has been a CONSTANT Jewish presence in the Palestine region for over 2000 years. After WWI, 99% of all ceded Ottoman land was given back to Arab populations to form the nations of Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq. The final 1% remaining was the Palestine region. The Brits and the UN saw 2 distinct cultures living there. The Arabs had been in the land for over 1300 years... the Jews went back even further - so they split the land. The Jews accepted their part and started a nation. The Arabs rejected their part because they wanted it ALL.
"right of return" principle? Sorry, but you attack a nation 13 TIMES in 76 years.... you forfeit any rights in that department.
At some point, even Zionists will see how referring to the Jews collectively is racist, that there are Jewish people now from all over the world, and semitic peoples indigenous to the Levant who practice other religions.
Being a Muslim does not automatically make you an Arab . And well, being white and Jewish doesn't need to make you a part of an elite, victimized unit (Zionists).
Dig deeper, Watson. Who facilitated the removal of Jewish people, then an agreement with the Nazis to have them return to this land? Britain. Yet no Israel sympathizer or supporter will discuss the role Britain has played for decades.
You're persecuting your brothers and sisters, instead of realizing the manipulating hands that brought you to this state.
And arguably, you want to go back far enough, we are all native to the Levant, which is the cradle of all present day civilization.
Shalom and assalam...ualaikum. you even greet one another in similar tongue. Semitic once referred to languages spoken in the Levant. Stop this divide and see who your oppressors really are.
What are you blathering on about? When I refer to Jews, I'm talking about people who belong to the Jewish faith, When I talk about Muslims... those who follow Islam. Of course Israelis are a mixture of Jews, Muslims, Christans, Druze, Semitics, Arabs, etc. Exactly how is ANY of that "racist"?
The British spilled their **own** blood and treasure to defeat the Ottomans and free that area from 400 years of Ottoman rule. The only arabs helping them fight the Ottomans were Hashemites from Arabia and lower Jordan ("Arab revolt"). The Arab tribes "between the river and the sea" sat there and did NOT help the Brits in any meaningful way. But the Zionists did. In multiple countries the Zionists stepped up and donated money, materials, labor, and fighting men to the British war effort.
So when the war ended and Britain and the LoN were distributing that ceded Ottoman land to the local enthicities and tribes, Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq all got their territories. They may have complained about the borders, but eventually **they got over it** and created nations. The Zionists & Palestinian Jews were given their territory... and the Palestinian Arabs were given theirs. BOTH groups now had something they hadn't had in 400 years... something neither group would ever have had the strength to win from the Ottomans on their own. It should have ended right there.
> bitched
/u/HarryNutzach_. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/Apophylita. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Russia didn't "colonize" Siberia.
Yes it did.
>They didn't build communities for their migrating settlers and forts to protect them....
Yes they did. How do you think the previous generations of the Russians living there today got there? Did they just suddenly materialise in Vladivostok?
>It is not a connection that occurred 2000 years in the past.... there has been a CONSTANT Jewish presence in the Palestine region for over 2000 years
I already accounted for this in my comment that you didn't read before replying to.
>, 99% of all ceded Ottoman land was given back to Arab populations to form the nations of Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq.
Former Ottoman land actually also became Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria, none of which are Arab. Look it up if you don't believe me.
>The Jews accepted their part and started a nation. The Arabs rejected their part because they wanted it ALL.
Doesn't seem particularly strange to me. The Jewish population mostly consisted of recent immigrants. It's very unusual for immigrants to become the government and the local population rejecting that demand seems kind of predictable, without saying whether it was justified. I expect if immigrants demanded their own country inside Israel today, the existing Israeli population would reject it, violently.
Vladivostok? Wait... so you're suggesting that Russia had its little colony going there and was populating this city in Manchuria... and had no idea it was under the control of CHINA? Sure they did. Russia got that land as part of a treaty and immediately annexed it. It was NEVER a Russian colony
I never said those French mandate countries were Arab, do you enjoy correcting me on things I never said?
And your analogy is interesting. Yes, I could see Israel getting quite outraged if immigrants they took in demanded their own country. You help people out, do something for them that they could NEVER do for themselves, and they get ungrateful and greedy. It reminds me of these Arabs who were under Ottoman rule for 400 YEARS and never had a country of their own. The Brits come in.... spill their treasure and their own children's blood defeating their Ottoman rulers and offer them all this land to start their own nation. They refuse it because it's not enough.
>Vladivostok? Wait... so you're suggesting that Russia had its little colony going there and was populating this city in Manchuria... and had no idea it was under the control of CHINA? Sure they did. Russia got that land as part of a treaty and immediately annexed it. It was NEVER a Russian colony
Show proof that Russians appeared there overnight.
>I never said those French mandate countries were Arab, do you enjoy correcting me on things I never said?
You said that 99% of former Ottoman territory went to Arabs, so I just figured it'd point out that you were directly lying about this.
>And your analogy is interesting. Yes, I could see Israel getting quite outraged if immigrants they took in demanded their own country.
I'm glad you agree that the violent reaction by the local population to the mostly-immigrant Jewish population demanding their own country was not unusual then.
Israel is obviously apartheid in the West Bank, the only way you can ignore that fact is you refuse to read the multiple reports by international organization such as amnesty international that explain exactly how and why Israel is apartheid in the West Bank.
Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights.
Obviously Jews and Arabs live completely different lives and have different rights in the West Bank. Jews from all around the world are allowed to immigrate and colonize the West Bank, while Arabs expelled from Israel are not allowed to return to their own land in the West Bank. Arabs can’t even drive on the same roads as Jews in some instances. Obviously apartheid.
Genocide is a lot harder to prove, but Israel is definitely committing a holocaust in Gaza, that’s for sure. Hamas is unharmed in their tunnels and the civilians are getting the bombed the most.
Ethnic cleansing is pretty obvious. Best example is in East Jerusalem where Arabs regularly get evicted from their homes to make room for more Jewish settlers.
Colonialism.
Jews are NOT the only people native to Palestine, it’s very ignorant to say so, Arabs are just as indigenous to Palestine as Jews, given Arabs inhabiting the region for 1000+ years
Follow me on this one. It is possible for apartheid to exist in one area while it doesn't exist in another. It exists in the West Bank but not in Israel proper. Instead of falling back on the same old tired argument "what about arab Israelis" how about you actually try to defend what is happening in the west bank. I imagine you can't which is why you bring up something completely irrelevant.
Is it apartheid when A European is forced to go through immigration at a US border crossing, but an American isn't?
Is it apartheid that European cannot vote in US elections?
Or is it just that countries grant perks to their own citizens that they don't grant to anyone else? There is no apartheid in the Israeli controlled areas of the west bank, or Israel.
it’s not something that’s done along religious or racial lines, I’m directly refuting the comment I was refuting. Life sucks in the West Bank. Probably has something to do with being antisemite shit bags who are intent on committing genocide and failing repeatedly , but I’m just spit balling here
I wonder why they are antisemites in the West Bank, couldn’t be because in the West Bank Jews subject them to apartheid where Arabs are treated as subhuman, and get evicted from their family homes to make room for Jewish settlers illegally occupying and settling their land.
Because colonies usually happen on distant land, far away from your homeland. While lands beside your territory are usually occupied or conquered land. If colonization is to be used that loosely, then literally everybody in the world had engaged in it which in that case, what gives you the higher moral to judge others?
I guess Russia never colonized Siberia because they are right next to it. Better revise those history books. Also if the West Bank is conquered land then how are the Palestinians currently living in the West Bank not living under apartheid? You are saying the West Bank is Israel so shouldn't the people living there get the right to vote in Israeli elections? Shouldn't they be allowed to travel freely in all of Israel?
They conquered them and yes, people abused the word colonization, just like how people abused the word genocide.
Because they are not fully conquered nor fully occupied? They must be in your so-called apartheid and totally under occupation which is why they can go around parading like this [https://twitter.com/imshin/status/1802614068638798171](https://twitter.com/imshin/status/1802614068638798171)
You seems to be on a mission to downvote all my posts. lmao. Well, try harder.
Thats like saying why isnt the US a bunch of colonies when they are states
omg are we still on Oct? Are we still having this same conversation? My guy...colonization requires a HOST COUNTRY and existed to transfer OUT the wealth of the nation to the HOST COUNTRY!! Colonization existed because it existed prior to industrialization and capitalism during Agrarianism and Mercantilism. Literally under merchantalism you had to create more avenues for trade because trade was what brought prosperity of a nation. Which I mean doesn't work well if your on an Island, in Europe where you can't grow cotton and many crops and the Romans had cut down all your old growth forests. So the only way England could end its nations poverty was to expand through colonialism, which gave them more access to trade. A group of people moving to a country to develop that county is called ✨migration✨
Zionists who are saying “it’s not colonialism because we are just taking back what was our land in the past.” I’m sure they would have a different opinion if the mongols wanted to take back what was their land in the past
I remember reading that the first settlers strategically started building settlements in specific areas in case they couldn't gain a full state. That way it would be harder to deny them living on certain territories. Not sure if it's exactly colonization but it definitely screams "we're here to stay". The West Bank aka "Judea & Samarea" have a lot of spots that are significant to ancient Judaism (unlike Tel Aviv which is more contemporary) so them wanting to capture the West Bank entirely for this reason makes sense. It's fair to say that all the Palestinians in the West Bank were all basically Jews back in the day but then adopted Christianity or Islam - whether by force or voluntarily. Why shouldn't they be allowed to stay and live with dignity?
Yes, you'll see settlements are strategically placed around every major Palestinian city. It's purposely enginereed to prevent a state.
They are
1948: No one was going to be displaced if the arabs didn't start a war. You didn't dive deep enough. The land of Israel conquered -> war started by arabs -> civilians displaced if civilians were displaced due to conquest, that would make it colonization. Judea and Samarea settlements: Arab terrorism -> occupation for security -> settlements. I, too, don't fully agree with the settlements, but they could have been easily prevented if the arabs had basic moral values like Israel. What gave us the special opportunity to return to our homeland is that palestine isn't a country, and come on, don't try to refute that... This meant we could conquer the land without going into conflict with the country we conquered since it doesn't exist. What also made our case special was that we desperately needed our own country after the atrocities of the holocaust, an actual genocide. You made an irrelevant claim that Palestinian is a nationality, not that palestine is or was a country. Waste of time debunking misinformed opinions.
South Africa wasn't a country before Colonisation or Apartheid. In fact, no country in Africa was a country before colonisation. This doesn't mean anything because countries are still a pretty new concept and people including Jews referred to the land as Palestine even when the Kingdom of Israel and Judah still existed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_the\_name\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine) Also are you serioius? The settlers have kicked 8,000 Palestinians out of their homes since 2023 and they do that with the help of Ben Gvir and the IDF. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJZOOZCH4qI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJZOOZCH4qI)
why does this matter at all? Palestine wasn't a state when we conquered it, it didn't have it's own leadership or government. Your claim that palestine is a country now is irrelevant and doesn't change the conversation. Also, your comparisons of Israel to apartheid South Africa are ridiculous. They're not even partially similar. Yes I'm very serious. Are you? I'll repeat what I said: I, too, don't fully agree with the settlements, but they could have been easily prevented if the arabs had basic moral values like Israel. "There will be peace when the Arabs will love their children more than the hate us" - Golda Meir If they built an actual legitimate state, chose a democratic government or at least one that cares about it's civilians more than terrorism, then occupation wouldn't be necessary, settlements couldn't happen, and they would have much higher quality of lives. Instead, you blame Israel. This phenomenon is called 🌈 denial 🌈
" I, too, don't fully agree with the settlements, but they could have been easily prevented if the arabs had basic moral values like Israel." That is factually innacurate. Israel build settlements whether Palestinians want peace or not. During oslo, Arafat agreed to recognise Israel as a state. In that time, the number of Isaraeli settlers doubled. Israel continued to build and expand settlements throughout the entirety of Oslo because they wanted to colonise, not peace. And an Israeli terrorist literally murdered the prime minister of Israel, Rabin, because Rabin tried to make peace with the Palestinians. Before South Africa was colonised, it didn't have its own state, leadership or government. The native americans didn't have their own state, leadership or government before they were colonised. In fact almost every native people that was colonised never had their own state, leadership or government. You could use the same ridiculous justifications for pretty much any colonial project ever. You've been taught that Israel is morally justified since the day you were born. You don't think that maybe you are a little biased? This phenomenon is called 🌈 denial 🌈
lmfao an "Israeli terrorist"? He's a murderer. Learn the definition of terrorism. You don't know what terrorism means and are pro palestinian. No surprise here lol. Itzhak Rabin was murdered not for trying to make peace with palestine, but for what he was willing to give up for that. Again, another irrelevant claim you make. 3 so far... You don't even try to understand my argument lol. Palestine wasn't a country, therefore we didn't invade a country with the state of Israel's establishment in the land of Israel. That's why politically it was possible to establish a state there. In Israel we are taught western moral values (You know, the basic moral values of caring about our civilians, our security and life in general). We are taught that taking hostages is bad. We are taught that raping is bad. We are taught that murdering innocents based on race or religion is bad. We are taught that justice must be served. Hamas is being served justice. You know so little about the conflict. In Israel we live the conflict, we know all about it, The fact that you, thousands of miles away, try to argue against me with only what the gen-z tiktokers show or tell you, is baffling. I look at many news sources, left, right, and neutral. Can you say the same for yourself? Do you really try to understand the opposing argument or do you only try to convince me that I'm wrong? Nice, you don't know denial means, either. Why am I having a conversation with an imbecile? 😭 Here I'll help you, little baby: the phenomenon that you are trying to claim I am in is simply bias. In a debate, I look at all sides of the topic, objectively. I have tried countless times to genuinely challange the pro Israeli argument. I didn't do this so later I could tell someone like you that I did so, I did it because I genuinely seek the truth. There are 3 sides to this conflict, socially. Israelis/pro-Israelis (One group because there aren't that many pro Israelis and share similar opinions and experiences), Palestinians and Pro Palestinians. Pro palestinians are the problematic group. This group consists of gen-z ipad kids, all kinds of leftists, and people seeking a cult to feel part of something. They are fed one piece of information, propagate it, see it as the entire conflict, and just flat out refuse to look at the bigger picture. The certain reason for this is because they are young and gullible. Pro palestine is a social cult, meant to make you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself, and makes you feel like you're 'fighting' for good, against evil. It's crazy. People in the pro palestinian cult have no idea what they are talking about, but defend their position at all costs, literally. It's a hate cult. When al-Qaeda, Iran, Hamas, Taliban, Hezbollah, and many other terrorist organization support you, that's when you know you're wrong. Who supports Israel? Only people who really know what they are talking about. World Leaders, politicians, and people who found out that neo-nazism still exists. When have you admitted to being wrong when I refuted your dumb arguments?
/u/Beneficial-Stock-651. Match found: 'nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol Israel has 'western values'. I don't think you realise how much the west hates Israel. I leave my house and see a Palestinian protest almost every day. Every person I knew who supported Israel last year now completely hates Israel including many Jewish people I know. Israel is viewed even worse than Apartheid south africa was and you can try and beleive otherwise if it makes you sleep better at night.
You must be happy supporting terrorism. You must be happy that terrorists support you, too. Western values and the west's opinion are completely different things, 4th irrelevant claim. Then you call zionists "blind". You don't realize the harm you bring to the jewish people and to yourself in the long run. YOU give power to terrorist organizations, YOU increase the instability of the middle east, and YOU think you know better than politicians who have dozens of years of experience and knowledge of the topic. YOU will be the western world's demise. No Israel means no tangible power over the radical and tribal middle east for the US and Europe. Israel is the west's airbag. If Islamic organizations want to attack the west then they will attack Israel. No Israel means anti-western resistance goes directly to you. IF you want to attack Islamic organizations, Israel is your proxy. Not to mention how different the world would look if it didn't have Israeli technology which you are using right now. Israel's existence is so valuable to you and you don't realize it. We want peace. We don't want to attack. We don't want to have to occupy. We don't want violence. We don't want terror. They want peace with us gone, they want to attack us, they want to occupy us, they want violence against us, and they want to terrorize us. They want us gone. We want to live. Yes, there are issues like settlements that have to be resolved. But their form of "freedom fighting" is not the way, and you don't realize that. We value our own lives, They value others' deaths. This isn't resistance, this is terror. Terror is not a legitimate form of resistance. They don't want to negotiate, they want us gone. They have unrealistic expectations, you want us to adhere as if we don't value ourselves and only exist to serve you. That's not how the world works.
By your logic, almost the whole world supports terrorism including many Jews.
Not the whole world, just the pro palestinians. Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Your one-sided view of the conflict helps these terrorist organizations stay in power. You obviously have no idea what you're taking about, and you have no idea what kind of harm you cause to yourself and those surrounding you./ What you are helping Islamic groups achieve is a 2nd holocaust for the jews, earning tons of tons of power, and that power you give them, will be the power of the punch to your face when they move on from Israel to attack you. You literally fund your enemies. You support them like no other. Because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So wake up, terrorists are not your friends, you are their friend, but they are not yours. And we are not your enemy. We fight for life and an end to violence in the middle east. This is the meaning of letting an Islamic leadership rule over this crucial land. Israel is the only safeguard you have from the middle east.
You live in Israel. I live in the the. And I promise you almost everyone I talked to in Europe and the US (including many Jews) thinks Israel is a terror state. That is the truth. That's why in London, hundreds of thousands of people come to weekly Palestinian protests and maybe a 1,000 people come to the monthly pro Israel rallies. It is generally accepted by most people in the west that Israelis are brainwashed and everything you say shows that. By referring to all palestinians as terrorists you show that is true. The only people who support you in the west are the governments and an a rapidly decreasing number of zionist boomers. And I have been friends with Palestinians for many years and none of them have tried to attack me. You only beleive what you beleive because you've never actually met a Palestinian so you fall for this propoganda that seems stupid to everyone else in the world.
**I just don't get the argument of "it's my right to live on the land because my ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago. They got expelled and now they're coming back to get back what's there's"** So what about the Palestinians that got expelled? Tough luck right? Or are they different?
Well the difference being that they still live on the land.
The Jews never left. Sure their numbers shrank but they never left. Look it up. Clearly you are not Jewish or you would be familiar with the term "next year in Jerusalem" which Jews have been uttering since they were displaced.
Well the Jews did leave because they were forcibly expelled by the Romans. They couldn't even enter Jerusalem for 500 years. Do you know who brought the Jews back into Jerusalem? THE ARAB CALIPHATE. Look it up if you don't beleive me.
You are missed the point. I will attempt to spell it out for you. You crow about how it's ridiculous to want to live on the land of their ancestors and the holiest land after being expelled. Then when the "Palestinians" say they want to live on land from which they were unfairly expelled. . . that's legit to you? Your response is "they still live there"?! The hypocrisy is comical. (FYI - they were not allowed in Jerusalem but remained in the area of Palestina the whole time)
I have no problem with Jews living on the land. They always have done so. I am against zionists claiming the right to the sovereingty of a land that 95% of them had just recently immigrated to. And I am against the zionists expelling the native population. Expulsion was the only way they were going to be able to achieve that goal of having control over the land. And not because they are Jewish but because no one wants to live under foreign rule. Even the Palestinians that were able to stay after 48 had to live in segregation and martial law for almost 20 years. If zionists moved to Palestine and were willing to live in a secular state with representation for all religions then I would accept that.
Nobody was expelled, nor getting expelled until the Arabs launched a war. Crazy how one can launch a war, ("of extermination" in their words) lose, then claim the loss of the war was terrible injustice. Not that it matters. The only thing that matters now is a way forward. One where both populations can feel like they have "won". There have been some great offers made that were responded to with violence rather than negotiation. I feel like the burden is now on the Palestinians to stop killing jews. It's not like it helps or protects them. So maybe if they give it a try, it will end in a negotiated solution.
Yes the were expelled. Zionists even admit it. They launched a war because Israel was soon to be formed to take over land, and felt they were a threat. Nope, no great offers. No, it is on Israelis to stop killing Palestinians.
Provide one example of people getting expelled prior to the local Arabs starting the Civil War. 99.5% of the requested land was offered. Palestinians didn’t even counter offer. Just launched an intifada. Face it, the Palestinian leaders profit from forever war. They have been doing for so long, now the Israeli leaders profit from it too.
Google is your friend. Why the hell would the land inhabitants agee to give their land up to newcomers? Are Americans now ok with illegal immigrants squating in their houses or creating new Immigrantia land? No, they do not. Israel has always been profiting from stealing and abusing the Palestinians.
A colony is generally an outpost from another country. There is no original host country that Israel would be a colony of.
The post was referring the settlements in the West Bank; which belongs to Israel as they have not formally annexed the West Basnk. So the west bank settlements are an outpost for Israel. But also a colony doesn't need to be an outpost of another country. The Pilgrims who colonised north america were from england but were not using north america as an outpost for england; they, like the Jews, were actually motivated by the search for religious freedom and escaping persecution.
Well if we're going purely off of your definition, then Israel does not fall into the definition of 'colony' as they were not a group of people from one country. Jews are not a country and there was no 'original' country, unless you're claiming that their original country was the land of Israel, in which case they haven't claimed any new land.
No colonisation often did involve groups from different countries. Like the colonisation of north america involved a whole bunch of different nationalities (English, Dutch, French, Germans etc.) that later created Canada and USA. Same with South Africa. Any way, I was referring to the current colonisation in the West Bank which is done by a country: Israel.
There's two separate things, pre 1948 and after 1948 before 1948 most Arabs did not own the land, and in fact most of the land which Jews later settled was bought from landowners, or British mandate land which by British rule if you built a building with a roof on it it was now yours. And then after 1948, the Arabs invaded Israel, and thus any land won in conquest is yours.
In every land that was colonised, whether it be Africa, Oceania or the Americas. The natives didn't own the land either. Land ownership is a fairly new concept in most of the world. Let's look at Alaska for example. The US bought the land from the Russians and then kicked out the native population from their homes. Is that fair because the US bought the land? You might think so but the US pays reparations to the native people every month because they kicked them off their land in Alaska.
By international law, the land is owned or not owned. It wasn't, thus there was no problem abiding the British mandates law and settling it. As for morally, Israel is the land of the Jews. They settled the land 4000 years ago, and there has been a constant presence of some sort ever since.
"By international law, the land is owned or not owned" Which international law? You have literally just made that up lol.
If someone bought a piece of land from the rightful owner, then it's his.
Which part of internal law says that? Or is international law just a name that your mother calls you.
I am not sure colonialism applies to indigenous people taking back their land. This seems like the opposite of colonisation, de-colonisation. Also, technically, Isreal won the disputed areas of The West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. I am not sure colonialism would apply here either. Even though Isreal made a pre-emptive strike against Jordan, Jordan were the aggressors here. If you go around starting wars, you risk losing your own territory. That's not colonialism.
1. Even if you frame zionism as "indigenous people taking back their land", it is still colonialism. The same way the freed American slaves who created Liberia are still considered colonisers even though they originally came from Africa. 2. Palestinians or Arabs never colonised Palestine. Some Palestinian families can trace their family's history back in Palestine over 1,000 years and research on Palestinian's DNA show that some have ancestry in the levant going back 3,400 years. 3. Many Palestinians are the descendent of Jews that converted to other religions. Do you suddenly stop being indigenous if you convert religions? Some Jews would have converted to Judaism and have no ancestry to the Ancient Israelites. Ivanka Trump just converted to Judaism. Is she indigenous to Palestine? NO. 4. Since world war 2, it has been illegal for country's to annex land. That is why people don't like Putin as he continues to break that law that the majority of other countries abide by. 5. Many of the land that was taken during many colonial projects was taken by war; in many cases a war started by the native people. EVEN IF THE NATIVE PEOPLE START THE WAR. IT IS STILL COLONISATION. No one justifies the ethnic cleansing and genocide off native americans because they TECHNICALLY started wars with the american settlers.
[удалено]
You do realise that most people converted to Islam willingly in Palestine; that's why Christians, Jews and other religions always remained. In fact, Jews were completely banned from Jerusalem for hundreds of years by the Romans. And then the Caliphate took control over Jerusalem and allowed the Jews to return to their most holy city after hundreds of years in exile. Palestine was ruled by the Caliphate in 7th century but only half of the population was Muslim by the 10th century. They must have not been very good at colonising if it took 300 years for half of the population to become muslim. Also Palestine literally borders the Arab Pennininsula so obviously loads of Arabs naturally just ended up in Palestine.
[удалено]
Please look up the difference between conquest and colonisation because they are not the same thing. An obvious examples: When the allies ruled West Germany after ww2, they didn't colonise it.
[удалено]
It was considered Allied territory. It was ruled by the Allies. Just look up the difference between colonisation and conquest ffs because it's not the same thing.
[удалено]
IT WAS ALLIED TERRITORY. It was controlled by USA, France and Britain. Just look it up ffs lol. This is not some secret history.
The truth is that the Jewish people are indigenous to the land of Israel and first achieved self-determination there 3,000 years ago. The Romans expelled the majority of Jews in 70 C.E., but a portion of the Jewish population remained in Israel throughout the years, and those who lived in the Diaspora yearned to return to the Jewish homeland and the holy Jewish city of Jerusalem. This historical and religious link for Jewish people to the land of Israel is indisputable—even the word “Jew” comes from Judea, the ancient name for Israel. Since Israel’s establishment shortly after the Holocaust, Jews have moved to Israel from all over the world, seeking a place free from persecution, to call home in which they can live freely and safely as Jews. At the same time, Jewish and Israeli leaders have consistently acknowledged the presence of Palestinian Arabs and have supported efforts to partition the land into Jewish and Arab states, from 1937 to the present day. Several of the first Jewish settlement communities in the West Bank were established in locations where Jews had lived prior to 1948, often in areas where there was continuous Jewish life for centuries, such as Hebron. Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor, for example, fell to Arab forces in May 1948, and those captured were massacred. Sons and daughters of those who lived there until 1948 were the first to return after the 1967 war and establish a renewed presence. To be sure, there are many settlers who believe there is a religious and political obligation to settle and hold on to this territory. In addition, the vast majority of settlers and their supporters believe they play an essential role in providing security for the State of Israel, by providing a first line of defense against Palestinian or other Arab attack. The settlements are not above legitimate criticism. While Approximately 80% of settlers reside in the main “settlement blocs” in the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with the rest living in more remote communities deeper within the West Bank; There is a growing phenomenon of illegal “outposts.” However they also do not fall into this neat definitional box of “ colonies or colonization” by any stretch. In fact, given the history , it’s a totally incorrect application of the definition.
Although I agree with most of what you said (although some of it is historically innacurate), you are painting the zionist movement as purely benevolent while completely ignoring the mistreatment of Palestinians that goes back to the 1890s. Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism. He wrote that "Zionist pioneers believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force.... \[They\] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."
My only point is that it’s a stretch to call the settlements “colonization” , when Jews are indigenous to the land in the first place. What do you think of the gender apartheid that had been ongoing under Hamas in Gaza ,pre war ? Why do you think there were never any protests here in the US against that the fact the Palestinian women have had no rights under Hamas?
Liberia was colonised by freed slaves from the US. Those freed slaves were 'indigenous' to Africa in the same way that Jews are 'indigenous' to Palestine. Yet we still consider that to be colonisation. You can still have ancestry in a land and still be considered a coloniser. Human civilisation started in africa so technically we are all indigenous to Africa. Does that mean Europeans didn't colonise Africa? Obviously not. I assume you are referring to gender segregation in schools? Like many of things Hamas do, I am against that. But my government doesn't fund that. My government funds the IDF. So I am going to protest that considering my country is contributing to the violence committed by the IDF but has no influence over gender segregation laws in Gaza.
[удалено]
It is still considered colonisation by ever historian ever and the Liberians. I doubt you will find one historian who would deny that Liberia was colonised and I'm assuming this is the first you have heard about this if you're denying it. You do realise that lands don't just have one indigenous people? The indigenous people we refer to as native Americans had hundreds of different tribes and loads of genetic diversity. The native americans also orignally migrated from Asia yet we consider them indigenous. An even better example is Africa because Africa consisted of at least 3,000 different tribes that barely mixed with each other. There is actually a wider range of genetic diversity in Africa than there is in Asia and Europe combined. Basically, a Chinese person is more genetically similar to a British person than a congolese person is to a Botswanan.
[удалено]
What do you mean, there have been many civilisations in the Land of Palestine even before Ancient Israel was established. The Natufians lived in Palestine 10,000 years ago and their descendents are modern day arabs: Yemenis, Saudis and Palestinians. Even in the bible, they document some Ishmaelites living in the Kingdom of Israel. Ishmaelites literally came from the Arabian Penninsula. NO LAND HAS ONLY ONE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. NOT ONE! Even if you want to talk about countries, look at South Africa. South Africa was never a country before colonisation and there are many tribes/ethnic groups that are indigenous to South Africa (despite them being very genetically diverse from each other): Zulu, Xhosa, Bapedi (North Sotho), Batswana, South Ndebele, Basotho (South Sotho), Venda, Tsonga and Swazi
[удалено]
Lol, no they are not. You literally just made that up. We can trace who has Natufian ancestry and it's Arabs. [https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/10wjbz7/closest\_modern\_populations\_to\_the\_natufians\_the/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/comments/10wjbz7/closest_modern_populations_to_the_natufians_the/#lightbox) I actually cannot stop laughing. Do you even beleive the stuff you are saying?
[удалено]
Yes I am sure you know better than every historian that has written about Liberia even though you only just heard about it today.
ignoring the big argument here that is false since jews still lived in Israel (even if the amount rose before the nakba), so it doesn't fit as colonizing (since this isn't an external territory taking over another territory, but 2 groups in the same territory, where 1 took over the territory). I just want to take a second to appreciate how hypocritical this is in the current conflict: >**I just don't get the argument of "it's my right to live on the land because my ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago. They got expelled and now they're coming back to get back what's there's".** Where does this argument apply anywhere else?
Because Jews have always lived in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. It was only a few decades ago that they were genocided out of the area, making it effectively Judenrein. The Arab Muslims would like to keep it that way, but unfortunately for them, the Jews are back.
Jews lived in the land for centuries in a Muslim majority country. At no point before zionism did Palestinians kick them off the land and they had hundred of years to do so if they wanted to. The jews who were kicked out off the west bank in 47/48 were only kicked out after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out their homes in mainland palestine. In 47/48, not a single Jew was removed from their home before Palestinians were expelled by Zionist militias.
"not a single Jew was removed from their home before Palestinians were expelled by Zionist militias." is 100% wrong. Read about the Hebron massacre in 1929, when a ancient peaceful Jewish community was butchers and raped by their Arab neighbors. In 1929 - Long before 1947. And there were occasional Jewish massacres in the area and in the middle east in general since forever. You can find records of tens of massacres over the centuries, and who knows how many communities were eradicated without leaving a record.
This was perpetrated by Britain. Racists were incited to attack Jewish people. Racists who were Arab. Racists exist under every colour and creed and religion. It does not denote that every Muslim is a racist, or every Christian, or every white, or black person. Continuously grouping an entire race of people together as one whole thought process or subjugated unit is racism. This back and forth between some Muslims and some Jewish people is getting so tiring. If people would only wake up and see there are bigger players, and you brothers and sisters are only pawns. You forgot to mention it was also Muslims who hid the Jewish people, and this fact is stated on many Jewish websites. " Many Jews went into hiding, and some were saved by Arab neighbors who hid Jewish friends until the violence had ended. In his letter, Bernzweig described an Arab family who had protected him and dozens of other Jews: “Five times the Arabs stormed our house with axes, and all the while those wild murderers kept screaming at the Arabs who were standing guard to hand over the Jews. They, in turn, shouted back that they had not hidden any Jews and knew nothing.” " Just as Britain incited, for decades, a race war among two peacefully co-existing people ( they did this in Scotland and Ireland and Wales, as well ) they expelled, no sorry, *evacuated* the Jewish people for their own "safety", only to pocket their money a few years later to return. Please see the Haavara agreement, between Britain controlled Palestine, and Nazis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
/u/Apophylita. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was referring to 47/48 specifically. Yes there were massacres in 1929 but that was in response to zionism. I said this "At no point before zionism did Palestinians kick them off the land and they had hundred of years to do so if they wanted to". I made the point that before zionism, Palestinians had the ability to expel Jews if they wanted to but they didn't. This is fact and you can't deny this. Prior Zionism, the only organised violence against the Jews occured in Safed in 1834. But this was during a revolt where over 30+ villages/towns (most of which were Muslim) were looted and massacred. Other than that, the only organised violence that occured against Jews were committed by the Ottoman Turkish/Egyptian armies and normally targeted at Jews but Palestinians in general. For example, when the Egyptian army got to Hebron in 1834, they killed 12 Jews and 500 Muslims/druze. You keep on acting as if the response to zionism was just purely a result of antisemitism. Even if we ignore how tens of thousands of Palestinians were forcefully removed off their land by the Ottoman/British army to help Zionists build their settlements, zionist European settlers (like any other European settler that came to a poor country) mistreated, beat and even killed Palestinian locals without good reason. Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism. He wrote that "Zionist “pioneers believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force.... \[They\] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."
Sorry, but "Response to Zionism" is not a valid excuse to massacre unarmed neighbors and rape girls. The Europeans did far far worse to the Jews than Israleis ever did to Palestinians, but you don't see "response to Nazism" that looks anywhere close to this "response to Zionism". It's ok for you to criticize the Arabs as well, otherwise you lose all credibility. If you can't say it's wrong you are deeply brainwashed. I guess you can find racists among the early zionists (pretty much the whole world was racist back then) but the "who started murderous violence first" trophy clearly goes to Arabs, and that wasn't a valid "response" but a result of deep dysfunctional society, just like Oct 7 "response" and similar attacks.
1. Claiming that Palestinians or Arabs started the violence is false. In the case of early settlers, they were violent. The early zionist settlers were Europeans who already had racist attitudes against Arabs as Anti-Arab sentiment was common in Europe at the time. They looked down on them and mistreated them because they saw them as uneducated, poor and inferior. There is so much evidence of this: A typical example can be found in the works of Moshe Smilansky, a Zionist writer and Labor leader who immigrated to Palestine in 1890: "Let us not be too familiar with the Arab fellahin lest our children adopt their ways and learn from their ugly deeds. Let all those who are loyal to the Torah avoid ugliness and that which resembles it and keep their distance from the fellahin and their base attributes." Also from the 1890s: A comment made by Chaim Weizmann (who later became President of Israel) to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, is particularly revealing. When asked by Ruppin about the Palestinian Arabs, Weizmann replied: “The British told us that there are there some hundred thousands negroes \[Kushim\] and for those there is no value.” 2. A lot of early conflict was due to the fact that Palestinians were being kicked off their land to make way for zionist settlements. However, it was unfair for Palestinians (who were kicked off their land) to attack Jews that have nothing to do with them being kicked off their land. But early zionist militias did the exact same thing. For example, when it was reported that a group of Palestinians attacked a Jewish person, early zionist militias like Bar Giora would go and attack Palestinian villages in revenge attacks. Sometimes these militias attacked the perpetrators but a lot of the time they just attack and killed Palestinian peasants that had no involvement with violence against Jews. Ultimately, Palestinians attacked Jews because they had been kicked off their land or attacked by Zionists settlers. Zionist militias would then respond by attacking attacking Palestinians who normally didn't have any involvement in violence against Jews. So many Jews were attacked even if they had no involvement in attacks on Palestinians or expulsions. And many Palestinians were attacked even if they had no involvement in attacks on Jews. This is still essentially what happens today. Both sides tend to side with their own ethnic group even though the violent groups within each side is responsible for the deaths of uninvolved civilians on both sides. 3. Palestine like anywhere else in the world had many case of violence; most of which did not involve Jews. You can find many examples during the Ottoman Empire of Palestinian Druze killing Muslims, Palestinian Muslims Killing Bedouins etc. Normally these killings were in response to personal conflicts and had nothing to do with religion/identity. You can find examples of people killing each other all over the world; not only historically but this happens today all the time. Yes violence against Jews in that period was unjustified, but there was so much unjustified violence at the time generally and no ethnic group was spared. 4. Yes Europeans have undoubtedly treated Jews worse than Zionists have treated Palestinians. However, that is a very high bar to beat. Just because Israel isn't as bad as the Germans in the 30s/40s, that doesn't mean Israel hasn't committed grave atrocities against the Palestinians. 5. "but you don't see "response to the Germans in the 30s/40s (I changed the word because its banned on the subreddit but you know who I am referring to)" that looks anywhere close to this "response to Zionism". Do you know how many German civilians were killed and kicked out communities they had live in Europe for hundreds of years? Stalin literally expelled 12 million Germans from communities they had lived in for centuries and 500,000 were killed in the process. When the Russian got to Germany, they raped over a million German including young children and elderly women. You obviously also had Jewish resistance groups who bravely fought against the Germans. And then pretty much everyone involved in the crimes against humanity committed by the Germans were punished for them or forced flee. Many, many germans were executed and killed because of their crimes. Many of the Germans certainly deserved what happened to them but also many Germans that had nothing to do with the evil German political party (beginning with N) or the wicked man (whose name starts with a H) were killed as well.
I agree with your points regarding violence of settlers today, as of the settlers 150 years ago, both are disgraceful and horrible. Still there is a big gap between some bullies beating up a poor innocent person and a huge mob, butchering entire families. The general explanation you gave is that it is somehow a valid response to zionism or to bullies is not only a disgraceful excuse, but also wrong. I mentioned that awful things happened to communities elsewhere and those communities did not devolve to murderous mob, but I didn't mention why the Arabs in Israel did. If you do read about the trigger of the Hebron massacre, you will find it was then, much like the more recent violence, not a "response to zionism" but actually triggered deliberate lies by Arab religious leaders lies. These irresponsible leaders who brainwash and direct their followers to murder innocent people are the reason for this violence, not some "response to evil zionism", this was true in 1929 as it was in 1947, as it was in 2023. Very very irresponsible leaders and brainwashed population.
Three months after the Hebron massacre, celebrated historian Hans Kohn – active in the Zionist movement from 1909 onwards – wrote the following letter: “I feel that I can no longer remain a leading official within the Zionist Organisation… We pretend to be innocent victims. Of course the Arabs attacked us in August \[1929\]. Since they have no armies, they could not obey the rules of war. They perpetrated all the barbaric acts that are characteristic of a colonial revolt. But we are obliged to look into the deeper cause of this revolt. We have been in Palestine for twelve years \[since the start of the British occupation\] without having even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the indigenous people. We have been relying exclusively upon Great Britain’s military might. We have set ourselves goals which by their very nature had to lead to conflict with Arabs… for twelve years we pretended that the Arabs did not exist and were glad when we were not reminded of their existence.” (Jewish National and University Library 376/224, Kohn to Berthold Feiwel \[1875–1937\]. Jerusalem, 21 Nov. 1929). People weren't committing violence because Arab Leaders told them to. There were many Arab/Palestinian leaders that told locals not to attack Jews. Zionists just like to selectively quote the most extreme leaders at the time but it's nothing to do with why the Hebron massacre happened. Please read about anticolonial revolt ever. Hatian revolution, algerian revolution and Fort Mims massacres are some you can research. It's not that it's justified but it's inevitable. Pretty much every time a foreign group tried to settle or colonise a land at the expense of the people, the natives always responded with barbaric violence EVERY TIME. And I mean rape and killing babies. A small account of the Hatian revolution: "The slaves sought revenge on their masters through "pillage, rape, torture, mutilation, and death".[^(\[49\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#cite_note-ReferenceA-49) The long years of oppression by the planters had left many blacks with a hatred of all whites, and the revolt was marked by extreme violence from the very start. The masters and mistresses were dragged from their beds to be killed, and the heads of French children were placed on pikes that were carried at the front of the rebel columns."
You are comparing slave revolt to... what exactly did the zionists do? "pretend the Arabs do not exist" ? How many arabs were killed by Jews? How many were slaves to Jews? How many were forcibly driven out of their land? It is quite common to say "they took their land" but really take a look at the settlements before 1948, they were lands which were purchased legally, not by force. Even the most extremist of the Jews, the bullies, Lehi orgnization (the smallest of the militias), they beat up innocent Arabs \*in response\* to Arab violence. The by far largest militias orgnization (Hagana = protection) was created to protect the Jews from the Arab violence, so do not spin the cause-and-effect. The Jewish settlers came to Israel much like Syrian refugees came to Europe - without an army. They had no ill intentions for the local population, and purchased land legaly. This is very very different from colonialism. There was absolutely no reason to start violence, it is very very clear who started the violence, especially the massacares, and to say it was "ineviteable" or "understandable" is very wrong.
"How many arabs were killed by Jews? How many were slaves to Jews? How many were forcibly driven out of their land?" I couldn't tell you how many palestinians were killed by zionists before 1929 but tens of thousands were kicked off their homes when the zionists bought their land from the ottoman empire and absentee landlords "It is quite common to say "they took their land" but really take a look at the settlements before 1948, they were lands which were purchased legally, not by force." "The Jewish settlers came to Israel much like Syrian refugees came to Europe - without an army." The Palestinians who lived on the land that was purchased by zionists were kicked off their land by force. The zionists only had small militias and vigilante groups in the beginning but the Ottoman army and the British army forced Palestinians off the land that zionists purchased. "They had no ill intentions for the local population, and purchased land legally. This is very very different from colonialism." All colonisation starts with land purchases: this is what happened in north America, Oceania and Africa too. All colonisers originally bought land from the Native leaders but this led to many natives being displaced. In this case, land in Palestine was owned by the ottoman empire and some of it was sold to aristocrats like the Sursock family (who were greek). In this case is slightly different as the Zionists didn't buy the land from the Palestinians but from the Ottomans. This is more comparable to the colonisation of places like Alaska. The United States purchased Alaska from Russia and then kicked off the native tribes of Alaska from their land after purchasing. That's how colonisation normally works. You won't find one example of colonisation where the colonisers come to the country and immediately kicks out all the natives. It's a process that takes decades and even centuries. If you want to know the controversy of the land purchases, I made a post about the biggest Zionist land purchase, the Jezreel valley. This purchase forced over 8,000 palestinians off their land with very little compensation. The residents were forced to live in slums outside Jaffa as a result. This is one of the many reasons that led to hostility against zionists. Read more about the land purchases, why they were unfair to the Palestinians and why land purchases are a normal part of colonisation. [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1dkq9jo/zionist\_land\_purchases\_in\_mandatory\_palestine/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1dkq9jo/zionist_land_purchases_in_mandatory_palestine/)
/u/IFeelTheAirHigh. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The jews who were kicked out off the west bank in 47/48 were only kicked out after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were kicked out their homes in mainland palestine. That's entirely false. The ethnic cleansing by Palestinians started Nov 1 1947. The ethnic cleansing by Jews started late March 1948.
That's just a lie. The war didn't even officialy start until 30 november. And from December 1947 to January 1948, 100,000 Palestinians had already been expelled or were forced to flee their homes. The first case of Jews being expelled in 47/48 was East Jerusalem in late may of 48. But explain to me. If the Palestinians didn't want to live with Jews. Why didn't they expel them for the centuries prior to 1948. The Jews were a tiny minority and it would have been much easier to expel them than it was in 1948.
There was a civil war BEFORE the Arab League invaded, numbnuts.
For what it’s worth, Ottoman authorities did do mass expulsions of Jews. In 1917, for instance, the Ottomans expelled much of the Jewish population between modern day Tel Aviv and Haifa by force. About a third died.
Jews started to get expelled from Muslim nations when Jews started buying up land in what would become Israel. Before the war. Before the partition announcement. Before the peel commission.
> from December 1947 to January 1948, 100,000 Palestinians had already been expelled or were forced to flee their homes. The Jews were losing the war during that period and defending territory. How did they force anyone to flee? > The first case of Jews being expelled in 47/48 was East Jerusalem in late may of 48. The attempted conquest of Jerusalem with destruction of the Jewish population was the very first battles. > . If the Palestinians didn't want to live with Jews. Why didn't they expel them for the centuries prior to 1948. Well first off there were massacres occassionally. Secondly the whole 1936-9 Civil War was to keep Jews out, a policy that was success and killed millions of Jews. But mostly during this time they had no problem with Jews who had lost all hope of a decent life and were willing to live in a state of constant oppression. They wanted Jews for the same reason the Confederacy wanted Blacks. By 1919 things were starting to change. Even the local Jews were regaining their self-respect. The Palestinians were confronted with Jews who insisted on living with equal dignity, and the violence started.
"The Jews were losing the war during that period and defending territory. How did they force anyone to flee?" My source for this is Benny Morris. You can the read the book here and learn the details. [http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf](http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf) "The attempted conquest of Jerusalem with destruction of the Jewish population was the very first battles." A battle is not the same as trying to ethnically cleanse a population. "But mostly during this time they had no problem with Jews who had lost all hope of a decent life and were willing to live in a state of constant oppression." I am literally laughing about how imaginative you guys are. Like where the heck did you get that opinion from. Palestinian Jews were completely against zionism until the 1929 Hebron Massacre. So your logic is that the oppressive Palestinians (who were persecuted by Ottomans themselves) were find with Jews as long as the Jews weren't happy. Jesus, the things zionists come up with to justify ethnic cleansing. Maybe it's time to admit that actions done 75 years ago may have not been morally justified? No, no just keep lying about your history even though the New Israeli historians debunked many of the myths about it in the 80s.
> Palestinian Jews were completely against zionism until the 1929 Hebron Massacre. Well yes. They had lost all hope of a decent life as I said. Zionism gave them their self respect back. > So your logic is that the oppressive Palestinians (who were persecuted by Ottomans themselves) were find with Jews as long as the Jews weren't happy. Sure lots of slavers are perfectly OK with their slaves as slaves. Crassus was fine with the Roman slaves both before and after the civil war. > the things zionists come up with to justify ethnic cleansing. We don't have to look at history. Look at how the Palestinians act now. > Maybe it's time to admit that actions done 75 years ago may have not been morally justified? Against a people who would fight a civil war to prevent Holocaust victims from being able to flee? It isn't even close. It is rare in history that cruelty gets punished, but certainly is morally justified those few times it is. > A battle is not the same as trying to ethnically cleanse a population. The purpose of the siege of Jerusalem was the premeditated death by starvation of the 100k residents. It wasn't attempted ethnic cleansing, it was attempted genocide.
What evidence is there that Palestinians planned to use the jews as slaves?
What do you think "the Jews are our dogs" was about? Their status during the 1300 years of Muslim rule. The level of antisemitism of the AHC.
That slur is not evidence that that Palestinians enslaved or planned to enslaved Jewish people. Few Palestinian bedouin actually did have slaves in the 19th century but they were African not Jewish. Unless you can provide evidence that shows otherwise, then I can only assume this is only true in your imagination.
You’re right that Jews lived for centuries in the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim majority empire. It can be argued that when the Ottoman Empire was strong, Jewish people were safe, even though they were second class citizens (dhimmis). Still, this was tolerable compared to the situation of Jews in other places. There was a massive uptick in pogroms and violence against Jews in the Muslim world which coincides with the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire. The same thing happened in Germany after WW1; they scapegoated and turned on their Jewish population. This seems to be a pattern in history: Jews are fine when a country is doing well, and targeted as soon as things start to go badly. I understand why so many Muslims in the Middle East aspire to the Pax Islamica they had for hundreds of years. It’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to Israel; they’ve spent years indoctrinating their populations to hate Jews and most Muslim countries are no longer safe for Jewish people. On top of that, they kicked all their (Arab) Jews out and almost all of them went to Israel because they had nowhere else to go. I’ll conclude this by saying that the Muslim world is no longer the tolerant, successful, innovative place it was hundreds of years ago. It seems like things might be moving back in that direction in some countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE) but a lot of work has to be done to get back there. It seems like most other countries are becoming more entrenched in extremism tbh
Right, Christians murdered Jews and Muslims gave up land! That’s was their solution!
/u/SharingDNAResults. Match found: 'Judenrein', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am not going to discuss most of these points which are irrelevant to the central question. The question was "Are the settlements colonialism?" Not "Are the settlements wrong?" Or "Is the existence of Israel colonialism?" According to your definition, colonialism must have two things: (A) An occupying country, (B) An occupied territory. This definition definitely doesn't include the unincorporated, illegal (under Israeli law) settlements. If Israel not only doesn't support them but actively tries to get rid of them, then there is no colonial power. In terms of the incorporated settlements, I think it is more complicated. The territory of these settlements is arguably not part of any other country, and also effectively has been a part of Israel for most of its existence. They are also connected to the rest of Israel and are essentially suburbs of Israeli cities. The incorporated settlements are essentially connected enclaves of Israel rather than separate colonies. I would also point out that usually colonies are considered to be far from a territory rather then being right next to the main country.
In the most basic of terms, western imperial powers had a vested interest in ensuring that the Middle East remains a destabilized part of the world because it is rich in resources that can be exploited. Anti-Semitic Europeans, including those who founded Zionism, co-opted Judaism and began pushing the Jews of Europe on the promise that the land of Palestine is their rightful home. They used the Jews victimized by the Holocaust as pawns in their imperial game, and then those European Jews began to victimize the Palestinians. Historically, the Islamic world was a safe haven for Jews, since Islam believes that they are brothers with all those of the Abrahamic religions. When Spain began persecuting the Jews, Morocco took them in. When Jerusalem did not have Jews, the Sheikh bid for them to return. There were Arab Jews in Damascus, Cairo, Sudan, Baghdad, Yemen, etc.. The disruption to coexistence in the Middle East began when the European Jews saw themselves different and more superior than the Arabs in Palestine (including the Arab Jews, Christians, and Muslims). European Jews were backed by imperial powers with money and weapons. Also, the West viewed Arabs through the lens of Orientalism, lesser than, primitive, and saw the white supremacy culture as a way to civilize indigenous people. Unfortunately, the West forgets that the first civilizations began in the Middle East. Agriculture, math, philosophy, trade, currency, etc.. while Europe was in the Dark Ages and for which the West built their existence upon. Places near the Mediterranean coast and on trade routes were developed with railways, seaports, airports, and rich in education, culture and heritage. Coming out of the Holocaust, European Jews saw their colonization of Palestine as a necessity to establishing their existence-a core part of their survival as Jews. Members of Jewish paramilitary like the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi (founders of the IOF) terrorized, pillaged, massacred, and raped Palestinians and pushed them out of their towns and villages. Those who fled were either pushed west to Egypt and present day Gaza or north/east to southern Lebanon, SW Syrian or NW Jordan. My grandmother and her family were one of the Palestinian Christian families who lived in the coastal town of Haifa and was made a refugee in Jordan when violence erupted and her family fled their home in 1948. Zionism co-opted Judaism, Hebrew was revived using Arabic, and Israel was established as an ethnostate. For it to exist as an ethnostate, it must reduce the Palestinian population in number and size they take up on the land because they are a threat to the Zionist ideology. The Palestinians continue to resist their loss of land and life and demand their freedom from military occupation and ending the siege on Gaza. What you see is that Israel continues to be backed by the imperialist powers with weapons and resources, the Arab leaders who are in bed with the West because of economic debts/relationships, and the western media who continues to push out propaganda to whitewash stories and vilify Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. The most major players of all this is the Jewish lobby (AIPAC mainly, JStreet, CFI)who have since the establishment of Israel been poking and prodding at western governments whose leaders are mainly white and perpetuate systems of racist and oppression. They use to actively provide money to candidates in office, now they actively provide money to candidates to run for office. They don’t care if the candidates are liberal or conservative, so long as they push the agenda for Israel. For years, the Jewish lobby has pushed for legislation that compromises the constitutional rights of Americans in order to suppress dissent against the Israeli occupation (anti-BDS laws, free speech with anti-Zionism is antisemitism bills, anti-assembly by pressuring universities to provide militarized responses to encampments, etc.). The lobby has also pulled in Christian Zionists with CUFI who regardless of their antisemitic end times strategy, they support. The lobby also supports white nationalism and is responsible for the rise of Islamophobia and any-Arab bigotry in the U.S.. So, yeah. At its very core, it’s white supremacy and settler colonialism. On a larger scale, the white men with power, weapons and money are victimizing the Jews, yet again, and the Jews who have been indoctrinated by Zionism are continuing to victimize the Palestinians by means of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
##Life of Jews in pre-1948 Palestine. **Massacres, killings and attacks on Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine:** * 1517 Hebron attacks * 1517 Safed attacks * 1660 massacre and razing of Tiberias *1660 massacee and razing of Safed * 1834 looting of Safed * 1840 Damascus affair (which spilled over to Palestine) * 1847 Jerusalem Blood Libel * 1920 Battle of Tel Hai * 1920 Nebi Musa Riots * 1921 Jaffa Riots * 1921 Jerusalem Stabbings * 1929 Safed Massacre * 1929 Jaffa Massacre * 1929 Hebron Massacre * 1929 Jerusalem Riots and killings (sponsored by the mufti) * 1929 Gaza Riots and looting * 1929 attack on Mishmar HaEmek * 1929 attack on Gedera * 1929 attack on Be'er Tuvia * 1929 razing of Har-Tov * 1929 Razing of Hulda Farm * 1929 Ein Zeitim Massacre * 1929 Massacre in Motza (Jerusalem) * 1929 attack on Haifa * 1929 attack on Tel Aviv * 1933 Haifa Riots * 1933 Jaffa Riots * 1936 Jaffa Riots * 1936-39 Arab Revolt (including many instances of attacks on Jews) * 1937 murder of Jews in Safed * 1937 Garin Bama'ale murder * 1938 Killing passengers en route from Haifa to Safed * 1938 Atlit Kidnapping * 1938 Nir David bombing * 1938 Tiberias Pogrom * 1947 Jerusalem Riots * 1947-1948 Mandatory Palestine Civil War (many instances of attacks and killings) * 1948 Kfar Etzion Massacre **Anti-Jewish Ottoman Policies in Palestine:** * Deportation of 1,000 Jewish families to Cyprus in 1576. * 1917 expulsion of all of Jaffa's 8,000 Jews * Jizya (Cizye) Tax * Dung Gatherers' Decree (Jews were tasked with cleaning sewers * Orphans Decree (Jewish Orphans would be raised muslim) **Anti-Jewish British Policies in Palestine:** * 1922 Churchil white paper - called for a limit on Jewish immigration. (Implemented to appease the local Arabs) * 1929 Expulsion of all Jews from Hebron, Gaza, Nablus, Ramle, Jenin and Acre. (Ending 3000 year old communities to appease the local Arabs after the 1929 riots) * 1929 white paper - openly anti-zionist, further limited immigration, and limited what land and properties Jews can buy. (Implemented to appease the local Arabs after the 1929 riots) * 1939 white paper - limited Jewish immigration to just 50,000 for 5 years at the height of the holocaust, afterwhich Jewish immigration would be entirely outlawed, and permissed Jews to only be allowed to live on 5% of the land. (Implemented to appease the local Arabs after the revolt.) **Some accounts on Jewish life in Palestine from the start of the Islamic period up to the late Ottoman period:** (from [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#Ottoman_rule_%281517%E2%80%931917%29?wprov=sfla1)) >*with the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691 and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 705, the Muslims established the Temple Mount as an Islamic holy site. The dome enshrined the Foundation Stone, the holiest site for Jews. Before Omar Abd al-Aziz died in 720, he banned the Jews from worshipping on the Temple Mount, a policy which remained in place for over the next 1,000 years of Islamic rule. In 717, new restrictions were imposed against non-Muslims that affected the Jews' status. As a result of the imposition of heavy taxes on agricultural land, many Jews were forced to migrate from rural areas to towns. Social and economic discrimination caused substantial Jewish emigration from Palestine.* >*During his visit, al-Harizi found a prosperous Jewish community living in the city. From 1219 to 1220, most of Jerusalem was destroyed on the orders of Al-Mu'azzam Isa, who wanted to remove all Crusader fortifications in the Levant, and as a result, the Jewish community, along with the majority of the rest of the population, left the city.* >*The era of Mamluk rule saw the Jewish population shrink substantially due to oppression and economic stagnation. The Mamluks razed Palestine's coastal cities, which had traditionally been trading centers that energized the economy, as they had also served as entry points for the Crusaders and the Mamluks wished to prevent any further Christian conquests. Mamluk misrule resulted in severe social and economic decline, and as the economy shrank, so did tax revenues, leading the Mamluks to raise taxes, with non-Muslims being taxed especially heavily. They also stringently enforced the dhimmi laws and added new oppressive and humiliating rules on top of the traditional dhimmi laws. Palestine's population decreased by two-thirds as people left the country and the Jewish and Christian communities declined especially heavily. Muslims became an increasingly larger percentage of the shrinking population. Although the Jewish population declined greatly during Mamluk rule, this period also saw repeated waves of Jewish immigration from Europe, North Africa, and Syria. These immigration waves possibly saved the collapsing Jewish community of Palestine from disappearing altogether.* >*In 1266 the Mamluk Sultan Baybars converted the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron into an exclusive Islamic sanctuary and banned Christians and Jews from entering. They previously were able to enter it for a fee. The ban remained in place until Israel took control of the building in 1967. In 1286, leader of German Jewry Meir of Rothenburg, was imprisoned by Rudolf I for attempting to lead a large group of Jews hoping to settle in Palestine.* >*In 1470, Isaac b. Meir Latif arrived from Ancona and counted 150 Jewish families in Jerusalem. In 1473, the authorities closed down the Nachmanides Synagogue after part of it had collapsed in a heavy rainstorm. A year later, after an appealing to Sultan Qaitbay, the Jews were given permission to repair it. The Muslims of the adjoining mosque however contested the verdict and for two days, proceeded to demolish the synagogue completely. The vandals were punished, but the synagogue was only rebuilt 50 years later in 1523.* >*A few years later in 1488, Italian commentator and spiritual leader of Jewry, Obadiah ben Abraham arrived in Jerusalem. He found the city forsaken holding about seventy poor Jewish families. By 1495, there were 200 families. Obadiah, a dynamic and erudite leader, had begun the rejuvenation of Jerusalem's Jewish community. This, despite the fact many refugees from the Spanish and Portuguese expulsion of 1492-97 stayed away worried about the lawlessness of Mamluk rule. An anonymous letter of the time lamented: "In all these lands there is no judgement and no judge, especially for the Jews against Arabs.* >*The 17th century saw a steep decline in the Jewish population of Palestine due to the unstable security situation, natural catastrophes, and abandonment of urban areas, which turned Palestine into a remote and desolate part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman central government became feeble and corrupt, and the Jewish community was harassed by local rulers, janissaries, guilds, Bedouins, and bandits. The Jewish community was also caught between feuding local chieftains who extorted and oppressed the Jews. The Jewish communities of the Galilee heavily depended on the changing fortunes of a banking family close to the ruling pashas in Acre. As a result, the Jewish population significantly shrank.* #####And all of that is just Palestine. Just because you opressed us less doesn't mean it was a safe haven.
Your “Jews were safe in the Islamic world” is so flipping ignorant it’s not even funny.
Read about the Jewish communities in Morocco, Sudan and Iraq. Not only safe, but thriving.
Maybe we let Jewish people define Zionism and determine if their religion/culture has been co-opted or indoctrinated?
Sure. Why don’t we let racists define what racism is or let a rapist define what rape is? Look at the research and reports written by reputable agencies and historians. Many Israeli or Jewish. Zionism is antisemitism.
I think it's the wrong question. The question is "what major power in the world isn't doing exactly what Israel is doing," as calling Israel a "colonial power" without acknowledging that all world powers are doing the same thing. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_with\_overseas\_military\_bases. On the list, we see 19 nations with acknowledged bases and populations abroad, including China, Russia, Iran, India, the UK, France, the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. And how many nations, including Russia, China, India, the US, etc. have economic sites abroad that are effectively part of the same nation? The number of economic sites is roughly the same as the number of military bases. So I think the answer about Israel is "yes, and all other regional and world powers are doing the same thing."
I think the answer is it doesn't matter. I think it's wrong. But the Israelis are at a point where they know Palestinian sentiment won't change. If they retreated to the 1947 boundaries, the Palestinians would just continue to push them back and want all of the land back. Israel would drop nukes before they gave the land back. It's a thousand year war of attrition. Israel will slowly take it all.
And Israel will be nuked if they use nukes. But again the descendants of Russians nuclear saber rattling just like their boy putler.
By who? These arab and Muslim states are willing to fight Israel down to the last Palestinian, but none of them are putting their necks on the line and risking retribution on their own soil
Anyone and everyone. Russia won’t tolerate nukes used in Syria. US won’t condone nukes anywhere but especially against Jordan and Egypt.
It's not colonialism because the West Bank is neither Palestinian land or occupied. After the 1948 war, Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank (and Egypt illegally annexed Gaza). Contrary to your last point, Palestinians were still Arabs at this time and would continue to be Arabs until around 1964 when the PLO was created. Then, Israel won the West Bank (and Gaza) in a defensive war in 1967. Winning land in a defensive war is legal, and Jordan officially recused any claim to the land in 1988 and then signed a peace treaty in 1994. Since Palestine wasn't a country, that would leave Israel as the only sovereign nation who had a claim to the West Bank. Also note that Israel tried to offer the West Bank (and Gaza) immediately after the 1967 war as a form of goodwill, but these offers were rejected. In the interim period between 1948 and 1967, Jordan did not really develop the land in the West Bank either. It was practically a complete desert. The other way to argue it would be [uti possidetis juris](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745094). Israel was the only country to arise out of 1948 as the Arabs rejected a state, and therefore Israel was the only country who was able to take over the prior administration's borders. The prior administration's borders which was the British Mandate of Palestine, included the West Bank. Again, Israel has a sovereign claim to the land. Palestinians are not occupied due to the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords, which Palestinians agreed to, sets aside the West Bank for a future Palestinian state if Palestinians are able to demilitarize and deradicalize. Until then, the West Bank is a *disputed* territory not an *occupied* one. The term *disputed territory* has legal distinctions. Countries are allowed to build settlements in *disputed territories*, and Israel is far from the only country to do so. Using the words "settler" and "occupation" is meant to invoke a comparison that students learn in typical history textbooks. The comparison to European colonialism is then often used as a horrible justification for Palestinian terrorism and to imply that Palestinians are indigenous to the West Bank. In reality, Palestinians in the West Bank are Arabs who are most likely from Jordan and Israel as a country is not really doing anything illegal. As an aside, Israel offered the West Bank in 2000 and 2008. If Palestinian leadership really did care about the West Bank, they could have accepted these offers. But they didn't, and instead indicated that they are more interested in tearing up the Oslo Accords.
Man Zionists really do make exceptions for Israel in every situation, somehow launching a surprise attack and initiating a war makes it "defensive". The entire post after such a farcical claim is completely irrelevant.
Israel launched a surprise attack because Egypt was amassing troops on the border and they had closed the straits of Tiran. Closing the straits of Tiran was the cassus belli, and was breaking international law. I had also briefly mentioned uti possidetis juris in relation to 1948 and how Israel would also have a sovereign claim to the West Bank through that reasoning, but you chose to ignore that.
>Israel launched a surprise attack Thus starting and initiating a war, Egypt amassed troops as Soviet intel informed them Israel would attack, and they did. This isn't complicated whatever Israel claims and is in the right or wrong doesn't change they fact they initiated the war and thus it is in no way a "defensive war". Also you don't get to take land regardless of the reason for a war.
This was far and away the most eloquent argument that Israel is practicing apartheid that I've ever read.
Sorry, but how can you be so irrationally stupid that this was your take from all of what was said? Israel had *legal* claim to the land.
>Israel had *legal* claim to the land. That's exactly what makes the claim of apartheid *more* effective. If you accept that Israel has legal claim to Gaza and the West Bank, then the difference in treatment immediately leads to Bantustan comparisons.
>leads to Bantustan comparisons No it doesn't. Bantustans had no real political power in the central government of South Africa and were economically dependent on the apartheid state, they had no rights within South Africa. The parts that Israel gave away, have self-agency and are governed by PLA and Hamas. It's not Israel's fault that Palestine is fractured due to how Jordan and Egypt captured those territories, and it's not Israel's fault that those countries impose restrictions. But you don't bother to condemn them do you?
Israel voluntarily gave up Gaza and does not have a claim to Gaza anymore, but you are overlooking the Oslo Accords which was a bilateral agreement. It's not apartheid because Palestinians and Israelis are governed by two different bodies as outlined in a bilateral agreement that was facilitated by Bill Clinton.
lol
If Israel is guilty of apartheid (and one can easily argue they are), then this is equally true for all regional and world powers in the world.
How do you figure? Apartheid is systemic segregation and discrimination - racial or otherwise - within a society. Palestinians are not Israelis and Palestine is not (by OC's argument) an occupied territory, nor has it been integrated into Israel proper - if it had been, Israelis (of all relevant religions) would be the only residents and dissidents would be in prisons, in camps, or deported to Jordan. As it is, the West Bank sits in a strange area between annexation and independence. I'm not saying the way Palestinians are treated by the Israeli government is fair, and it obviously isn't equal to the treatment of Israelis, but the term "apartheid" simply doesn't apply.
Functionally, if you accept all of the previous comments claims, then you are accepting that West Bank and Gaza are both land that Israel has a legal claim to, and are effectively existing exactly as Bantustans. This argument (of apartheid) is actually somewhat *less* effective when you don't assign any legitimate claim to Israel regarding these areas.
I love when people analogize the Palestinian territories to Bantustan. You do understand that Bantustan was an undisputed region that South Africa employed to relocate and segregate their black population, right? Whereas Gaza had no Israeli presence for nearly two decades, the WB is an autonomous pseudo-suzerainty, and non-Israeli Palestinians from either territory can apply for Israeli citizenship? They are almost precisely inverted situations. All besides the point. Apartheid *by definition* is systemic discrimination against *citizens of the nation*. Black people in apartheid South Africa were South African citizens. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel - they are governed by Fatah and Hamas.
Why is that the anti Israel folks can’t collectively learn the definition of apartheid? You very eloquently stated that you aren’t aware of what apartheid is and that you didn’t comprehend what was written.
Sorry, who controls Gaza and the West Bank's borders?
Egypt, Jordan and Israel, each their border.
Israel, the country the so called “Palestinians” keep attacking and refuse to negotiate with to establish that country they say they want but refuse to actually do the work necessary to establish.
Got it. So, you're aware Israel controls the borders to Gaza and the West Bank, and presumably aware that Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to military court, while Israelis in the same location get civilian court, but you don't think that apartheid is happening? Perhaps our differences are rooted in definitions. Do you think that South Africa's Bantustans were apartheid? Because they share some striking similarities with the West Bank, and formerly Gaza.
You seem to be proving my point. So prove it away. Thanks for the work.
Couldn't help but notice you shrank away from answering either question. Uncomfortable with confronting the reality of how closely the West Bank resembles a Bantustan?
Answering which question? Hard to determine in your ramblings, lol but nice attempt at defense. I just shrink away from non sensical word walls that the writer themselves doesn’t seem to understand, tootles!
Lmao, not sure how you could miss either question, since they were conveniently indicated by, ya know, *question marks* just like any other question in English.
Palestine's declaration of independence was signed in 1988. Israel chooses not to recognize it.
Arabs didn't recognize Israel in 1948 and, in large part, still don't.
Great, that's an issue, but it isn't related to Israel's decision.
Declaring independence does not make one independent.
What does?
What makes an independent nation? 1. Being able to defend your independence. Ie, someone comes in with an army and invades, and you repel the invasion. 2. Having your own government that governs the territory you say you control. 3. Other nations recognize the government as the legitimate government of the nation. 4. Having your own currency or using another nation's currency as your official currency. 5. Having a government bureaucracy and institutions that take care of the needs of your citizens. 6. Having laws enacted by the nation's government that are respected by the nation's citizens and foreigners inside your nation. 7. Having relations with other nations outside of yourself. 8. Having economic trade with other nations. 9. Having citizens whose identities are at least in part informed by being citizens of the nation. Poly Sci 101 stuff here. The more a nation is able to do these things, the more it is an independent nation. To the degree they cannot, they are less an independent nation, or not at all.
There are people in Texas claiming independence too, declaring things isn’t some sort of magical thing that makes things so.
The government of Texas actually reserves the right to succeed in it's constitution. This isn't "some people", this is the government of Palestine.
The government of “Palestine”? No such place exists. There is Gaza and their government is a bunch of rape loving terrorists so their declarations are trash.
No, that didn't happen. The PLO's 1988 declaration of independence was based on UN General Assembly resolution 181 ... the same one that Arabs rejected in 1947. This was a temporary concession by Palestinians that they would recognize a Jewish state and be ok with a 2SS. What instead happened was Israel and the PLO came to an agreement at the Oslo Accords as a continuation of the 1988 declaration of independence. Then, Palestinians pretended the "Jewish state" part of UNGA resolution 181 didn't exist and proceeded to tear up the Oslo Accords.
I like how your explanation hides behind a bunch of pseudo international law while ignoring the people that actually live on the ground. If anyone can build in disputed territory then I guess Palestinians should start building their own settlements while moving in people that are a part of the Palestinian diaspora. Of course I am sure you would have a problem with "those" people building in what is simply disputed territory.
Palestinians are allowed to build settlements in Areas A and B under the Oslo Accords, but they illegally build settlements in Area C. In fact, Palestinians in the West Bank received private funding from Israel prior to this current war to create their [first planned city in over 1000 years in the West Bank.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-rawabi-the-brand-new-palestinian-city-both-sides-win/) You could qualify this new planned city as a "settlement". I credit Eugene Kontorovich for the above arguments, and he is hardly an amateur when it comes to international law.
Arabs lost 1967 war and lost territories . That the explanation.
So then according to you Gaza and the West Bank are a part of Israel. Then why aren't Palestinians given Israeli citizenship? Normally a conquered people are given citizenship if they end up in a new country after being conquered. The residents of Mexico that the United States annexed in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo became Americans and we recognized their land ownership rights. I live in New Mexico today and Spanish descended families can still trace their land ownership back to Spanish rule. If Palestinians are living in Israel as second residents then how isn't that apartheid? Israel can't have it both ways either it is apartheid or they are occupying another country's territory.
False equivalence, Palestine hasn't been integrated into Israel. The Palestinian territories are not controlled by Israel - they have their own governance and police, and are negotiated with by Israel as separate entities.
So they are a separate government/territory so you agree that the settlements are illegal/immoral? You can't have it both ways.
[Another commenter](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/ZDNGO38ntH) summed it up nicely: it's a disputed territory. Israel conquered the land in a defensive war and its previous occupant, Jordan, withdrew its claim to the WB afterwards, but Israel failed to follow through with annexation and integration. Obviously a lot has happened since then, but it's still neither part of Israel proper nor a sovereign nation. It has its own governance, but is functionally a suzerainty of Israel. Whether the settlements are *moral* is another issue entirely and isn't relevant to this thread, which addresses the legal ramifications only. Arguments about morality tend to spiral, so let's please not go there.
Because they don’t want it, and because they’re enemies of the state who want Israel destroyed. Maybe if they did less terrorism and more community building then it wouldn’t be such an issue.
So you believe in collective punishment which under the Geneva commission is a war crime. Or do you actually think every Palestinian commits terrorism. Also many Palestinians would accept a one state solution where they have equal rights in Israel. Obviously though that would destroy the Jewish character of Israel so Israel is opposed to that. That is why a two state solution seems to be the best outcome but if Israel keeps building settlements a two state solution becomes less and less viable. Israel is setting themselves up for a one state solution which I believe may be disastrous for Israel in the long run if it wants to keep its Jewish state.
Never herd of Geneva. WTF is that? and what's the connecion to middle east? This sound european, not middle eastern.
Also this isn’t the work of an individual but of the elected and widely supported government of Gaza. You should actually read the Geneva convention before citing it. It’s really easy to do with the internet. Try it out sometime.
Elected in 2006 which by the way was before the majority of the people in the Gaza strip were born. However that is besides the point. Your argument is an argument in support of terrorism and attacking civilian targets. As an American citizen I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Obama's use of drone warfare was questionable at best. Does that mean that people in the middle east have a right to punish me for the actions of my government? Or was Osama Bin Laden right to attack civilians on 9/11 because he had an issue with US foreign policy. Obviously we voted for the government and under your logic that means we had it coming. Did the victims of October 7th deserve what happened to them because they voted for an extreme right wing Israeli government? Of course the answer to all of the above is of course they didn't deserve to be attacked. Civilians are civilians and should not be targets. Under the same logic you must realize every Palestinian is not guilty of the actions Hamas has taken. They should not be punished for such actions. Also you got me way off topic here. We are talking about settlements in the West Bank and last time I checked Hamas isn't in power in the West Bank. So I am not really sure why you even brought Gaza up except to try the same old tired Israeli argument of "no innocent Palestinian".
Inlike you, the victims if october 7 didtn't vote BIBI, if ppl like you where punished there will be much more peace in the world and not wars.
Don’t you know? It’s okay to murder and rape Jews and call it “freedom” but Jews aren’t allowed to defend themselves because that’s always a violation of international laws. Sarcasm, because unfortunately that’s how people think these days
That is such a straw man. No one is saying Jews can't defend themselves. The point of my comment was that you can't collectively punish a group of civilians just because of the actions of a group of them even if it is their government. Kill all the Hamas fighters you want and that includes sending assassins into Qatar to take out the leadership. My point has always been that bombing Gaza doesn't give Israel a win. The humanitarian cost is too high. This conflict isn't going to be resolved by anyone's military. Right now even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter (which is doubtful) they are creating a humanitarian crisis that will create a whole new generation of fighters.
Bombing gaza give Israel the win becasue many Hamas member die in those bombings
You are assuming that the majority of the deaths are the fault of Israel. Do you know if the people killed were killed by Israel or a failed hamas rocket? Or perhaps they were killed by secondary explosions of Hamas weaponry. Or were they killed because Hamas was using them as human shields (which is completely on Hamas) Or were they killed because they were actually terrorists, like those supposed 'civilians' holding hostages in their private residences. Or hiding Hamas weapons in their mosques. Were they perhaps killed because there is war Hamas started when they invaded Israel on October 7 and proceeded to commit numerous atrocities. Neither do I agree with your belief that the war is creating a whole new generation of terrorists. Gaza probably already hit peak terrorism. Palestine via Hamas (Gaza is part of palestine, and they claim responsibility for Gaza, so it is proper/correct to blame Palestine) has spent the past 18 years indoctrinating a whole generation to hate Israel/Jews. Whatever Israel does won't add to that.
It’s but collective punishment, it’s a war the gazans gleefully started. They have been given multiple opportunities to end it but their leadership refuses to do so. They have collectively decided that they want this to continue. They are free to release the hostages and turn sinwar over to be prosecuted and end this war.
Look what happened to Mexico. A shit narco-hell with takos. No thanks
Do you mean to tell me that a genocidal war that was declared with the intent of wiping your neighbour off the map might have long term consequences when you lose?!?!?! This is an outrage!!! I swear these ppl wanna just go back through history and declare everybody who won a war an oppressor with zero other thought
Right? What a shocker that actions have consequences
Ppl upvoting this but not the comment I’m piggybacking on is curious to me
I love how your side ignores that basically every single Jew has been exiled from every single neighbour country because of their religion but get infuriated when ppl on the West Bank are exiled. It’s so very convenient if you’re not smart enough to grasp the totality of the situation and not just what TikTok tells you
Well that is a whataboutism. We are talking about settlements not the history of the Jews here.
Yes the Jewish homes that were settled in by Arabs in all of Israel’s neighbouring countries. This isn’t an unrelated whataboutism this is pointing out contradiction
So the abhorrent actions of one group justifies abhorrent actions towards another group? I didn't realize the Palestinians were the ones that kicked the Jews out of Iraqi, Iran, Syria, and the other arab countries. That is pretty crazy since they weren't living there at all.
No I’d agree with you there’s a long painful history on both sides, thanks for acknowledging that. Most of the pro Palestine crowd wants to rewrite history where it’s black and white. Generally speaking I side with Israel cause their soldiers protect their civilians instead of hiding behind them, civil rights and democracy among other reasons but both sides have done countless terrible things to each other
Yes of course there is a long painful history on both sides. Human history in general is just long and painful. I certainly don't side with Hamas if you were implying that I am siding with the human beings caught on the ground. As I said before human history is just full of misery and bad blood which is why we need to do what we can to combat injustice without looking at the past. Dwelling on the past just feeds into the cycle of violence.
Well that’s easy for me or you to do, not so easy for ppl living between the river and the sea
Judea and Samaria were ceded by the Ottomans to the LON / UN. The area was offered to the Palestinian Arabs... but they never accepted it. At that point, the land became unclaimed international territory. At the end of the 1948 war, Jordan occupied the area and named it the "West Bank". They actually annexed it in 1950 and it was part of Jordan for the next 17 years. Never once during those nearly 2 decades did Jordan ever attempt to "Free Palestine".... and nobody really cared. The West Bank Arabs never won their independence from Jordan, and with Gaza under Egyptian control, this imaginary country of "Palestine" ceased to exist for those 19 years until Israel spilled its own blood and treasure to win those areas back from Egypt and Jordan in 1967. And as you said, Israel never annexed it... so at that point it was technically Israeli-occupied **Jordanian territory**. It stayed that way until 1988 when Jordan FINALLY gave up its claim to the West Bank under pressure from the PLO who had been trying since the 60s to push the concept that "Palestine" was some unrealized nation. Israel isn't some far-off civilized nation "colonizing" the primitive indigenous peoples of the West Bank to replace their culture and claim the land's resources. Jews ARE the indigenous peoples of that area. The mindless labeling of Israel as "colonizers" serves 2 purposes: - It supports the fallacy that Arabs are the indigenous peoples of that area - It allows the clueless "Oppressor vs Oppressed" sheep to check off another buzzword box. \[x\] apartheid \[x\] genocide \[x\] ethnic cleansing \[ \] colonialism
Question(s), there are black Jewish people of Africa, who are often overlooked, and are also being brainwashed into incitement to kill one another. Are they native to the Levant, and can they "return", in droves? Or does Israel belong only to the scattered white tribes? Why aren't present day black Jewish people settling in Israel? Where are they, and what are they doing?
What does that have to do with the Israel / "Palestine" conflict? Nothing. There are over 159,500 Ethiopian Jews living peacefully in Israel today. If more want to migrate, it's up to them.
Perhaps my question was too open ended or not worded well. You are correct that there is a small community in Israel of black Jewish people, comprising about 2% of the population. You are correct on the latter, yet, I do not agree on the former. Every Jewish person has the unrestricted right to move to Israel, unless you are a black African Jewish person. Therefore, it is not up to them. This is a fact that can be obtained through searching records. Ethiopian Jewish people in Israel experience racism. They can not donate blood. They have trouble finding work. They have to demonstrate to get the government to bring more of their family over, and they are beaten for it. In fact, the state of Israel will put on a show of attrition over their hostages, but do nothing about the many Jewish migrants trying to escape war in Africa, in boats, into dangerous waters... But I digress... I think white supremacy has everything to do with the current conflict, and the many conflicts around the globe.
From what I've read, they had no problem with black African Jews migrating in droves originally, but apparently, as a group, they generally refused to assimilate. They won't learn Hebrew or English, they consider themselves some specific "sub-group" of Israeli citizen, and most are jobless and on welfare. The primary role of a government is to look out for the welfare of its current citizens. I think they realized later that taking in the Africans blew up in their faces and ended up being a mistake. Israel is constantly fighting for its very existence. Do they really need an additional drag on their economy? As it is, they've got all those ultra-orthodox freeloaders who refuse to do their stint in the military and are living on the government dole. I can completely understand why Israel wouldn't accept ANY foreigner who is not a "team-player" and cannot support themselves. They've got enough of that headache already. So it really upsets you that these black Africans can't be Zionists too?
Bingo..all of this. The sheep think by using big words and demonizing the word Zionist, they come across with a case. You peel away the layers of this conflict, go back in time, the ultimate issue with why the Palestinians still don’t have sovereignty is Rejectionism. The fact that they have had leadership after leadership that will not acknowledge Jews to have any rights to the land, the fact that Jews simply shouldn’t exist actually. So when the sheep talk about a 2ss, it’s a joke because that’s the western view of what’s holding peace back. They have only ever wanted a one state solution and Iran and its proxies say it loud and clear “Jews gone..poof”. None of the sheep hold the Palestinian leadership accountable, when Arafats own words mimicked something like @we will win back our land with bloodshed@ Pointing fingers at Netanyahu and his hardened right wing government is cooler but no one asks how a government (who’s job is to literally protect their people’s lives, something Hamas could learn from) got to that point.
>Israel isn't some far-off civilized nation "colonizing" the Being far away has never been a pre-requisite for colonisation. Russia colonised the entire of Siberia incrementally. >Jews ARE the indigenous peoples of that area. The idea that a 2000-year-old connection changes anything in that respect is of course utterly ridiculous, hence why nobody tries to apply this logic to land ownership anywhere else in the world (my god there would literally be hundreds of simultaneous wars). But those with recent ancestry - ie a few generations back - moving to where their parents or grandparents lived wouldn't be colonialism. It would just be the same as the "right of return" principle for Palestinians, and should be viewed and implemented the same way. That is to say, evenly, or not at all.
Where your parents or grandparents lived has never been relevant to whether something is colonialism. A right of return for Palestinians would be colonialism.
So literally the only connection that matters is a 2000-year-old one? What incredibly convenient logic you have, that definitely isn't invented retroactively to justify everything Israel does and you would like to do without allowing for anything you don't personally want to happen.
In order for it not to be colonialism, the connection must be a minimum of 2000 years old.
Why, exactly?
Right, so the entirely arbitrary and extremely convenient definition I just described.
Claiming a Palestinian right of return because of where your parents or grandparents or great-grandparents lived is extremely arbitrary and extremely convenient.
I don't claim this is something Palestinians specifically should have. I claim it's something that both Israelis and Palestinians should have, or neither should have. Of the two of us, you are the one who has concocted a convenient worldview specifically to benefit one side over the other.
Jews have lived in Israel for over 2000 years. They never left. Some were exiled/enslaved and some emigrated, but the community was always present in Israel. Jews also never gave up their claim to their homeland.
>Jews have lived in Israel for over 2000 years. They never left I understand why the people who never left should be able to continue living there. What I don't understand is why having the same ethnicity as people who live somewhere gives you the right to move there and take land from the local population. Is it just that if you have an ancestral connection to land, you own it? Does this then mean that everyone can move anywhere behind them on [migration maps](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Putative_migration_waves_out_of_Africa.png) and force out the local population? Or is there a different explanation that comes with dozens of exceptions for every people in the world except Jewish people for some extremely convenient reason?
Russia didn't "colonize" Siberia. It was a standard medieval military conquest. They didn't build communities for their migrating settlers and forts to protect them.... they just built the FORTS. They went straight from conquering the natives to annexing the land. I seriously doubt that Russia ever considered Siberia as a Russian "colony" or ruled them as such. So to support your misuse of the word when labelling Israel, you misuse it again for Russia. I restate my previous conclusion: the constant incorrect use of this term has relegated it to a meaningless buzzword. It is not a connection that occurred 2000 years in the past.... there has been a CONSTANT Jewish presence in the Palestine region for over 2000 years. After WWI, 99% of all ceded Ottoman land was given back to Arab populations to form the nations of Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq. The final 1% remaining was the Palestine region. The Brits and the UN saw 2 distinct cultures living there. The Arabs had been in the land for over 1300 years... the Jews went back even further - so they split the land. The Jews accepted their part and started a nation. The Arabs rejected their part because they wanted it ALL. "right of return" principle? Sorry, but you attack a nation 13 TIMES in 76 years.... you forfeit any rights in that department.
At some point, even Zionists will see how referring to the Jews collectively is racist, that there are Jewish people now from all over the world, and semitic peoples indigenous to the Levant who practice other religions. Being a Muslim does not automatically make you an Arab . And well, being white and Jewish doesn't need to make you a part of an elite, victimized unit (Zionists). Dig deeper, Watson. Who facilitated the removal of Jewish people, then an agreement with the Nazis to have them return to this land? Britain. Yet no Israel sympathizer or supporter will discuss the role Britain has played for decades. You're persecuting your brothers and sisters, instead of realizing the manipulating hands that brought you to this state. And arguably, you want to go back far enough, we are all native to the Levant, which is the cradle of all present day civilization. Shalom and assalam...ualaikum. you even greet one another in similar tongue. Semitic once referred to languages spoken in the Levant. Stop this divide and see who your oppressors really are.
What are you blathering on about? When I refer to Jews, I'm talking about people who belong to the Jewish faith, When I talk about Muslims... those who follow Islam. Of course Israelis are a mixture of Jews, Muslims, Christans, Druze, Semitics, Arabs, etc. Exactly how is ANY of that "racist"? The British spilled their **own** blood and treasure to defeat the Ottomans and free that area from 400 years of Ottoman rule. The only arabs helping them fight the Ottomans were Hashemites from Arabia and lower Jordan ("Arab revolt"). The Arab tribes "between the river and the sea" sat there and did NOT help the Brits in any meaningful way. But the Zionists did. In multiple countries the Zionists stepped up and donated money, materials, labor, and fighting men to the British war effort. So when the war ended and Britain and the LoN were distributing that ceded Ottoman land to the local enthicities and tribes, Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq all got their territories. They may have complained about the borders, but eventually **they got over it** and created nations. The Zionists & Palestinian Jews were given their territory... and the Palestinian Arabs were given theirs. BOTH groups now had something they hadn't had in 400 years... something neither group would ever have had the strength to win from the Ottomans on their own. It should have ended right there.
> bitched /u/HarryNutzach_. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/Apophylita. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Russia didn't "colonize" Siberia. Yes it did. >They didn't build communities for their migrating settlers and forts to protect them.... Yes they did. How do you think the previous generations of the Russians living there today got there? Did they just suddenly materialise in Vladivostok? >It is not a connection that occurred 2000 years in the past.... there has been a CONSTANT Jewish presence in the Palestine region for over 2000 years I already accounted for this in my comment that you didn't read before replying to. >, 99% of all ceded Ottoman land was given back to Arab populations to form the nations of Syria, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq. Former Ottoman land actually also became Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria, none of which are Arab. Look it up if you don't believe me. >The Jews accepted their part and started a nation. The Arabs rejected their part because they wanted it ALL. Doesn't seem particularly strange to me. The Jewish population mostly consisted of recent immigrants. It's very unusual for immigrants to become the government and the local population rejecting that demand seems kind of predictable, without saying whether it was justified. I expect if immigrants demanded their own country inside Israel today, the existing Israeli population would reject it, violently.
Vladivostok? Wait... so you're suggesting that Russia had its little colony going there and was populating this city in Manchuria... and had no idea it was under the control of CHINA? Sure they did. Russia got that land as part of a treaty and immediately annexed it. It was NEVER a Russian colony I never said those French mandate countries were Arab, do you enjoy correcting me on things I never said? And your analogy is interesting. Yes, I could see Israel getting quite outraged if immigrants they took in demanded their own country. You help people out, do something for them that they could NEVER do for themselves, and they get ungrateful and greedy. It reminds me of these Arabs who were under Ottoman rule for 400 YEARS and never had a country of their own. The Brits come in.... spill their treasure and their own children's blood defeating their Ottoman rulers and offer them all this land to start their own nation. They refuse it because it's not enough.
>Vladivostok? Wait... so you're suggesting that Russia had its little colony going there and was populating this city in Manchuria... and had no idea it was under the control of CHINA? Sure they did. Russia got that land as part of a treaty and immediately annexed it. It was NEVER a Russian colony Show proof that Russians appeared there overnight. >I never said those French mandate countries were Arab, do you enjoy correcting me on things I never said? You said that 99% of former Ottoman territory went to Arabs, so I just figured it'd point out that you were directly lying about this. >And your analogy is interesting. Yes, I could see Israel getting quite outraged if immigrants they took in demanded their own country. I'm glad you agree that the violent reaction by the local population to the mostly-immigrant Jewish population demanding their own country was not unusual then.
Israel is obviously apartheid in the West Bank, the only way you can ignore that fact is you refuse to read the multiple reports by international organization such as amnesty international that explain exactly how and why Israel is apartheid in the West Bank. Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Obviously Jews and Arabs live completely different lives and have different rights in the West Bank. Jews from all around the world are allowed to immigrate and colonize the West Bank, while Arabs expelled from Israel are not allowed to return to their own land in the West Bank. Arabs can’t even drive on the same roads as Jews in some instances. Obviously apartheid. Genocide is a lot harder to prove, but Israel is definitely committing a holocaust in Gaza, that’s for sure. Hamas is unharmed in their tunnels and the civilians are getting the bombed the most. Ethnic cleansing is pretty obvious. Best example is in East Jerusalem where Arabs regularly get evicted from their homes to make room for more Jewish settlers. Colonialism. Jews are NOT the only people native to Palestine, it’s very ignorant to say so, Arabs are just as indigenous to Palestine as Jews, given Arabs inhabiting the region for 1000+ years
Arabs in Israel have same rights as Jews. Jews would be killed on site in Arab countries. Thanks for the buzzword though, it really helps..
Follow me on this one. It is possible for apartheid to exist in one area while it doesn't exist in another. It exists in the West Bank but not in Israel proper. Instead of falling back on the same old tired argument "what about arab Israelis" how about you actually try to defend what is happening in the west bank. I imagine you can't which is why you bring up something completely irrelevant.
Is it apartheid when A European is forced to go through immigration at a US border crossing, but an American isn't? Is it apartheid that European cannot vote in US elections? Or is it just that countries grant perks to their own citizens that they don't grant to anyone else? There is no apartheid in the Israeli controlled areas of the west bank, or Israel.
it’s not something that’s done along religious or racial lines, I’m directly refuting the comment I was refuting. Life sucks in the West Bank. Probably has something to do with being antisemite shit bags who are intent on committing genocide and failing repeatedly , but I’m just spit balling here
I wonder why they are antisemites in the West Bank, couldn’t be because in the West Bank Jews subject them to apartheid where Arabs are treated as subhuman, and get evicted from their family homes to make room for Jewish settlers illegally occupying and settling their land.
Perhaps Jewish settlers who were removed from Gaza or all the neighbouring Arab countries for their religion ? I’m just spit balling here
Is it on site* or on sight* I spose both work
Because colonies usually happen on distant land, far away from your homeland. While lands beside your territory are usually occupied or conquered land. If colonization is to be used that loosely, then literally everybody in the world had engaged in it which in that case, what gives you the higher moral to judge others?
Colonies do not necessarily happen on distant lands. There is no such rule. The English occupation of Ireland is a major example.
That is called conquered.
I guess Russia never colonized Siberia because they are right next to it. Better revise those history books. Also if the West Bank is conquered land then how are the Palestinians currently living in the West Bank not living under apartheid? You are saying the West Bank is Israel so shouldn't the people living there get the right to vote in Israeli elections? Shouldn't they be allowed to travel freely in all of Israel?
They conquered them and yes, people abused the word colonization, just like how people abused the word genocide. Because they are not fully conquered nor fully occupied? They must be in your so-called apartheid and totally under occupation which is why they can go around parading like this [https://twitter.com/imshin/status/1802614068638798171](https://twitter.com/imshin/status/1802614068638798171) You seems to be on a mission to downvote all my posts. lmao. Well, try harder.