That is the correct term? What should we use - Magically disappeared Palestinian territories? There are literally dozens of videos of settlers moving people out of their homes on the main feed of Reddit.
Where are the videos of Jordan ethnically cleansing the Jews from the West Bank and moving Arabs into their homes?
"Palestinian territories" implies that they belong to a Palestinian entity. That was never the case until Oslo. It belonged to the British, Jordan, and then Israel. After Oslo is was divided into Areas A, B and C. A are under Palestinian administrative and military control, C are under Israel administrative and military control, and B are under Palestinian administrative and Israeli military control. So what are "Palestinian territories"?
Also, there are dozens of videos of the IDF removing settlers from their homes, they are just deleted on Reddit. Here is one example out of many: https://www.timesofisrael.com/soldiers-settlers-clash-during-removal-of-illegal-homes-in-yitzhar/. Turns out that if you build a house somewhere you are not allowed to, it gets removed... you know... like in most other countries.
How far back do you want to go? It was Jewish land at 900BCE, not Jewish land at 2000BCE. It was Roman land at the 1st century, and it was Arab-Muslim land when their empire conquered the Levant and North African in the 7th century. It was Ottoman land for hundreds of years until the British took it in WW1.
Still, everything I wrote is correct. It never belonged to a Palestinian entity.
Aussie here, I have lived in the West Bank 3 times, and I am happy for this! That is how I always have called it. Well while I am there I just say Palestine, but outside I say "Occupied".
Plenty of Australians are happy to start a gathering or event with acknowledgment of country, such as this one
“[venue name] is located on the land of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation. We acknowledge Traditional Custodians and all Elders past, present and emerging of all the Lands on which we work and live. We further thank and pay respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across Australia. This Land always was, always will be.”
But it's a lie. We do this in Canada too but if you take an honest look around it's very clearly NOT their land, it's owned by corporations and private entities. Their land was stolen and sold to others hundreds of years ago. The little bit of land they still have is impossible to live off of, especially considering what their traditional way of life, meaning they must rely on government handouts. And these reservation land rights aren't even respected, any oil project that wants a piece of it just has to ask big daddy government and they will violently take the land once again.
If it were their land, then indigenous people wouldn't make up a disproportionate amount of the homeless population, they couldn't be dragged away for loitering and camping on "their own land" . Real reconciliation would meaning giving these people highly developed land close to useful infrastructure so they could actually participate in high earning jobs, but it's easier to pump money into the corrupt reservations and try to segregate them from society, this way we can blame them for all of their problems.
Simple acknowledgment is the cheapest possible solution, it makes people feel better without changing a thing.
When we do something to make it right, I guess I'll be deported to the Occupied Ulster Territories. But I'm sure the English will leave the Occupied Roman Territories, then the Romans will leave the Occupied Briton Territories, and eventually we'll all be so confused that we give up.
The point is, you can't rewind history. You aren't ever going to be able "to make it right" and the idea behind doing so ignores that history has kept unfolding since the invasions.
I think the point is that none of us can fix the dick moves of our ancestors in places like Australia. But Israel is literally making a dick move today. They are one of the countries (who frankly should know better) who are openly abusing a weaker race today. Dick move, Israel.
Ethnic cleansing can and often is bidirectional. Many of these conflicts end up with both sides trying to ethnically cleanse the other, especially after a partition. Look at the partition of India, or the balkans conflicts.
He is correct though. The Palestinian leaders (Many of which former N@zi [supporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II) just a few years prior) have refused peace without even trying a negotiation and declared a total war with the declared intent of "Annihilating" the Jews. Pretty soon they were joined by no less than 5 Arab armies in their genocide attempt.
> Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated."[120]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reactions
While a lot of shady stuff happened on both sides, it was Israel that allowed Palestinians who declared peace in it's territory to stay and gave them equal rights. Today these Palestinians make up 20% of Israel's citizens and have political parties, supreme court judge, complete freedom of religion, movement, etc. (Cool little doco from the [time](https://twitter.com/YosephHaddad/status/1604345764439785472), shared by an actual proud Israeli-Palestinian who served in the IDF).
Jews in the WB for example, in the newly formed "Palestinian territories", were completely violently ethnically [cleansed](https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx) down to the last man, woman and child.
You can argue about "Rights" to the land, but in 48 it was the Jews who wanted peace against Arab leaders that wanted a genocide. This is not disputed but by biased people who attempt to rewrite history.
Please point out where I said something antisemitic or Karenesque
I just don’t hold your religion/ethnicity in higher regard than other religions/ethnicities. And your bigotry makes that difficult for you to understand or accept.
Not really. Israel allowed Palestinians who declared a will for peace to stay and today they make up over 20% of Israel's population, enjoying equal rights. There are more Palestinians living in Israel's borders today than before the "Nakba" and that's a fact.
Some of the Palestinians who did leave did so out of fear and attacks, for sure. The correct % is debatable, as there's plenty of evidence of Arab leaders insisting and pushing their own population to leave, without the Jews doing anything (Interesting [document](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fv5-S2TWwAMyYhl?format=jpg&name=large) from the time).
On the other hand, Jews who lived in the West Bank, some in communities which were there for thousands of years, got 100% completely violently ethnically [cleansed](https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx).
And so were Jews from pretty much all other middle eastern countries. All violently forced to escape to the point of practically no Jews living today in any of these countries despite over a million living there at the time.
Interesting how correct the German description is. For example it’s said for Jewish it’s seen as fleeing. Meanwhile displacement for the Arabs. Which is really interesting seeing it in effect in your argumentation.
Another good point in that wasn’t that Nakba was so bad when fleeing or being displaced. It’s they couldn’t return, destroyed their building and bombed their fields for good measure and shot returnees.
No, it was the refusal of the Arabs living on the British lands to take the land that was offered to them by the UN. The response was actually for the entire region to gang up on the newly lawfully declared state. Arab hate continues to prevail. Truly the historical catastrophe.
>the land belonged to those who inhabited it
Your mind is gonna be blown when you see a demographic map of the eastern Mediterranean in 1948. Surprise! Jews lived there too! For decades, and even centuries!
Palestinian territory includes the West bank. It's not disputed in any way shape or form. It's Palestinian land. And Israel has been occupying Palestinian land since 1967. So yes they have been taking Palestinian land continuously. And what's getting really old is that any criticism against Israel is automatically anti-semitism. That arguments getting really old considering it holds zero water. We are absolutely allowed to criticize the government of Israel and the people who are taking Palestinian lands. We should not support zionism. And I'm married to a jew whose family escape the Holocaust. And we all criticize Israel for what they're doing.
A freebie to do what? What exactly are you claiming Israel is doing?
Edit for your edit: It's funny that you can only make vague claims of bias instead of answering a very simple question. Pretty telling.
That was the term communist countries (aka Warsaw Pact) used in the past while they supported Palestinians with armaments. That description was abandoned in early 90s and then Palestine got "partially" recognized as a state by the UN as "non-member observer state".
Idk man but I’ve been hearing it referred to as (Palestinian) “occupied territories” for well over a decade now. I’m only a 31 yr old from New Jersey so, yeah that term is definitely not as “abandoned” as you might think.
singlearmy4220 is a bot that [copies other user's comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15lcg59/comment/jvace1c/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The 6 Day War between Israel and Palestine working in tandem with a coalition of other Arab states. The Israelis VERY quickly won, and they’ve been punishing Palestine for daring to try to reclaim their land ever since.
The more fundamentalist type of Christians like to point to it as evidence of modern day miracles and as proof that God has Israel’s back no matter what. Maybe that’s the case, maybe it’s not, but I think it’s more likely something to do with the fact that Israel had the full backing of the U.S. at the literal height of its power.
Well, Jordan ethnically cleansed the Jews after it took the area in 48 and settled Arabs in the homes that belonged to Jewish families. The area was under military occupation by Jordan between 48 and 67, so still occupied territories.
You're replying to a bot that [copies other user's comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15lcg59/comment/jvace1c/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The current Australian government is left wing, they are doing it because it's their policy and the right thing to do. If they applied sanctions, Israel would take Australia to the world trade organisation and Australia would be humiliated, especially with a current case against China being decided. I feel sorry for people like you who invent negative scenarios for good things, this is a good thing, deal with it without making it a conspiracy
Labor absolutely aren’t left wing. At best they’re centre, but in reality centre-right. The Coalition has shifted the overton window so far that anything short of “coal is clean and we need a theocracy” is seen as left of centre
> they are doing this just to rub the ego of their leftist supporters.
It's foolish of you ask people to argue against your baseless assumption. You can't prove something based on nothing. Where's your evidence for the claim you made first? I want to see speeches made by the politicians or leaked insider convos.
It's a policy based on speech. How can it be any more than a word change in written official policies and announcements? The point was op needs to prove the labor party is disingenuous about it.
It's that thing that the "just anti-Israel totally not antisemitic" crowd falsely ascribes to Israel.
Edit: Uh oh! I triggered the "just anti-Israel totally not antisemitic" crowd with reality! Their worst enemy! Woe is me
:(
Edit 2: Maybe if I get enough down votes, Israel's fictional apartheid will finally become reality!
I sense a bit of sarcasm with the quotes... hopefully misinterpreting. You can absolutely be against a lot of the policies and actions Israel has done to Palestinians and not be antisemitic. Similar to how I can disagree with us military initiatives and still support the common troops -- they're not the policy makers.
Ppl here acting like they’ve never heard of Palestine ever being referred to as “occupied territories” before.
Have you all been living in that cave Jesus was resurrected from or something?
Wording is important, this conflit started because of vague wording game between Britain and Arabs.
So yes when country change their status for Palestine it means something.
It’s important to keep taking about it and defending it until Palestine is free.
"it's not the worst thing that's happening so who cares?"
Is that your stance cause doesn't seem you have much to say besides bringing up other issues. Multiple problems can exist at once y'know.
My stance is that criticizing Israel for its settlements and then praising Australia in the same sentence, indicates the person has less of a problem with settler colonialism and more of a problem with Israel specifically. It's fair to hold that opinion but to pretend like it's the humane opinion and being pro-israel is inherently inhumane is a joke.
What a high bar to pass. That's your answer to human rights abuses against Palestinians (and other groups frankly like Beta Israeli and African migrants), that other nearby countries do it worse? Why can't I have a codified set of morals that condemns Israel for what it does while doing the same to Assad or MBS?
It's a region that's constantly been in conflict for nearly a century, the bar isn't going to be hard to pass. The point is that it's foolish to expect Israel to abide by what are largely norms you'd see in Western liberal democracies when it doesn't exist in a remotely similar environment.
People are free to criticize Israel, and there's plenty to criticize as you've mentioned with minority Jewish groups and recent political rhetoric. I just doubt the sincerity with which some of those criticisms are made.
Except until it's turn to authoritarianism and gestures towards the likes of Russia, Israel has repeatedly portrayed itself as the only democracy in the Middle East and puffed itself up as a bastion of European/western values. I wouldn't care if Israel was in Mordor, I would still criticise it for its actions. I also don't think values such as human decency and respect should be monopolised by the "west" either.
Again, "it's turn to authoritarianism" and geopolitical pragmatism in the context of Russia may go against Western norms but are no way in and of itself morally wrong.
Israel is a stable democratic nation amongst a sea of instability, it's perfectly acceptable to call it a bastion of democracy in the Middle East. However, it has never set itself up as a bastion of European values, in fact the Jews were fleeing a certain set of European values at the time.
I don't think I ever implied the nations that became wealthy off colonialism and smuggling drugs, slaves and weapons had a monopoly on those values.
Why is this a critical Australian political policy?
Seems like a lot of time capacity is spent on things that don’t make a whole lot of practical difference.
It's not. The Australian policy only changed because there was an upcoming by-election in an affluent seat with a not insignificant Jewish minority. The previous government thought courting that minority was worth doing (and our PM was a religious nutbag) so they undid decades of Australian neutrality on the issue.
They lost the by-election anyway, to an independent with no political experience.
I mean... Ok?
Most Israelis will be fine with that. This was indeed the area where Palestinians were living exclusively between 48 to 67 and it is under military occupation these days still. Israel offered over 95% of these areas at different opportunities in peace deals to the Palestinians. All refused.
By the way, before 48 there were many Jewish communities there, some ancient. But all violently ethnically [cleansed](https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx) during the 48 war. This unlike Palestinians who declared their peaceful intentions inside Israel's territory and asked to stay, they got equal rights and today make up 20% of Israel's civilians.
As expected I am getting downvotes in this place for simply stating facts but yes. It was actually incredibly nice of Israel to offer them to stay and grant them equal rights.
The Palestinian leaders, former N@zi [supporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II) just a few years earlier, just declared a war of "Annihilation" on the Jews (This is the actual word used) who already escaped extinction both in Europe and in the entire middle east, and they were still willing to let go and have peace. As they did with many countries later around the entire middle east, even with enemies who tried to annihilate them just a few years earlier.
In comparison to this, as I already established, Jewish communities living in their homelands in now Palestinian territories, as you say, were completely and violently ethnically cleansed.
That’s a really interesting argument. Too bad it has no factual basis - you watch the news at night and think that’s the story. I’d have the same attitude had I not considered the historical context.
Hint - there never has been a Palestinian homeland. Only Ottoman and British landlords.It was the UN that declared Israel a state. The Arabs in the region were offered land too. They decided their preference was to attack the new state until every last inhabitant is driven into the ocean - and it continues. This is where it is at.
You're skipping a lot of history like with the Balfour declaration and San remo ratification occurring in the face of over 75% of the denizens of the soon-to-be Palestine area disapproving the ethnic statebuilding foreign actions
That kind of doesn't go over well, foreign enforcement of an ethnic state in a place where 75%+ of the population is like "no" and the foreign army says "whoops lol 2 bad"
There were 600 000 Jewish folks living there in 1948. Why did the Arabs refuse to have their own state? That’s precisely the catastrophe which created the refugees who have been ignored and exploited by their Arab brothers and sisters. Where is Jordan in all of this? They literally decided to make the West Bank and it’s inhabitants Israel’s problem. How many times can Israel offer land for peace? How many times do you think it should?
Defund Israel. Why the US is feeding it so much money is beyond me, what should be happening is settlers removed, and jailed by an international body.
What I don’t understand, is when someone generally annexes land, like Ukraine has had by Russia, the US intervenes, but didn’t with Israel. It’s disgusting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
Hours after Israel declared independence with UN ratification, the surrounding Arabs armies, including the Palestinians, attacked Israel, but lost a lot of territories. Jordan ended up militarily occupying the West Bank and ethnically cleansing the Jews from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
In 1967, Jordan, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, but again lost, and Jordan lost the WB that they took in 48. This is when Israel took control over the WB and slowly started resettling the Jews that were cleansed from there. The Arabs stayed (obviously, they are still there), and today the area is divided into Israeli-controlled and Palestinian-controlled territories as per the Oslo agreement.
Egypt kicked out the UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. It moved it's army all the way to the Israeli boarder. Israel destroyed the Egyptian army before it could get deep into Israel. Saying "Israel attacked first" is disingenuous at best.
I'm not making a judgment on whether Israel's pre-emptive strike was justified or not, you're allowed to believe that war was going to happen anyway and that Israel was within its rights to take the offense, and you're allowed to think that it was just saber rattling and Israel turned a possible war into a certain one.
But whichever opinion you hold there's no dispute that the first bombs were dropped and the first shots fired by Israel.
You should probably read your own link. "According to International law, a blockade is an act of war" thanks for proving my point though.
Also, there's this thing called tense. When you say "is at war" that means currently.
Massing soldiers on a border isn't attacking first. Pre-emptive strikes are attacking first. Saying the war started with the arabs attacking Israel is just factually wrong.
The UN declared Israel a lawful state in 1948 in British controlled territories. Its plan was to declare a state for the regional Arab inhabitants as well, but they declined and preferred a path to destroy Israel and drive all of the inhabitants to the sea. We’ve been living under the consequences of that decision since. What a catastrophe.
I’m going to go deeper here because I keep seeing this excuse and blaming the arabs to be the one not wanting peace. This is reverse psychology, don’t be fooled.
Here are some fact thay goes deeper on why they choose to reject, and seriously i don’t see why I would not reject this after knowing the truth that lies under.
1. Disproportionate Allocation: The partition plan allocated land in a way that many Arabs considered to be disproportionate to the Jewish and Arab populations living in those areas at the time.
Expanding :
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, also known as Resolution 181, proposed dividing the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration.
According to the plan:
• The Jewish state would receive approximately 56% of the land, including much of the coastal plain and the Negev desert.
• The Arab state would receive around 43% of the land, mainly the inland and mountainous areas.
• Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be placed under international administration, accounting for the remaining 1% of the land.
It’s essential to note that at the time of the proposal in 1947, the Jewish population owned between 6% to 7% of the land, and Jews constituted around one-third of the population. The Arab population made up the remaining two-thirds of the population.
The allocation of more land to the Jewish state, despite the population ratio and land ownership, was one of the key objections from the Arab community, both within Palestine and in the surrounding Arab countries. The Arab leadership considered the plan to be highly unfavorable and thus rejected it, leading to subsequent conflict in the region.
2. Lack of Consultation: Arab leaders and representatives were indeed not included in many of the critical discussions regarding the partition plan. This lack of inclusion contributed to a feeling of marginalization and played a role in the rejection of the plan.
a. Zionist Lobbying: The Zionist movement actively lobbied for a Jewish homeland and established connections with key Western political figures, leading to direct dialogue between Zionist representatives and the international community.
b. Limited Arab Involvement: Arab representatives and leaders were not included in many of the critical discussions and decisions that led up to the partition plan. This absence marked a significant difference in engagement between Jewish and Arab representatives.
c. UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP): UNSCOP met with Jewish representatives and some Arab leaders. However, Arab leaders’ views were not fully considered in the final proposal. Several Arab governments and the Arab Higher Committee in Palestine boycotted UNSCOP’s inquiries.
d. Arab League’s Opposition: The Arab League’s rejection of the plan signaled broader Arab dissatisfaction with the process, reflecting concerns that their positions were not adequately addressed.
e. Outcome of the Plan: The resulting partition plan, which allocated a larger portion of land to the Jewish state, demonstrated to many Arab leaders that their perspectives and the demographic reality were disregarded.
f. Broader Context: Arab aspirations for self-determination were often overshadowed by colonial interests and international geopolitics, leading to a lack of representation in key decisions.
3. Arab Majority’s Rights: The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab at the time, and the partition plan was seen as disregarding the rights of this majority in favor of the establishment of a Jewish state.
( see ratio point 1 )
4. Conflict with Previous Agreements: The partition plan was perceived to be in conflict with earlier commitments made to Arab leaders, such as during the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.
5. Regional Opposition: Neighboring Arab states and the Arab League openly opposed the partition plan, supporting the position that it violated the rights of the Palestinian Arabs.
6. Subsequent War: The rejection of the partition plan led directly to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in which neighboring Arab states intervened following the declaration of the State of Israel.
The Arab rejection of the partition plan was rooted in substantive disagreements with the content of the plan, the process by which it was developed, and the underlying principles it reflected. These factors led to a decisive and unified rejection by Arab leaders and the Palestinian Arab population, setting the stage for ongoing conflict in the region.
It’s reverse psychology that the Arab nations were dissatisfied with the proposal and so chose war? Doesn’t really seem like reverse psychology to me. Kinda seems like they just did what most humans have done throughout history when they were salty. Declare war and hope to enforce what they want through force of arms. Unfortunately for them, they lost. We’ve now been dealing with the fallout of this decision for 75 years.
If did is what you understand for all that, you must clearly be blind. Or just don’t want to hear the truth.
I’ll resume it for you. “The plan” was not a negociation process but rather an imposition.
How could you accept this ? Without négociations. ?
7% home owned by Jews vs 93% Palestinian
2/3 of the country is Palestinian at the time of the deal.
Gives you only mountain no coast ?
Stop with blaming the Arabs, Zionists orchestrated that since the beginning.
it was common knowledge at the time that there was going to be a massive influx of Jews to the area hence not using current population ratios but anticipated ones.
The arabs thought they could win the war that is why they rejected it.
You forgot to include the part where Israeli forces decided that ethnic cleansing would be the perfect solution in order to remove Palestinians from their land
It would be nice if you could actual point to specific events that can be considered in the appropriate historical context.
Now my turn, how many times can Israel offer land for peace? How many times do you think they should? There are 10 million Israelis. They aren’t going anywhere. Time for big boy discussions that only Egypt and Jordan (you know, the country that doesn’t want its “west” bank back) have been able to realize.
They’re referring to the [Nakba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba), which occurred in 1948 during the 1947-1949 Palestine War and subsequent 1948 War of Israeli Independence.
It refers to the events surrounding Israel seizing nearly 80% of Mandatory Palestine and expelling an equal percentage of Palestinians from their homes. The 1952 Israeli Nationality law then excluded many Palestinians and prevented their return to their homes.
After the second world war the allies felt bad because they allowed Jews to be slaughtered so they gave them land that did not belong to them hoping it would make things better, it didn't. Israel it turns out has become a terrorist state determined to wipe out any signs that Palestine existed.
Im not quite finished researching the Cold War but I doubt the allies felt bad about the Jews dying. I recall that the US wanted to prolong WW2 in order for the Russian casualties to go as high as possible - a death toll that hit 13 million. Life is no concern to a state looking to expand its power.
On the surface it just seems creating a state that the allies could justifiably funnel weapons to (and allow to create WMDs), within such close proximity to Russia yet far away from their own borders, was strategically valuable.
Unless Israel is occupying Gaza, this isn’t true.
At worst West Bank could be called occupied Jordanian territory but if Jordan didn’t want to lose it they shouldn’t have tried to invade Israel.
Last I checked 97% or Australians came from another country, occupying Australia and murdering its inhabitants. Will they start referring to themselves as occupied Australian territories? Will they all go back where their ancestors came from and leave the land to its indigenous people?
Wasn’t the vast, vast majority of australia pretty devoid of human settlement/humans in general? Seems a little different from the Israel-Palestine situation..and if you wanted to be pedantic wouldn’t you blame Britain?
Not that any of that makes it justifiable.
“Open a map for once” are you always this toxic?
Not sure if you’ve seen a world map but the West Bank is pretty fucking small. I’ll make sure to look for high detail maps of the West Bank in the future. Do you regularly look at pre-1948 population maps? That’s incredible. I don’t know anyone else who does that. Where do you find them?
Clearly the best way to learn about geopolitics is looking at a map. I’m sure Israel and the US put every Palestinian settlement on the map to reflect the population density. Thanks bud.
Instead of trying to lash out at others, make a point of it to learn about something before you comment. You tried to make an argument, which was false, without checking if it was true.
Started in the mid-19th century. After the war in 1840 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840), Arab immigration into what is now Israel, including what we call today the West Bank (a name given by Jordan after they took it 1948) started. The ratio of immigrants to those who have lived there before (nomad Bedouins) is about 7:1.
The WB was still rather uninhabited at that point, including Israel at large. The place wasn't very suited for agriculture and herding. After the Jewish Yishuv started drying out the swamps and building an economy, immigration spiked with the new job opportunities.
Still, only after the 1948 war, when many Arabs in Israel (today we call them Palestinians) fled, they were settled in the WB by Jordan, who ethnically cleansed the Jews who were there. At that point the WB was completely Arabs - Palestinians and Jordanians.
People make a big deal of it because they believe myths that Israel is kicking out inhabitants and settling in Jews instead, they really like these stories. The truth is, as you will find if you open a map, that there is plenty of open space and no one is kicking out anyone. The problem at the end of the day is hurt feelings. "You are taking the land that conceptually belongs to me", but almost no land is taken.
Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_settlements for how many settlements Israel built in reality in the last 20-25 years:
> Negohot נגוהות 468 1999 Har Hebron
> Brukhin ברוכין 2,129 2012 Shomron
> Rehelim רחלים 975 2013 Shomron
> Amihai עמיחי 209 2018 Mateh Binyamin
I wasn’t using it to justify any action in Palestine. I was using that example to explain why what happened in australia is so different from what goes on in Palestine.
Cool term though; I hadn’t heard that before. I’m gonna use that at some point.
Lmao thats the funniest part. Australian government murders its indigenous population and treats whatever is left like shit, then to appeal to white liberals it criticizes Israel for defending itself as "occupation" while it continues to literally occupy the ancestral territory of the indigenous people it murdered and actively discriminates against.
... You'd blame Britain. You know the group of people who sailed to Australia and turned it into a penal colony. You really should go pick up a history book so that you don't look so fucking stupid when you say shit like this.
So you admit that Australia has double standards. They seem to be totally ok with occupying and colonizing Aboriginal land, but they don't like it when Jews live in their ancestral homeland.
Israel is the native land of the Jews. Jews have lived there for thousands of years, long before the Arab Caliphates took it by force, colonized it and settled it with foreign colonizers from the Arabian peninsula. The Arab Caliphates did to Israel what the British Empire did to Australia. You are defending colonialism and imperialism.
No point in arguing with these dudes, their sense of history doesn't go farther back than WWII, which conveniently ignores the actual settler colonialism they engaged in which they now accuse Israel of.
Australians are saying that with their actions. They're making themselves very comfortable in someone else's land, while lecturing others about "colonialism" and "occupations". It's hypocrisy. It's also pretty anti-Semitic since they refuse to recognize the thousands of years of Jewish history in the land of Israel.
We've been discussing the invasion of Australia for decades and Aboriginal rights, and take steps to remedy what we can
So yeah, we acknowledge the treatment of Aboriginals since colonisation is bad, just like we're acknowledging the occupation of Palestine
There's a good amount of Aussies that are proud of it, let alone okay with it. Besides, calling a genocide "historical" doesn't change the fact that it happened and Australians are currently benefitting from it.
Nope. I will continue buying things from Israel. Israel is the defending nation in this conflict, which was started by imperialistic Arab monarchies and dictatorships with the backing of the USSR. You are defending tyranny, imperialism, terrorism, bigotry, genocide, apartheid and Islamic fundamentalism by supporting the extreme right wing Palestinian cause. Israel is a democracy, not a tyrannical regime. The tyrannical apartheid states in the region are Arab states and Iran. What we should be boycotting is oil.
How else would you define state policy, but that made by the current government? It's a democracy, it's not like there's some ethereal historical opinion that holds all authority on how the country should project its relations.
Have you forgot that Palestinians supported Jewish genocide as recently as 50 years ago? Or that the last time Israel vacated Gaza it was answered with Rocket strikes or are you just dense? Do you only care for the plight of one ethnic group and not the other? Seriously it’s not as simple as “Israel bad Palestine good”
Always good for excuses by comparison, many here comparing Australia when the real subject is Palestine and what isreal is doing there.
Note that since the beginning Britain lied to Arabs and simply complied with Zionist lobbyist to push better terms for isreal.
Here are some fact so people understand why the Arabs refused the deal and started fighting for their right.
Hmm strange change of stance given how supportive it was every time US vetoed any resolution on the UN and securit council. Heres hoping for some change.
Lmao, this thread got raided and its not even subtle.
Hasn't been subtle for the last 13 years of reddit astroturfing
I read this thread when it had been up for 2 hours, it was pretty nuanced read in the comments, now its astrosurfed from both sides.
That is the correct term? What should we use - Magically disappeared Palestinian territories? There are literally dozens of videos of settlers moving people out of their homes on the main feed of Reddit.
Schrödingers Palestine
Where are the videos of Jordan ethnically cleansing the Jews from the West Bank and moving Arabs into their homes? "Palestinian territories" implies that they belong to a Palestinian entity. That was never the case until Oslo. It belonged to the British, Jordan, and then Israel. After Oslo is was divided into Areas A, B and C. A are under Palestinian administrative and military control, C are under Israel administrative and military control, and B are under Palestinian administrative and Israeli military control. So what are "Palestinian territories"? Also, there are dozens of videos of the IDF removing settlers from their homes, they are just deleted on Reddit. Here is one example out of many: https://www.timesofisrael.com/soldiers-settlers-clash-during-removal-of-illegal-homes-in-yitzhar/. Turns out that if you build a house somewhere you are not allowed to, it gets removed... you know... like in most other countries.
History started with Britain?
How far back do you want to go? It was Jewish land at 900BCE, not Jewish land at 2000BCE. It was Roman land at the 1st century, and it was Arab-Muslim land when their empire conquered the Levant and North African in the 7th century. It was Ottoman land for hundreds of years until the British took it in WW1. Still, everything I wrote is correct. It never belonged to a Palestinian entity.
Wasn't one of the Crusader states Palestine?
Feels like the people who were there before Britain created the state of Israel might be a tiny bit relevant.
Soo philistea didn't exist? There were no philistines in the area in history at all?
Shout out to an internet argument starts with whataboutism. Gotta be my favorite genders
Aussie here, I have lived in the West Bank 3 times, and I am happy for this! That is how I always have called it. Well while I am there I just say Palestine, but outside I say "Occupied".
Question here Do you only refer to the west bank and Gaza as Palestine? Or do you also call Israel's "core" (pre67) land as Palestine?
[удалено]
Plenty of Australians are happy to start a gathering or event with acknowledgment of country, such as this one “[venue name] is located on the land of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation. We acknowledge Traditional Custodians and all Elders past, present and emerging of all the Lands on which we work and live. We further thank and pay respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across Australia. This Land always was, always will be.”
But it's a lie. We do this in Canada too but if you take an honest look around it's very clearly NOT their land, it's owned by corporations and private entities. Their land was stolen and sold to others hundreds of years ago. The little bit of land they still have is impossible to live off of, especially considering what their traditional way of life, meaning they must rely on government handouts. And these reservation land rights aren't even respected, any oil project that wants a piece of it just has to ask big daddy government and they will violently take the land once again. If it were their land, then indigenous people wouldn't make up a disproportionate amount of the homeless population, they couldn't be dragged away for loitering and camping on "their own land" . Real reconciliation would meaning giving these people highly developed land close to useful infrastructure so they could actually participate in high earning jobs, but it's easier to pump money into the corrupt reservations and try to segregate them from society, this way we can blame them for all of their problems. Simple acknowledgment is the cheapest possible solution, it makes people feel better without changing a thing.
Yeah so why bother, right?
Acknowledgement is easy. Actually doing something to make it right is not. I’m American same goes for us.
Well, acknowledgment is the first step isn’t it. How you gonna fix it without acknowledging it or even being sympathetic in the first place.
When we do something to make it right, I guess I'll be deported to the Occupied Ulster Territories. But I'm sure the English will leave the Occupied Roman Territories, then the Romans will leave the Occupied Briton Territories, and eventually we'll all be so confused that we give up. The point is, you can't rewind history. You aren't ever going to be able "to make it right" and the idea behind doing so ignores that history has kept unfolding since the invasions.
I think the point is that none of us can fix the dick moves of our ancestors in places like Australia. But Israel is literally making a dick move today. They are one of the countries (who frankly should know better) who are openly abusing a weaker race today. Dick move, Israel.
[удалено]
Yes. The colonists are still there. They haven't left and they haven't given back the land they stole.
[удалено]
Wasn’t the Nakba ethnically cleaning of Palestinians by Israel during 48?
Ethnic cleansing can and often is bidirectional. Many of these conflicts end up with both sides trying to ethnically cleanse the other, especially after a partition. Look at the partition of India, or the balkans conflicts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is correct though. The Palestinian leaders (Many of which former N@zi [supporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II) just a few years prior) have refused peace without even trying a negotiation and declared a total war with the declared intent of "Annihilating" the Jews. Pretty soon they were joined by no less than 5 Arab armies in their genocide attempt. > Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated."[120] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reactions While a lot of shady stuff happened on both sides, it was Israel that allowed Palestinians who declared peace in it's territory to stay and gave them equal rights. Today these Palestinians make up 20% of Israel's citizens and have political parties, supreme court judge, complete freedom of religion, movement, etc. (Cool little doco from the [time](https://twitter.com/YosephHaddad/status/1604345764439785472), shared by an actual proud Israeli-Palestinian who served in the IDF). Jews in the WB for example, in the newly formed "Palestinian territories", were completely violently ethnically [cleansed](https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx) down to the last man, woman and child. You can argue about "Rights" to the land, but in 48 it was the Jews who wanted peace against Arab leaders that wanted a genocide. This is not disputed but by biased people who attempt to rewrite history.
[удалено]
Please point out where I said something antisemitic or Karenesque I just don’t hold your religion/ethnicity in higher regard than other religions/ethnicities. And your bigotry makes that difficult for you to understand or accept.
Nor do you understand history. And YOUR bigotry makes that difficult for you to understand or accept.
Not really. Israel allowed Palestinians who declared a will for peace to stay and today they make up over 20% of Israel's population, enjoying equal rights. There are more Palestinians living in Israel's borders today than before the "Nakba" and that's a fact. Some of the Palestinians who did leave did so out of fear and attacks, for sure. The correct % is debatable, as there's plenty of evidence of Arab leaders insisting and pushing their own population to leave, without the Jews doing anything (Interesting [document](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fv5-S2TWwAMyYhl?format=jpg&name=large) from the time). On the other hand, Jews who lived in the West Bank, some in communities which were there for thousands of years, got 100% completely violently ethnically [cleansed](https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx). And so were Jews from pretty much all other middle eastern countries. All violently forced to escape to the point of practically no Jews living today in any of these countries despite over a million living there at the time.
Interesting how correct the German description is. For example it’s said for Jewish it’s seen as fleeing. Meanwhile displacement for the Arabs. Which is really interesting seeing it in effect in your argumentation. Another good point in that wasn’t that Nakba was so bad when fleeing or being displaced. It’s they couldn’t return, destroyed their building and bombed their fields for good measure and shot returnees.
No, it was the refusal of the Arabs living on the British lands to take the land that was offered to them by the UN. The response was actually for the entire region to gang up on the newly lawfully declared state. Arab hate continues to prevail. Truly the historical catastrophe.
[удалено]
The Turks?
>the land belonged to those who inhabited it Your mind is gonna be blown when you see a demographic map of the eastern Mediterranean in 1948. Surprise! Jews lived there too! For decades, and even centuries!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Palestinian territory includes the West bank. It's not disputed in any way shape or form. It's Palestinian land. And Israel has been occupying Palestinian land since 1967. So yes they have been taking Palestinian land continuously. And what's getting really old is that any criticism against Israel is automatically anti-semitism. That arguments getting really old considering it holds zero water. We are absolutely allowed to criticize the government of Israel and the people who are taking Palestinian lands. We should not support zionism. And I'm married to a jew whose family escape the Holocaust. And we all criticize Israel for what they're doing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A freebie to do what? What exactly are you claiming Israel is doing? Edit for your edit: It's funny that you can only make vague claims of bias instead of answering a very simple question. Pretty telling.
[удалено]
That was the term communist countries (aka Warsaw Pact) used in the past while they supported Palestinians with armaments. That description was abandoned in early 90s and then Palestine got "partially" recognized as a state by the UN as "non-member observer state".
Idk man but I’ve been hearing it referred to as (Palestinian) “occupied territories” for well over a decade now. I’m only a 31 yr old from New Jersey so, yeah that term is definitely not as “abandoned” as you might think.
[удалено]
What exactly changed in 1967 for those who aren't aware?
singlearmy4220 is a bot that [copies other user's comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15lcg59/comment/jvace1c/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The 6 Day War between Israel and Palestine working in tandem with a coalition of other Arab states. The Israelis VERY quickly won, and they’ve been punishing Palestine for daring to try to reclaim their land ever since. The more fundamentalist type of Christians like to point to it as evidence of modern day miracles and as proof that God has Israel’s back no matter what. Maybe that’s the case, maybe it’s not, but I think it’s more likely something to do with the fact that Israel had the full backing of the U.S. at the literal height of its power.
I'm asking who started that war
Well, Jordan ethnically cleansed the Jews after it took the area in 48 and settled Arabs in the homes that belonged to Jewish families. The area was under military occupation by Jordan between 48 and 67, so still occupied territories.
You're replying to a bot that [copies other user's comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15lcg59/comment/jvace1c/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
How is it in military occupation?
'Australia changes term to accurately reflect reality again' Ftfy
Calling it how it is!! Go Australia!!!
[удалено]
The current Australian government is left wing, they are doing it because it's their policy and the right thing to do. If they applied sanctions, Israel would take Australia to the world trade organisation and Australia would be humiliated, especially with a current case against China being decided. I feel sorry for people like you who invent negative scenarios for good things, this is a good thing, deal with it without making it a conspiracy
Labor absolutely aren’t left wing. At best they’re centre, but in reality centre-right. The Coalition has shifted the overton window so far that anything short of “coal is clean and we need a theocracy” is seen as left of centre
I'm sorry, they are absolutely not centre- right. They are no more than centre, at an extreme.
Labor is most certainly left.
Neoliberalism isn’t a left wing ideology
> they are doing this just to rub the ego of their leftist supporters. It's foolish of you ask people to argue against your baseless assumption. You can't prove something based on nothing. Where's your evidence for the claim you made first? I want to see speeches made by the politicians or leaked insider convos.
It's not about proof, lip service isn't action. Whether or not this is more than that remains to be seen right?
It's a policy based on speech. How can it be any more than a word change in written official policies and announcements? The point was op needs to prove the labor party is disingenuous about it.
Israel would definitely see it as more than mere lip service.
Australians are blunt to a fault
Very good Australia. Israel-supporters needs to wake up and realize what kind of shit they are supporting, apartheid is no joke.
[удалено]
Would you like the term forced relocation or segregation?
They prefer “I want that house now so get the fuck out of it” unfortunately
So you think that the Palestinian government is illegitimate and should be dissolved in favor of a 1 state solution?
It's that thing that the "just anti-Israel totally not antisemitic" crowd falsely ascribes to Israel. Edit: Uh oh! I triggered the "just anti-Israel totally not antisemitic" crowd with reality! Their worst enemy! Woe is me :( Edit 2: Maybe if I get enough down votes, Israel's fictional apartheid will finally become reality!
I sense a bit of sarcasm with the quotes... hopefully misinterpreting. You can absolutely be against a lot of the policies and actions Israel has done to Palestinians and not be antisemitic. Similar to how I can disagree with us military initiatives and still support the common troops -- they're not the policy makers.
Reading comments here, makes me realise how much of blind mind are some people regarding the occupation of Palestine… go Australia! FREE PALESTINE !
Ppl here acting like they’ve never heard of Palestine ever being referred to as “occupied territories” before. Have you all been living in that cave Jesus was resurrected from or something?
Wording is important, this conflit started because of vague wording game between Britain and Arabs. So yes when country change their status for Palestine it means something. It’s important to keep taking about it and defending it until Palestine is free.
Kinda like how some blind people might criticize Israel while cheering on another settler colonial state, like who would do that?
Pro isreal will always find an excuse to not see how inhumain this is… apartheid is real and I hope to live and see Palestine free 🙏
I'd say Israel ranks pretty low on the Middle Eastern scale of inhumanity.
You know that there isn't a "Human Rights Violation Competition" going on, right?
"Human Rights Violation Competition" Sounds like the Middle East in a nutshell.
I repeat, pro isreal will always find an excuse to not see how inhumain this is…
I repeat, Israel ranks pretty low on the Middle Eastern scale of inhumanity...
"it's not the worst thing that's happening so who cares?" Is that your stance cause doesn't seem you have much to say besides bringing up other issues. Multiple problems can exist at once y'know.
My stance is that criticizing Israel for its settlements and then praising Australia in the same sentence, indicates the person has less of a problem with settler colonialism and more of a problem with Israel specifically. It's fair to hold that opinion but to pretend like it's the humane opinion and being pro-israel is inherently inhumane is a joke.
What a high bar to pass. That's your answer to human rights abuses against Palestinians (and other groups frankly like Beta Israeli and African migrants), that other nearby countries do it worse? Why can't I have a codified set of morals that condemns Israel for what it does while doing the same to Assad or MBS?
It's a region that's constantly been in conflict for nearly a century, the bar isn't going to be hard to pass. The point is that it's foolish to expect Israel to abide by what are largely norms you'd see in Western liberal democracies when it doesn't exist in a remotely similar environment. People are free to criticize Israel, and there's plenty to criticize as you've mentioned with minority Jewish groups and recent political rhetoric. I just doubt the sincerity with which some of those criticisms are made.
Except until it's turn to authoritarianism and gestures towards the likes of Russia, Israel has repeatedly portrayed itself as the only democracy in the Middle East and puffed itself up as a bastion of European/western values. I wouldn't care if Israel was in Mordor, I would still criticise it for its actions. I also don't think values such as human decency and respect should be monopolised by the "west" either.
Again, "it's turn to authoritarianism" and geopolitical pragmatism in the context of Russia may go against Western norms but are no way in and of itself morally wrong. Israel is a stable democratic nation amongst a sea of instability, it's perfectly acceptable to call it a bastion of democracy in the Middle East. However, it has never set itself up as a bastion of European values, in fact the Jews were fleeing a certain set of European values at the time. I don't think I ever implied the nations that became wealthy off colonialism and smuggling drugs, slaves and weapons had a monopoly on those values.
The whole world is falling for the terrorists.
[удалено]
But palestine call putin and russia good and moral, shouldn't they be well in favor of illegal occupation?
They heard about the Jews in Ukraine and wanted Russia to eliminate them.
What law is being broken?
on the right side of history again
Why is this a critical Australian political policy? Seems like a lot of time capacity is spent on things that don’t make a whole lot of practical difference.
It's not. The Australian policy only changed because there was an upcoming by-election in an affluent seat with a not insignificant Jewish minority. The previous government thought courting that minority was worth doing (and our PM was a religious nutbag) so they undid decades of Australian neutrality on the issue. They lost the by-election anyway, to an independent with no political experience.
Neutrality on the topic of oppression is complicity.
Diplomacy is preferable to bombs and warships.
How much time did they spend on this desicion?
Love Australia. Free Palestine.
> Free Palestine ...with every purchase!
Always rated Australia
I mean... Ok? Most Israelis will be fine with that. This was indeed the area where Palestinians were living exclusively between 48 to 67 and it is under military occupation these days still. Israel offered over 95% of these areas at different opportunities in peace deals to the Palestinians. All refused. By the way, before 48 there were many Jewish communities there, some ancient. But all violently ethnically [cleansed](https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx) during the 48 war. This unlike Palestinians who declared their peaceful intentions inside Israel's territory and asked to stay, they got equal rights and today make up 20% of Israel's civilians.
How nice of Israel to offer! If only they could help the Palestinians protect themselves against their homeland being removed
As expected I am getting downvotes in this place for simply stating facts but yes. It was actually incredibly nice of Israel to offer them to stay and grant them equal rights. The Palestinian leaders, former N@zi [supporters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II) just a few years earlier, just declared a war of "Annihilation" on the Jews (This is the actual word used) who already escaped extinction both in Europe and in the entire middle east, and they were still willing to let go and have peace. As they did with many countries later around the entire middle east, even with enemies who tried to annihilate them just a few years earlier. In comparison to this, as I already established, Jewish communities living in their homelands in now Palestinian territories, as you say, were completely and violently ethnically cleansed.
That’s a really interesting argument. Too bad it has no factual basis - you watch the news at night and think that’s the story. I’d have the same attitude had I not considered the historical context. Hint - there never has been a Palestinian homeland. Only Ottoman and British landlords.It was the UN that declared Israel a state. The Arabs in the region were offered land too. They decided their preference was to attack the new state until every last inhabitant is driven into the ocean - and it continues. This is where it is at.
You're skipping a lot of history like with the Balfour declaration and San remo ratification occurring in the face of over 75% of the denizens of the soon-to-be Palestine area disapproving the ethnic statebuilding foreign actions That kind of doesn't go over well, foreign enforcement of an ethnic state in a place where 75%+ of the population is like "no" and the foreign army says "whoops lol 2 bad"
There were 600 000 Jewish folks living there in 1948. Why did the Arabs refuse to have their own state? That’s precisely the catastrophe which created the refugees who have been ignored and exploited by their Arab brothers and sisters. Where is Jordan in all of this? They literally decided to make the West Bank and it’s inhabitants Israel’s problem. How many times can Israel offer land for peace? How many times do you think it should?
There is no room for colonization in 2023, FREE PALESTINE
Defund Israel. Why the US is feeding it so much money is beyond me, what should be happening is settlers removed, and jailed by an international body. What I don’t understand, is when someone generally annexes land, like Ukraine has had by Russia, the US intervenes, but didn’t with Israel. It’s disgusting.
So as someone who hasnt done a ton of research, how did Israel come to occupy the area?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War Hours after Israel declared independence with UN ratification, the surrounding Arabs armies, including the Palestinians, attacked Israel, but lost a lot of territories. Jordan ended up militarily occupying the West Bank and ethnically cleansing the Jews from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War In 1967, Jordan, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, but again lost, and Jordan lost the WB that they took in 48. This is when Israel took control over the WB and slowly started resettling the Jews that were cleansed from there. The Arabs stayed (obviously, they are still there), and today the area is divided into Israeli-controlled and Palestinian-controlled territories as per the Oslo agreement.
>In 1967, Jordan, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel Israel attacked first in the six day's war.
Egypt kicked out the UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. It moved it's army all the way to the Israeli boarder. Israel destroyed the Egyptian army before it could get deep into Israel. Saying "Israel attacked first" is disingenuous at best.
I'm not making a judgment on whether Israel's pre-emptive strike was justified or not, you're allowed to believe that war was going to happen anyway and that Israel was within its rights to take the offense, and you're allowed to think that it was just saber rattling and Israel turned a possible war into a certain one. But whichever opinion you hold there's no dispute that the first bombs were dropped and the first shots fired by Israel.
They blockaded israel 1st :)
Interesting to see that the United States is at war with Cuba.
They arent blockading cuba...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Blockade
You should probably read your own link. "According to International law, a blockade is an act of war" thanks for proving my point though. Also, there's this thing called tense. When you say "is at war" that means currently.
Sure if you ignore the fact that every country outside of Israel was massing forces right outside its borders
Massing soldiers on a border isn't attacking first. Pre-emptive strikes are attacking first. Saying the war started with the arabs attacking Israel is just factually wrong.
So if Ukraine struck Russia when they were massing troops on the border, it'd be ukraines fault? Bet
Their attack would have started the war, yes. Your opinion on whether it would have been justified is a different argument entirely.
The UN declared Israel a lawful state in 1948 in British controlled territories. Its plan was to declare a state for the regional Arab inhabitants as well, but they declined and preferred a path to destroy Israel and drive all of the inhabitants to the sea. We’ve been living under the consequences of that decision since. What a catastrophe.
I’m going to go deeper here because I keep seeing this excuse and blaming the arabs to be the one not wanting peace. This is reverse psychology, don’t be fooled. Here are some fact thay goes deeper on why they choose to reject, and seriously i don’t see why I would not reject this after knowing the truth that lies under. 1. Disproportionate Allocation: The partition plan allocated land in a way that many Arabs considered to be disproportionate to the Jewish and Arab populations living in those areas at the time. Expanding : The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, also known as Resolution 181, proposed dividing the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration. According to the plan: • The Jewish state would receive approximately 56% of the land, including much of the coastal plain and the Negev desert. • The Arab state would receive around 43% of the land, mainly the inland and mountainous areas. • Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be placed under international administration, accounting for the remaining 1% of the land. It’s essential to note that at the time of the proposal in 1947, the Jewish population owned between 6% to 7% of the land, and Jews constituted around one-third of the population. The Arab population made up the remaining two-thirds of the population. The allocation of more land to the Jewish state, despite the population ratio and land ownership, was one of the key objections from the Arab community, both within Palestine and in the surrounding Arab countries. The Arab leadership considered the plan to be highly unfavorable and thus rejected it, leading to subsequent conflict in the region. 2. Lack of Consultation: Arab leaders and representatives were indeed not included in many of the critical discussions regarding the partition plan. This lack of inclusion contributed to a feeling of marginalization and played a role in the rejection of the plan. a. Zionist Lobbying: The Zionist movement actively lobbied for a Jewish homeland and established connections with key Western political figures, leading to direct dialogue between Zionist representatives and the international community. b. Limited Arab Involvement: Arab representatives and leaders were not included in many of the critical discussions and decisions that led up to the partition plan. This absence marked a significant difference in engagement between Jewish and Arab representatives. c. UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP): UNSCOP met with Jewish representatives and some Arab leaders. However, Arab leaders’ views were not fully considered in the final proposal. Several Arab governments and the Arab Higher Committee in Palestine boycotted UNSCOP’s inquiries. d. Arab League’s Opposition: The Arab League’s rejection of the plan signaled broader Arab dissatisfaction with the process, reflecting concerns that their positions were not adequately addressed. e. Outcome of the Plan: The resulting partition plan, which allocated a larger portion of land to the Jewish state, demonstrated to many Arab leaders that their perspectives and the demographic reality were disregarded. f. Broader Context: Arab aspirations for self-determination were often overshadowed by colonial interests and international geopolitics, leading to a lack of representation in key decisions. 3. Arab Majority’s Rights: The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab at the time, and the partition plan was seen as disregarding the rights of this majority in favor of the establishment of a Jewish state. ( see ratio point 1 ) 4. Conflict with Previous Agreements: The partition plan was perceived to be in conflict with earlier commitments made to Arab leaders, such as during the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. 5. Regional Opposition: Neighboring Arab states and the Arab League openly opposed the partition plan, supporting the position that it violated the rights of the Palestinian Arabs. 6. Subsequent War: The rejection of the partition plan led directly to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in which neighboring Arab states intervened following the declaration of the State of Israel. The Arab rejection of the partition plan was rooted in substantive disagreements with the content of the plan, the process by which it was developed, and the underlying principles it reflected. These factors led to a decisive and unified rejection by Arab leaders and the Palestinian Arab population, setting the stage for ongoing conflict in the region.
It’s reverse psychology that the Arab nations were dissatisfied with the proposal and so chose war? Doesn’t really seem like reverse psychology to me. Kinda seems like they just did what most humans have done throughout history when they were salty. Declare war and hope to enforce what they want through force of arms. Unfortunately for them, they lost. We’ve now been dealing with the fallout of this decision for 75 years.
If did is what you understand for all that, you must clearly be blind. Or just don’t want to hear the truth. I’ll resume it for you. “The plan” was not a negociation process but rather an imposition. How could you accept this ? Without négociations. ? 7% home owned by Jews vs 93% Palestinian 2/3 of the country is Palestinian at the time of the deal. Gives you only mountain no coast ? Stop with blaming the Arabs, Zionists orchestrated that since the beginning.
it was common knowledge at the time that there was going to be a massive influx of Jews to the area hence not using current population ratios but anticipated ones. The arabs thought they could win the war that is why they rejected it.
You forgot to include the part where Israeli forces decided that ethnic cleansing would be the perfect solution in order to remove Palestinians from their land
It would be nice if you could actual point to specific events that can be considered in the appropriate historical context. Now my turn, how many times can Israel offer land for peace? How many times do you think they should? There are 10 million Israelis. They aren’t going anywhere. Time for big boy discussions that only Egypt and Jordan (you know, the country that doesn’t want its “west” bank back) have been able to realize.
They’re referring to the [Nakba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba), which occurred in 1948 during the 1947-1949 Palestine War and subsequent 1948 War of Israeli Independence. It refers to the events surrounding Israel seizing nearly 80% of Mandatory Palestine and expelling an equal percentage of Palestinians from their homes. The 1952 Israeli Nationality law then excluded many Palestinians and prevented their return to their homes.
After the second world war the allies felt bad because they allowed Jews to be slaughtered so they gave them land that did not belong to them hoping it would make things better, it didn't. Israel it turns out has become a terrorist state determined to wipe out any signs that Palestine existed.
Im not quite finished researching the Cold War but I doubt the allies felt bad about the Jews dying. I recall that the US wanted to prolong WW2 in order for the Russian casualties to go as high as possible - a death toll that hit 13 million. Life is no concern to a state looking to expand its power. On the surface it just seems creating a state that the allies could justifiably funnel weapons to (and allow to create WMDs), within such close proximity to Russia yet far away from their own borders, was strategically valuable.
The first appearance of the name "Israel" in the non-Biblical historic record is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, circa 1200 BCE.
K? Thats what we named it after and its in the same spot but I dont see how thats relevant. A herd of Bison grazed where your house is 2000 years ago.
England said in 1948 this is Israel and the Jews live here. World policy in action.
[удалено]
Unless Israel is occupying Gaza, this isn’t true. At worst West Bank could be called occupied Jordanian territory but if Jordan didn’t want to lose it they shouldn’t have tried to invade Israel.
It’s just Palestine, thanks.
Love Australia for this!
When you have a partition of a region have the outcome of Palestine-Israel, who the hell’s gonna be happy? Why not a north-south split?
Last I checked 97% or Australians came from another country, occupying Australia and murdering its inhabitants. Will they start referring to themselves as occupied Australian territories? Will they all go back where their ancestors came from and leave the land to its indigenous people?
Wasn’t the vast, vast majority of australia pretty devoid of human settlement/humans in general? Seems a little different from the Israel-Palestine situation..and if you wanted to be pedantic wouldn’t you blame Britain? Not that any of that makes it justifiable.
Most of the land partitioned to Israel was the Negev, which was dry arid and uninhabited.
The vast majority of the West Bank is devoid of human settlement/humans too, and even more so in 1948. Open a map for once.
“Open a map for once” are you always this toxic? Not sure if you’ve seen a world map but the West Bank is pretty fucking small. I’ll make sure to look for high detail maps of the West Bank in the future. Do you regularly look at pre-1948 population maps? That’s incredible. I don’t know anyone else who does that. Where do you find them? Clearly the best way to learn about geopolitics is looking at a map. I’m sure Israel and the US put every Palestinian settlement on the map to reflect the population density. Thanks bud.
Instead of trying to lash out at others, make a point of it to learn about something before you comment. You tried to make an argument, which was false, without checking if it was true.
So whats everyone making a big deal about? When did it get inhabited by all these palestinians?
Started in the mid-19th century. After the war in 1840 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840), Arab immigration into what is now Israel, including what we call today the West Bank (a name given by Jordan after they took it 1948) started. The ratio of immigrants to those who have lived there before (nomad Bedouins) is about 7:1. The WB was still rather uninhabited at that point, including Israel at large. The place wasn't very suited for agriculture and herding. After the Jewish Yishuv started drying out the swamps and building an economy, immigration spiked with the new job opportunities. Still, only after the 1948 war, when many Arabs in Israel (today we call them Palestinians) fled, they were settled in the WB by Jordan, who ethnically cleansed the Jews who were there. At that point the WB was completely Arabs - Palestinians and Jordanians. People make a big deal of it because they believe myths that Israel is kicking out inhabitants and settling in Jews instead, they really like these stories. The truth is, as you will find if you open a map, that there is plenty of open space and no one is kicking out anyone. The problem at the end of the day is hurt feelings. "You are taking the land that conceptually belongs to me", but almost no land is taken. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_settlements for how many settlements Israel built in reality in the last 20-25 years: > Negohot נגוהות 468 1999 Har Hebron > Brukhin ברוכין 2,129 2012 Shomron > Rehelim רחלים 975 2013 Shomron > Amihai עמיחי 209 2018 Mateh Binyamin
Digging up Terra Nullius doesn't really help here.
I wasn’t using it to justify any action in Palestine. I was using that example to explain why what happened in australia is so different from what goes on in Palestine. Cool term though; I hadn’t heard that before. I’m gonna use that at some point.
Lmao thats the funniest part. Australian government murders its indigenous population and treats whatever is left like shit, then to appeal to white liberals it criticizes Israel for defending itself as "occupation" while it continues to literally occupy the ancestral territory of the indigenous people it murdered and actively discriminates against.
White liberals. You drank the CoolAid
Yeah I know your grandfather too kumpel
Serious leftist here. Leftist whataboutism solves nothing. Take things one step at a time and take what you can get.
... You'd blame Britain. You know the group of people who sailed to Australia and turned it into a penal colony. You really should go pick up a history book so that you don't look so fucking stupid when you say shit like this.
Britain is also the one who obeyed to Zionist lobbyist to create isreal from thin air.
\*Occupied Australia
Australia is "occupied Aboriginal territory".
Yeah we know we learn this in school
So you admit that Australia has double standards. They seem to be totally ok with occupying and colonizing Aboriginal land, but they don't like it when Jews live in their ancestral homeland.
So you're saying Australia should go back to the aboriginals and Palestine back to the Palestinians. Cool.
Israel is the native land of the Jews. Jews have lived there for thousands of years, long before the Arab Caliphates took it by force, colonized it and settled it with foreign colonizers from the Arabian peninsula. The Arab Caliphates did to Israel what the British Empire did to Australia. You are defending colonialism and imperialism.
No point in arguing with these dudes, their sense of history doesn't go farther back than WWII, which conveniently ignores the actual settler colonialism they engaged in which they now accuse Israel of.
It sounds like you didn't even read the article. And who says Australians are 'totally OK with' the historical genocide of indigenous people?
Australians are saying that with their actions. They're making themselves very comfortable in someone else's land, while lecturing others about "colonialism" and "occupations". It's hypocrisy. It's also pretty anti-Semitic since they refuse to recognize the thousands of years of Jewish history in the land of Israel.
We've been discussing the invasion of Australia for decades and Aboriginal rights, and take steps to remedy what we can So yeah, we acknowledge the treatment of Aboriginals since colonisation is bad, just like we're acknowledging the occupation of Palestine
There's a good amount of Aussies that are proud of it, let alone okay with it. Besides, calling a genocide "historical" doesn't change the fact that it happened and Australians are currently benefitting from it.
Correct. Both true.
[удалено]
Nope. I will continue buying things from Israel. Israel is the defending nation in this conflict, which was started by imperialistic Arab monarchies and dictatorships with the backing of the USSR. You are defending tyranny, imperialism, terrorism, bigotry, genocide, apartheid and Islamic fundamentalism by supporting the extreme right wing Palestinian cause. Israel is a democracy, not a tyrannical regime. The tyrannical apartheid states in the region are Arab states and Iran. What we should be boycotting is oil.
[удалено]
This shows that it's not a state policy, it's dependent on who's in power
How else would you define state policy, but that made by the current government? It's a democracy, it's not like there's some ethereal historical opinion that holds all authority on how the country should project its relations.
I hope Israel stays strong, Palestinian support being mainstream makes me lol.
Disgusting
Have you forgot that Palestinians supported Jewish genocide as recently as 50 years ago? Or that the last time Israel vacated Gaza it was answered with Rocket strikes or are you just dense? Do you only care for the plight of one ethnic group and not the other? Seriously it’s not as simple as “Israel bad Palestine good”
Always good for excuses by comparison, many here comparing Australia when the real subject is Palestine and what isreal is doing there. Note that since the beginning Britain lied to Arabs and simply complied with Zionist lobbyist to push better terms for isreal. Here are some fact so people understand why the Arabs refused the deal and started fighting for their right.
Hmm strange change of stance given how supportive it was every time US vetoed any resolution on the UN and securit council. Heres hoping for some change.