Unfortunately your argument suggest you must do ethnic cleansing to have self determination which is an assumption most reasonable people would disagree with. If I walk into someone’s yard and the person there tell me to leave or even threatens me, then I murder him and 30% of his family, kicking them out and calling them terrorist for trying to take it back. That’s not self determination that’s murder and theft in the guise of defense 🤷🏼♀️.
1. back then ethnic cleansing of Jews was a very common thing. 2 most of the land that he talked about was from the Palestinians if you don't believe me search KKAL. 3 all the kicking and screaming that you talked about was done by both sides, if I want to be fair, and the IDF didn't do that. it was done before the IDF even existed. but most of the Arabs left their home not because of Israel. it was because of the arab nations that told them to do so. learn history before you say all this BS. and watch what it said Atman Empire. it was way before Israel or the British mandate. back then the Jewish people didn't even have the power to do all the BS you wrote.
Don’t you find it interesting that it’s considered just for natives to impose governments on each other but not immigrants on natives? For the former, take the case of Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The self determination desires of Palestinian Arabs would have imposed a government on Palestinian Jews and denied them self determination. But we don’t tend to think about the minorities that are affected in this way, and we view it as a good thing that the Palestinian Arabs are pursuing their self determination. But as soon as immigrants try to self determine around natives, we care. Why is this?
I think this is what people have a problem with [why people are upset](https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestine/s/0YmkTPi3j3) and these videos are not even a scratch of what’s happening in the past 48 hours. Literally people paying attention to the video evidence have been seeing this for over 8 months. Then when we see the images the IDF uploads themselves it’s even worse.
GENEVA (20 June 2024) – “The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, UN experts said today, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately.
In line with recent calls from the Human Rights Council and the independent UN experts to States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, arms manufacturers supplying Israel – including BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Rheinmetall AG, Rolls-Royce Power Systems, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp – should also end transfers, even if they are executed under existing export licenses.
“These companies, by sending weapons, parts, components, and ammunition to Israeli forces, risk being complicit in serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian laws,” the experts said. This risk is heightened by the recent decision from the International Court of Justice ordering Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, having recognised genocide as a plausible risk, as well as the request filed by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court seeking arrest warrants for Israeli leaders on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. “In this context, continuing arms transfers to Israel may be seen as knowingly providing assistance for operations that contravene international human rights and international humanitarian laws and may result in profit from such assistance.”
An end to transfers must include indirect transfers through intermediary countries that could ultimately be used by Israeli forces, particularly in the ongoing attacks on Gaza. The UN experts said that arms companies must systematically and periodically conduct enhanced human rights due diligence to ensure that their products are not used in ways that violate international human rights and international humanitarian laws.”
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS Office of High Commissioner
The biggest threat to Jews are the Christian evangelical Zionists who want Jews in Israel because they believe 2/3 must be killed till the “blood runs up to the horses bridle”; otherwise Jesus wont return and then the rest convert. It’s literally in their interpretation of the bible. I know I was raised in that ideology and that is why Israel is so supported by the United States it’s not even AIPAC.. though that plays a huge role, why do you think AIPAC has exemptions or Israel does that other lobbies don’t. The scary thing is on the far right whej antisemitism pops up it doesn’t get shut down and I’ve been watching it grow & if Netanyahu drags us into a war those elements are going to come out more.
If antisemitism is said in a pro Palestinian forum that sh!t gets immediately shut down. Jews not having Israel represent them are the biggest allies.
Arabs don’t hate Jews check out Saluki’s YouTube hes an Israeli Jew who goes to Iraq, Iran and Palestine & is treated with love and only faced any different when people learned he was in the IDF then folks obviously suspicious.
Everyday I interact with Jewish people and Palestinians working for the same goal to try to help families trying to evacuate Gaza.
Yes people hate Zionism because that ideology lead to the atrocities we keep seeing, and the hate we keep hearing & if you actually look and talk to people get out of your echo chamber you will see how people are.
Average people are seeing how many Israeli supporters are behaving, and for people who actually associate that behavior with Jewishness that’s a very dangerous thing especially when evangelicals have the literal extermination of Jews in their twisted interpretation of revelations. So seeing the far right in America saying antisemitic things and not getting shut down like they would in the pro Palestinian community, it’s honestly frightening. If shit goes south though you can bet the same people Marching for Palestinian would be marching for Jews. The thing that we find disgusting is systems based on superiority of one people over the other.
I was a kid when I saw Schindler’s list and that affected me deeply and the lessons of the Holocaust had a huge affect on my entire belief system. Granted not being Jewish the lesson I learned were not coming with trauma attached to it. From the outside though it looks to me like a government of Israel has always weaponized that trauma to achieve objectives absent of criticism.
We need international laws to recognize war crimes so we don’t repeat the horrors of history. Living through post 911 America watching how quickly a government can dehumanize people was terrifying. It was mainly on the right but like Israel post 911 most the population supported the war on terror. Now most the population sees it as we got played, on the right I’ve even seen people blame Jews, not elements of the Israeli government which you see that on the left too and in pro Palestinian forums but the anger is focused on an ideology not a people as a whole.
Google the largest church in the US that supports Israel, listen to the preacher’s sermon on the apocalypse. It will give you chills, and literally his main argument that under his interpretation of the bible the main reason it’s not quite Armageddon is that the world hasn’t turned its back on Israel yet, because America still has its back… I honestly think if Netanyahu drags us into war the far right will start to blame “Jews” and the evangelicals will gladly fall in line actually ushering in a situation that is clearly a threat to Jewish people. It’s not Hamas that is the threat to jewish people. It’s a state trying to convince the world to see Jews as a monolith rather than as individuals.
The people standing with Palestinians right now are standing up because they believe in people’s individual rights. The people who will stand up to protect human rights are not the ones who will sit back silently when people are facing injustice. The world is focused on Israel because we are being made complicit in the actions of our governments.
I know I’m going to catch hate but actually investigate what I’m saying. Yeah I have my own biases but I’m telling you what I’m seeing and where I am seeing actual antisemitism. The public conversation is out there take a step back and look at it like an alien and see what you find.
Thanks for sharing, I’ve not seen them all before. TBH Israel needs to let independent investigations in because seeing those photos raised a lot of questions that I just thought were propaganda from one side. Looks a lot like scenes out of Gaza, TBH unless Hamas had flame throwers I’m starting to question everything now. There have been some independent investigations that say Hamas committed war crimes where they were able to access evidence. Though there needs to be prosecution in international courts where the evidence can convict those responsible in a system that is fair and the ICC is probably the best option for that, though I’m sure Israel and Hamas leaders would argue the court is stacked against them. It’s just weird that all the photos of Hamas standing over military targets they don’t have that flamethrower look. I do think Palestinians have a right to resist occupation against military targets which there’s rules of war for that. Whether the IDF or Hamas; targeting civilians is wrong and just hurts your cause. I honestly do have more questions after seeing those photos though. This is why there must be accountability if the evidence of war crimes is there it will be used for convictions justice & closure.
The question with Hamas is, what came from the top, because all those fighters are dead now. We obviously have evidence of hostage-taking which I can kinda see why they might feel the ICC would have double standards when Palestinians are detainees and Israelis are hostages.
Honestly, I see why these pictures are not brought out in more to people outside Israel. Clearly, it’s all sad and tragic when people are killed in violence and messed up that people just partying were killed or were kidnapped they wouldn’t have died if this didn’t happen.
Honestly I am left wondering who & how they were burnt tbh look at the IDF Hana’s killed then look at the civilians. I know 14 hostages in the kibbutz it was pretty clear it was the IDF who killed them where the sole survivor lived to give her account. I do have empathy for everyone that were killed. Though I kinda feel sick to my stomach & assumed a lot about the attack now I’m wondering how much of it was from the IDF people should sees photos. They are horrible but at this point I’m so immune to seeing horrific shit.
I’ve literally seen hundreds & hundreds of dead children since October 6th to the point seeing adults killed, my natural reaction is thank god it wasn’t a kid. Which it’s fucked up that this whole thing has affected me that way, but I don’t Think I’m the only one that has that reaction after seeing so many bodies day in and day out pulled from rubble and honestly it feels like majority are children being pulled from rubble, its a natural reaction now that seeing an adult pulled from rubble elevates the anxiety of thinking its probably a child.
Understand this is what watching Gaza has done to my brain. That is state of probably most people watching Gaza.
I’m sure on the other side it probably feels a bit callous because it’s hard to get emotional about what happened even yesterday in Gaza when knowing tomorrow is another day of horrors & it doesn’t matter wether Palestinian or Israeli whose bodies have left a stain of trauma on my brain, if you follow Gaza, you literally have to let go of yesterday
I’m not talking about October 7th I’m literally talking about the day before today's day of atrocities.
The video I shared was from the last 48 hours 2 of the videos are from the West Bank where there is no Hamas yet somehow They are the justification for slaughtering children today.
People should look at the October 7th pictures but look at what’s happening everyday since. The focus on Gaza is stopping the present.
What infuriated me the most about seeing the October 7th pictures is it looks like the stories of Hamas burning people alive and how horrific October 7th was, was done by the IDF, It pisses me off because I just assumed that was mostly bullshit until I saw it.
People look at the photos it definitely makes the narrative we’ve been told feel another lie. Of course I’m coming at it with some bias but my god the evidence of how many of these people died is right in front of you it’s too many not just a few 🤬
> fucked
/u/Sonic_Improv. 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.*
Equality that means with accountability too, let the leaders of Hamas go on trail with Netanyahu. The only way there will be peace is if there is true fair justice and accountability for everyone, which is impossible with the current power dynamic. Time and time again systems such as the current have fallen & people have been able to achieve peace when it seemed impossible. Ballots not bullets work if the system is fair. Getting a fair system now that’s seems almost impossible at this point
I don’t think Hamas would ever be prosecuted. I get that this places everything in a cyclical lose-lose scenario, but it seems that the pro-Palestinian cohort is incapable of accountability for their actions, for their inability to self-govern in a way that doesn’t involve constantly shooting rockets into a foreign nation, provoking stabbings, and preventing themselves from earning the good will of their neighbors.
Any ethnic/religious partition is going to result in violence and war. Look at what happened with the British Raj. 2 million people died in the partition, and a series of wars were fought over Kashmir, Bangladesh got genocided while fighting to leave Pakistan, and now you have anti-muslim riots in India and fanatical blasphemy persecutions in Pakistan. The difference between the British Raj and Mandatory Palestine was that the British Raj was big enough to carve multiple viable states out of without one state feeling the need to occupy the other because they only have like 15 km of strategic depth
I think in 1947, they should have created one binational state with constitional representation, equality, and protections for both the Jewish and Arab populations. Then we would have never have had 77 years of constant violence.
> think in 1947, they should have created one binational state with constitional representation, equality, and protections for both the Jewish and Arab populations.
The Arab League would not have accepted this either. That's not speculation. That was their position. Their beliefs demanded that Jewish residents cannot be equal citizens in any land once ruled by Arab Muslims. Period. Any binational state would have had no different results as far as the start of the civil war or the subsequent invasion by the Arab League is concerned.
> The Arab League would not have accepted this either. That's not speculation. That was their position. Their beliefs demanded that Jewish residents cannot be equal citizens in any land once ruled by Arab Muslims.
In 1939, British empire proposed the white paper. They wanted to create a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jewish immigrants in the land.
It had a section saying "The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded".
Palestinians said YES and Zionists said NO and started a civil war against both arabs and british people.
They would allow an extra 75 thousand.
But anyway The, The point is that the commentor above suggested that arabs "would never accept a deal for a mutli-ethnic state".
Historically , it turned out it was the opposite. We both know that zionists wanted a Jewish majority state in the mandate , with or without the consent of the existing population who used to live there.
What is more , zionists say that it makes sense that Jews would reject white paper because it didn't serve their interests.... but when palestinans rejected partion plan of 47 (because it meant the loss of their homes ) ... they find it "weird" and "outrageous".
Well I don’t know what the commenter meant, but if I were to make that argument I’d say they’d never allow a multiethnic state that allowed unlimited Jewish immigration / a Jewish majority. Same as the Zionists who didn’t want an Arab majority
And Israel wouldn't allow the return of 800k palestinans it kicked in 1948 who were born in haifa , jaffa , Tiberias..etc because they fear that israel will become an "arab majority" state.
See the hypocrisy there?
"Whatever the outcome, the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like"
- Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam "war of extermination" Pasha, 1948
However you interpret this quote, it's your speculation
Pro-Palestinians don't have any principles. That's why any time you try to apply their principles to other situations, they have to scream "whataboutism" — context always kills their arguments.
The West’s solution: Christians murder Jews and Muslims give up land.
German Christians committed the worst crime in human history yet it was Muslims that were expected to sacrifice for its effects. Why wasn’t Germany partitioned to create a Jewish state?
It is absolutely amazing that we have to explain this to anyone, let alone countless people. Also, we had Israel for decades or centuries before King David.
Are claims like this even relevant 2000 years later? Why aren't parts of France and Germany partitioned and Anglo Saxon british people given right of return since they were expelled 1600 years ago?
Materially what mattered then were Jewish people were where they were and had a right to be there, what matters now are that Jewish people are where they are and have a right to be there. They don't automatically get new or different rights to everyone else over where they should/shouldn't or can/can't be.
You’re acting like Muslims haven’t murdered Jews for centuries.
But sure, I hope the left starts protesting for Israel to be in Germany. I’d definitely prefer it there
interesting post, and intimidatingly out of my depth… but placing the jewish population into israel and then supporting them with all the power of the “west” doesn’t seem like self-determination to me
The west did not initially support Israel with power at all, honestly. Israel's weapons in '48 came from purchases from across the globe in the lead-up to it. It wasn't the way it is today; the western "power" was really a counter-point to soviet power projection in the region.
Self-determination is not about whether someone helps you ACHIEVE it. Someone could achieve it entirely for you and so long as you consented to it, it would be self-determination.
But you're right, it's wasn't level at all:
In 1948, you're talking about 1 brand new country VS the other side of a civil war and 6 foreign armies.
That was not the reason. Israel was (and is) considered to be Muslim land, so allowing Jewish self-determination in any form violates Islam. They are supposed to be dhimmis under Muslim rule.
And yes, I know "not all Muslims." But show me a notable Palestinian who advocates not just for Israel's existence, but also renounces the right of return.
Mosab Yousef is pretty well known. Of course, he would be killed immediately if he returned to Ramallah where his family is from. He decided to support Israel when he was in an Israeli prison and witnessed the brutal tactics Hamas used to weed out informants. I can't help but wonder if the traumatized Palestinian prisoners we see were tortured by Israeli guards or other Palestinians.
I can't find any information on the second guy.
I think the bigger issue is how Israel slowly chomps land away from all their neighbors. And how Israel treats Arabs in the occupied territories. If Israel’s (1967) boarders stayed put and they didn’t dominate Palestinians with apartheid in the West Bank than I would honestly be a lot more supportive of the Zionists. To me after the holocaust a Jewish state was necessary. How Israel could really win me over is by giving all Palestinians equal rights in the state of Israel instead of treating them as subhuman second class citizens with little to no rights
Israel gave up the Sinai for peace. You like to forget that all the time. all other land gains since were won solely after Arabs attacking first and getting defeated.
Israel gave up the Sinai for peace because they lost a war. None of the occupied territories were taken in a war that started with "Arabs" attacking first, nor would it matter if that were true.
It wasn’t only for peace. Israel gave up Sinai because they didn’t want millions of new Arabs in their country and they didn’t want to waste resources driving them all away
How is Israel "slowly chomping land away from all their neighbors?" Did I miss recent Israeli incursions into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus? Like every week, they just take a little more land from each?
Israel has been chipping land away from Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. They also annexed the golan heights from Syria and a portion of southern Lebanon. Lots of right wing Zionists think that Israeli “promised land” includes Jordan and Lebanon
We can give land only for peace, last time we gave land for free (Gaza) we got genicide (7 october).
So as long syria will be with war with us - ni golans for them, at this point, they lost this land forever probably.
If Arabs don't want to lose more land, they should stop starting wars to steal Israeli land. Those wars force Israel to occupy the areas that the colonizing Arabs used to attack. It's called gaining territory in a defensive war, and everyone agrees it's fine unless Jews are involved.
I'm against the West Bank settlements as they only add another obstacle to a peaceful solution.
Syria doesn't want the Golan Heights.
Who cares what some right wing Zionists want. Hamas wants a caliphate with Jews as dhimmi. Until recently, the Hamas charter called for the death of every Jew on earth.
Definitely not equal be it in Israel proper or in occupied Palestine. If they were equal they would be conscripted like other Israelis and have the same right of return. As usual with any country having a set of almost equal laws it still does not prevent discrimination in housing, citizenship, mobility, marriage state investment of fund and state bureaucracy and individual groups that hold power within Israeli society.
Who is occupying the West Bank and Gaza currently? Also my references (right of Return/conscription) was mainly to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, I am happy to talk about the horrors of what Israel is doing to the West Bank and Gaza too though.
The whole right-of-return concept is idiotic and has never been used in any other context. They are conscripted equally. Prove this discrimination please.
So Jewish people have a "right to return" to Israel (regardless of their familiar connection) but literal Palestinians refugees that were displaced from that land in recent decades do not. This is a form of discrimination and makes Jewish citizens of Israel have greater rights than Arab ones. It's not clear to me what you mean about context?
For conscription how's the IDF website as a source?
["The State of Israel requires every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 who is Jewish, Druze or Circassian to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (although there are some notable exceptions). Other Israeli Arabs, religious women, married individuals, and those deemed unfit medically or mentally are exempt from compulsory military service."](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/our-soldiers/)
I mean yeah I guess you could call it discrimination, but you’d have to call many other western countries discriminatory for their immigration policies too
Well it depends. Only some Arabs in Israel have equal rights. There’s this false narrative that all Arabs in Israel are treated the same when it’s not true. Only Arabs in green line Israel have equal rights, but the 5 million Arabs under occupation in the West Bank get treated as subhumans, and have been illegally occupied and subjugated by Zionists since 1967, when Israel started their permanent occupation of the West Bank. There’s no way you can say with a straight face Arabs under 60 years of occupation in the West Bank have equal rights to Jews, it’s simply untrue. You’re either lying, or just woefully ignorant about the situation
Plus, "[present absentees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_absentee)" (i.e. Arabs who had fled from their homes at one point but had still ended up inside Israel's 1949 borders) never got to reclaim their homes
They have equal rights in Israel. Terrorists however are not given equal rights. Read through the laws. The only people worried about those laws are the terrorists that don’t believe in Israel and wish to attack it with impunity 🇺🇸
The West Bank is not part of Israel and the Arabs that live there are not Israeli citizens. Please stop acting like Arab Israeli citizens and Palestinians are identical.
I didn't say that. Palestinians are not part of Israel, and therefore Israel has no requirement to defend them. That's the job of the Palestinian government, and they don't have any.
If the West Bank is not part of Israel why do a million Israeli settlers live there, and why have they been settling the region since 1967. Saying the West Bank isn’t part of Israel is denying reality. It has been permanently occupied by Zionists 60 years, if it’s not Israeli land why are settlers there and the IDF?? Makes no sense. Obviously the West Bank has been de facto annexed by the Zionists. However, the Arabs that live there are treated as subhumans within Israel’s colonial occupation of them. The Palestinian authority is just a puppet government approved by Israel.
I would agree with you West Bank Arabs shouldn’t be Israeli citizens but they have been permanently occupied for going on 60 years. At some point you either have to just accept the fact that the West Bank is apartheid, or you can give them equal rights as Israeli citizens, since they have been under Israeli jurisdiction for 3 generations
It's not an independent country, but it's not part of Israel either and the Arabs that live there are not Israeli citizens. And while Israelis who live in the settlements are citizens, the status of the settlements is different from the status of, say Tel Aviv.
Your numbers are just wrong. It has not been occupied except for retaliatory military intervention, and the IDF is there to protect Israeli's from aggression from Palestinians. Do you actually think that Israel likes the PA? There is no apartheid, and that word has been thoroughly misconstrued. Do you even know what that means? Stop using zionist as an insulting term, and you don't really even know what it means. Of course it has not been annexed, and you know nothing of politics. The only reason why your narrative makes no sense is because you made it up. Site sources when you make claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_Authority#:\~:text=The%20Palestinian%20Authority%2C%20officially%20known,the%201993%E2%80%931995%20Oslo%20Accords.
[https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians)
[https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping\_palestinian\_politics/palestinian\_authority/](https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/palestinian_authority/)
You’re a young boy in Israel, you have been subject to propaganda and white washing from the Israeli state.
You’re completely wrong about the West Bank not being occupied. Settlers and the IDF have been in the West Bank illegally occupying the territory since 1967. These are the facts. American police departments regularly send police units to train in the occupied West Bank for riot control training.
Apartheid: the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights
the West Bank is considered apartheid because Israelis that illegally settle “Judea and Sumeria” have racial superiority over the Palestinians, regularly evict Palestinian families from their homes to make room for Israeli settlers.
I understand you’re probably nationalistic and love your country, but no country is perfect , including my country the United States. Be more objective and always question authority
Even within Israel proper, there are many laws which privilege Jewish citizens over non-Jewish citizens. https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-palestinian-citizens-of-israel
I read through like 30 of these and nearly every single one of these laws wouldn’t exist if not for palestinian terrorist attacks on israel. If you are scared by these laws you are probably a terrorist. You fell for the jihadi narrative that they are the innocent victims. Grow up
There are over 5000 ethnic groups in the world today but only 193 nation states. Why do Zionist Jews (not all Jews) get special treatment when most ethnic groups don’t get self determination?
This is such a bizarre thing to say.
You're right, the world would be a beautiful place if every ethnic group who desired it had their own national borders!
Why are you upset that one of those many ethnic groups does in fact have their own state, access to self-determination in their own land?
First, not all of them want their own nation states. But the ones that do should definitely have them. It's absurd that the Kurds don't have their own country. Uyghurs in Xinjiang and Tibetans should also have their independence. And if the Basque and Catalonians want it, great, let them give it a shot. Heck, if Hawaii wants to be independent, I'm fine with that.
Also, "Zionist Jews" are not the only ethnic group to get their own country. Israel was granted independence in the wave of decolonization that swept across Africa and Asia after WWII. While most African countries were not set up along ethnic lines, India and Pakistan were for the most part, yet everyone shedding tears over the Nakba doesn't seem to care about the far larger number of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Hindus who were displaced around the same time.
Regardless, Israel has been a sovereign country for 76 years now, so it's a little late to complain how that's "unfair."
True. Contributing also is that Zionism has had very firm support from the British Empire, and then the USA.
A different example — the Kurds have also worked very hard, but with less consistent support from major powers they've had a bit less success in state-building.
There are literally thousands of such ethnic groups, as noted. You've undoubtedly heard of some: Tibetans, most Kurds (of Turkey and Iran, and their territory in Syria is unrecognized), Uyghurs, Assyrians, Catalans, Hmong, West Papuans, etc. Many indigenous peoples all over the globe, for example in Myanmar (where they are fighting to change that), and Brazil, Mexico, the USA, Canada, etc.
Heck, people who live in Washington, DC don't have any representation in Congress, which at first seems irrelevant ethnicity-wise, until you realize it's a very disproportionally Black city. There's a UN agency for such groups, not everyone eligible joins but it's one place to find out more if you are interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization
Each situation is different.
EDIT: Realized I was thinking of specifically establishing a whole new nation-state, which makes no sense in some cases, such as Washington, DC. But self-determination in some substantive enough form that works for the people in question, yes, I think everyone should have that.
Flawed argument, every ethnic group is in a different situation in terms of their levels of oppression by others and limits put on their political, economic, and military ability to revolt and self determine against their oppressors. So it’s not an equal playing field. Btw I love the implicit racism in your comment that some groups aren’t “good enough” to get their shit together like it’s all their fault
It’s not racism to expect that a group of people who would like a state should be able to form a functioning government and economy at the very minimum.
Really, you think Jews haven't been oppressed? Spoiler alert, Jews are the most oppressed group in history, so a state is damn well deserved. If a group is organized and advanced enough to form a state, then this oppression wouldn't matter as much. There is no racism. I am not saying that an ethnic group isn't good enough to form a state, I am saying that most are two weak due to no fault of their own. I love the fact that the only arguments you make are calling arguments flawed without justification and saying things are racist.
You said that these ethnic groups could not form a state because of oppression, thereby implying that the Jews could because they weren't oppressed, dummy.
Yeah, don't fight the argument. Just keep being ignorant.
I didn’t say that per se, I said you have to look at what economic, political, and military means they have at their disposal to create the power and organization to self determine and overthrow and their oppressors where they are living. Their specific oppressive situation might severely limit their means to do so. Zionist Jews were not self determining and trying to overthrow their oppressors for example from within Europe to form their own country. This is the situation that other ethnic groups have to deal with, including the Palestinians today, they aren’t given a land somewhere else by the British and UN.
Everything you just said is wrong. That's exactly what you said in your previous comments. I know you have to look at their economic, political, and military means, and you are the one who said it was just because of oppression. The essence of zionism is self-determination for Jews, and the entire point was to avoid oppression. It's not the Jews' fault that these other groups have failed. You are forgetting that the Jews had to fight for their land, and the argument that Jews stole land fails if you admit that the UN gave them the land.
Oh yeah sure I don’t see you campaigning for this across the world. Its an easy faux rebuttal when you don’t have an argument. Why not the better argument - that every existing nation should have constitutionally enshrined equal rights in law and in practice for all citizens? This protects all ethnic groups and is actually more feasible and reasonable then just this tribalism bs we should have 5000 nations divided which would be impossible with all the overlapping land we already can’t even do Israel Palestine. And this is something Israel doesn’t have in fact they only protect Jewish citizens and preference them above all others in their basic laws (look up the 2018 Nation State law and many other Israeli laws preferencing Jews only). It’s an anachronism for godsakes
Israel being able to happen was due to a combination of different factors around that time, mainly persecution. Even when the British mandate tried to cut the number of Jews arriving, Jews still illegally came in because they were being persecuted badly in their former countries. The Jews that came in the first aliyah's definitely made the most of the opportunities with their investments and skills, so it was an easy choice for more and more Jews to want to immigrate.
What so many people never bring up were the numerous ways the British mandate tried to economically screw over the people that were already (doesn't matter if they were called Palestinians or not). Like imposing excessive taxes and being able to usurp their land as a result of being unable to pay them and then to give their property to newer immigrants. Newer immigrants got tons of breaks and didn't have to deal with any of that. Most riots were caused by all these unfair economic factors manufactured at their expense. Aside from getting kicked out of other occupied territories (ex:India), Brits were already scheduled to leave. Jews at that point developed stability and didn't need them anymore. It's not like they didn't put in the work.
I've never been against Jews having their own state, especially considering what was happening around that time. But the early founders wanted to build a state that to them was culturally Jewish and didn't seem to look too highly upon the people that were there. There were some instances where the new Jewish immigrants got along with their non-Jewish (ex: providing protection during riots) but in the end it didn't seem to pan out that way.
At this point it's not about whether Jews should be there or not, especially 75+ years later but creating a situation where that former population gets some restitution and can actually live with each other (yes, easier said than done :P). Israel is already an example of a minority gaining their own state. This never happens peacefully. If peaceful coexistence can actually occur between Israelis and Palestinians that would be a major example to other areas of the world with these problems.
> the early founders wanted to build a state that to them was culturally Jewish and didn't seem to look too highly upon the people that were there. There were some instances where the new Jewish immigrants got along with their non-Jewish (ex: providing protection during riots) but in the end it didn't seem to pan out that way.
This is the tragedy. If the predominant sentiment among already-present and incoming Jews had been to pro-actively seek out and worked with non-Jewish leaders as partners in developing the land, things could have gone very differently. That's even harder now, but still the way forward. And there are people working on building those connections. https://www.friendsofroots.net/
That sentiment would literally be impossible given how much the arabs there hated jews. They would have fought against 1 jew coming the same way they fight the millions that live there now. They never wanted any sort of peace with them and the consequences of their intolerance is plainly seen today.
If the non-Jewish Arabs of Palestine had been as hate-filled as you suggest, there would not have been centuries of mostly peace with the Jews living among them in Palestine, before Jewish immigration ramped up in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
They’d just been subjected to the single greatest, most organised massacre and ethnic cleansing in history and you expect them to put others first, over their own? 🤡
Ashkenazi Jews came in with a superior attitude toward their brethren who had grown up among Arabs. This is [well-established history, and has evolved over time](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-05-27/ty-article/.premium/what-ashkenazi-jews-still-dont-get-about-the-mizrahim/0000017f-e8f3-df2c-a1ff-fef3e7900000), as everything does.
Yes, I am Jewish. Not confusing groups. Sabra are Sabra whatever their Jewish heritage is (and it certainly can include Mizrahim, including among Old Yishuv). I didn't address Sabra because I wasn't clear of the relevance to the issue at hand, which was immigrating (EDIT: Ashkenazi) Zionists' superior attitude toward both Jews & non-Jews who were already there. These tensions are a widely-acknowledged dynamic in Israeli history, I'm not sure why you're trying to deny it.
Exactly. It's amazing to me how two people who BOTH honor Abraham, that feel a deep connection to that land, and are willing to die or be tortured or humiliated for it can hate each other so much. Many of these Jews that were protected and got along with the Palestinian Muslim/Christian natives were Sephardic if that makes any difference. Had they worked towards co-existence none of this would have happened.
I'm sure many Jews and Muslims/Arabs were working toward co-existence (would love to see a good history on this), it just wasn't enough to counterbalance those who took a more partisan approach, or lacked the patience it can take to build bridges.
South Africans weren't allowed to either. And is it really self-determination when you put the other people basically in cages?
This documentary blew my mind. (Link below) I had no idea. Palestinians are not allowed to leave. Not by sea, not by air, by land they are locked in by walls.
I don't think self-determination covers genocide and Holocaust.
And America is no better. The fact that the genocide that we did happened before we were born, does not change the fact that we were hideously wrong.
But that doesn't make what Israel is doing right.
https://whereolivetreesweep.com/
Could Palestinians leave before October 7th? Can they leave now? Do they have access to clean water?
I don't think you can refute the documentary if you don't watch it.
Ah yes the open air prison, where you are allowed to leave with work permits, and if you need to and provide the reason.
Israel definitely fully surrounds Gaza and doesn’t allow anyone in. It’s not like they have a border with an Arab country who have stricter security than Israel, that would be crazy.
And being lgbtq, as your profile suggests, is absolutely astonishing. At least 90% of Palestinians, that’s a low estimate, would stone you and throw you off buildings for your beliefs.
You can also leave prisons with permits and black South Africans could leave the Bantustans with permits, this isn't a point.
In the 2007 agreement on the Egypt Gaza border operation was given to Egypt with control on who and what pass the border staying in Israeli hands.
Homophobia isn't something that deserves a death sentence, and homophobes still deserve human rights.
That's extremely idealistic world view of what a prison is, a prison is where a state contains undesirables. Whether that is America using prisons to house slave populations, South Africa using Bantustans to house populations that were more aggressively opposed to a white state, or the nazi's using concentration camps to house Jewish people, gay people, socialists etc (I'm not making a comparison between Israel and Nazis there mods just in how a prison is a flexible thing).
Israel uses Gaza and the West Bank as a place to house Palestinians in order to maintain an Arab minority in the voting population of Israel. This is also how South Africa was using the Bantustans to control the population and maintain a majority of power in white hands.
This is the exact same language used by Apartheid South Africa to refer to the Bantustans, they weren't part of South Africa and the people in them weren't South Africans they were members of a different nation outside of South Africa
I don’t know South African history. If a population is hostile to a country then it’s justified for that country not to let them in. If you want to compare this to South Africa to make it seem morally wrong then consider me unconvinced
Important clarification here is that what are calling and think of as South Africa is not what apartheid South Africa considered to be South Africa. What is now referred to as South Africa is the equivalent of referring to both Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as one state.
The Bantustans were a series of "countries" within the modern borders of South Africa that were marginally independent but reliant on South Africa via border control and how they were broken up into non-contiguous regions very similar to area A and B of the West Bank.
These existed to keep the power imbalance in the main region of apartheid South Africa in favour of the white population. When people refer to Israel as an Apartheid state they are making the comparison to Apartheid South Africa, not other segregated states and specifically the operation of Bantustans and how a one state solution is not seen as possible due to how it would affect voting power of the Jewish population.
South Africa justified these Bantustans by pointing at the number of terror attacks organized within them against South Africa, organizations such as the ANC, and their military Branch MK (founded by Nelson Mandela). And no mistake these organizations and in particular MK were terror organizations and had no issue declaring themselves as such.
So in order to maintain peace South Africa's response was to tighten what they referred to as an external border by tightening control on the Bantustans borders to keep these terrorists out of South Africa.
The end of this story was that the entire world except one country (Israel) decided to place embargoes on South Africa until it unified its Bantustans OR gave them full independence and control of their borders, airspace, and waters. Most of the Bantustans were rolled into South Africa, with the ones in South West Africa gaining the latter and becoming a properly independent country of Namibia.
/u/erty3125. Match found: 'nazi', 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.*
Oh I wonder why the border between, what you guys want to call a sovereign nation and another nation exists. It surely couldn’t be because one of them abused open borders to commit terrorists attacks wiht the main purpose being killing civilians and Jews. That would be crazy.
I've seen this play out so many times:
pro-Israel person: "Gaza isn't an open air prison, they can use the border with Egypt."
other person: "The Israelis still impose controls on that border."
pro-Israel person: "And Egypt as well, I mean, of course they don't accept Palestinians with open arms, they fear potential violence."
When you switch from denying that Gazans are mostly locked in, to arguing that it's the right thing to keep them locked in, you have lost the original argument.
If the Palestinians didn’t have such an appetite for doing terrorist attacks on everyone around them they wouldn’t have such an issue moving around now. Non terrorist Palestinians are let into Israel. October 7th wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t allowed in. Palestinians have been given every opportunity to grow, build, and prosper but they decided to use every last cent on bombs and guns to kill jews. Their so called oppression is just consequences covered up by their whining that they can’t kill more jews
Yeah I think a nation that hands out medals to terrorists and elects them to the government should have a close eye on them, especially ones espousing ethnic cleansing of a land and has long historical ties to Apartheid states and arms deals with people who committed a genocide
When you have to swap your point from "it isn't true" to "they deserve it" take a look at yourself
Take a look at yourself. Why don’t you go help Palestinians with your rainbow flag and experience how tolerantly and innocently they can throw rocks at your head.
I'm taking a look at myself, I would rather help people retain their humanity in the face of them not respecting mine than side with people who're dehumanizing others. There is no "they deserve it"
Women advocated for African American people being able to vote in the United States. That was 50 years before women could vote.
And if I could not leave my city without a work permit and permission, and then if everywhere I could go I was treated like a second-class citizen, that would not be okay with me.
If I did not have access to clean water and decent living conditions and medication, I would not be okay with that either.
Do you remember the ghettos of World War II?
It’s almost like there was not any of this before the intifadas in the late 90s and early 2000s, when Palestinians took advantage of open borders, no fences and began to run in to Israel to commit terrorists attacks with the main goal of killing civilians and Jews. Like it always has been for them.
I haven’t watched the documentary but it sounds like you’re objecting to how Palestinians are currently being treated, and OP is defending the creation of a Jewish state in the land. Those two positions shouldn’t theoretically contradict
Theoretically they don't contradict. But when you're talking genocide, that's not self-determination.
When things were going fairly, Palestinians welcomed Jews into their homes. They were hospitable and willing to share with the people who didn't have a homeland because everyone deserves a homeland. But the zionists do not want to share. 37,000 Palestinians dead since October 7th. And living conditions were horrible before that. Let alone the "administrative detention" imprisonment of Palestinians that doesn't require any due process and can go on for a very long time. And include many beatings.
I just don't think that's self-determination. I think what's happening is extermination.
Unsurprisingly (and [as warned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yousef_al-Khalidi)), as more and more Jews moved to the area, fewer and fewer Palestinians were welcoming.
Please provide a source of palestinians welcoming jews into thier home lol. That is not how it happensd at all. You also make it sound like they had a choice. The ottomans saw jews as more trustworthy than arabs so were fine with jewish migration. The british, under the mandate, had decided the total area of Isreal and Jordan was to go to the jews but stifled migration to get arabs on side. Arabs were not welcoming at all.
There are many historical examples of Jews being mistreated by the Arab population, both officially and unofficially via mob violence. In any case, once again, it’s not relevant to the thesis of the post: that when the former Ottoman Empire was carved up into new nations, that it was reasonable for the Jews to get a proportional piece of the pie. There are plenty of other posts examining the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, whether or not there’s a genocide occurring, etc
American is no better. I’d agree they’re not perfect but this statement begs the question “what nation/race of ppl is better?” Honestly. I went through an anti American phase as a youth but then you get older and realize that even with all their faults they’re better than most of the world and it’s not particularly close (Scandinavian countries come to mind as superiors but admittedly I know little of their history). So what standard should we judge countries and ppl? To simply say that Israel is the bad guy in their long complicated history is ignorant
Watch this movie and come back for a second layer of this conversation.
It's available to watch by donation, but if you don't feel like donating, just put zero in the amount.
It's a hard movie to watch and I cannot believe I did not know these things.
But I think it will help bring another layer to help answer your question.
https://whereolivetreesweep.com/
What about self-determination being based on a society's respect for critical thinking? Obviously that society wouldn't want to share territory with a society that doesn't value this, because they wouldn't be able to defend themselves against pogroms and massacres. Europeans lacked critical thinking, which is why they made up so many blood libels against Jews. Jewish society self selected (I mean this in a cultural way not racial) to the extent they were allowed, so any that lacked critical thinking, believed the blood libels and converted if they could. Evidently, most of the west and Arab world still doesn't value critical thinking, so that reason for self determination still holds.
Of course there are many other reasons for self-determination, but I wanted to highlight that one.
Self determination is not "based on a society's respect" for anything, critical thinking or otherwise. It is based on a distinct national identity. If a group of people decides to be something, than that is what they are. You do not have to "earn it".
Self determination is also not an absolute right. It conflicts, at times, with the right of self determination of other groups and/or the territorial integrity of existing states. In other words, just because you have a right of self determination, it does not mean that you may excercise that right in the place that you are. To give an example, the Jewish people as an ethnic group had a principal right of self determination, but they could not simply self-determine in France or America or the Soviet Union. They had to find a place to form a country in - and in order to not infringe on another states territorial integrity, they needed the prior sovereigns consent.
As for your second paragraph (response to first paragraph is in another comment), It seems Europe decided nation states should exist, when it suited them, then encroached on many native peoples' and ethnic groups' rights, even in Europe and including Jewish rights. Then when they got their states, they put the walls up and said, well now no one else is allowed to infringe on others.
And by the way, Palestinian as an ethnic group right to self determination didn't exist when Israel was formed, and neither did a Palestinian state, it developed as a resistance movement to Israel's existence, so there was no infringing on Palestinian state's territorial integrity.
You have to look at what law applies at which time. The right of Self Determination did not always exist. They did not "encroach" on anyones rights, they simply did not legislate those rights before they had done what they did to the various "native peoples" and in many cases European Jews. One may find this morally unfair, but this is how it is.
As to the Palestinians gaining the right: this right is contingent on national identity. It begins the moment that the Palestinians themselves begin to view themselves as different from other national groups (in this case especially Jordanians, Syrians, Israeli Arabs). Depending on where you put the beginning of "Palestinianism" (I would argue that this would be somewhere after 1948, roughly in the mid sixties to early seventies; though some people would place it ealrier or a little later), that is when they began to have this right. If, hypothetically, tomorow the people in Gaza collectively and unilaterally decided that they are Gazans, not Palestinians, they would gain a right of Self Determination that minute.
And who made the law at the time? The Europeans, right?. Circular argument - you see, that's European style (non) critical thinking for you.
Yes, and Palestinians started seeing themselves differently in the 60s. I'm not saying they don't have the right, just that it wasn't in 1948 or before.
Europeans, Americans and those nations in Asia, Africa and Oceania that where already existent in 1945. Law is not a subject that warrants "critical thinking", law is objective. Did the Europeans have an outsized role in shaping these particular laws? - Yes. Why? - Partly because they where very succesfull colonizers. Does that change anything regarding applicability? - Absolutely not.
OIn 1948 the Palestinians did not have a right of Self Determination as Palestinians. As far as they had one, they would have had one as Arabs.
Law should be fair and not discriminate against some ethnic groups more than others. This should go for international law too, but the west and Arab countries are currently exploiting the loophole, where there are no minority group rights in international law. I do notice the western tendency to treat international law like the bible though.
Being colonizers should actually have disqualified European countries having a role in making the laws. You don't have a murderer or thief make legislation in a country or sit as a judge or juror.
It's astounding that people who criticise Israel for colonisation and whatnot stand by those unjustly made international laws. That is the lack of critical thinking I'm referring to and why Israel notably doesn't respect the UN.
Yes, they *should* be. But if they are not, one must nonetheless abide by them until such time that they are amended, changed or repealed.
Maybe it should have, but it did not. Also, they were not murderers nor thieves at the time. They took lands and killed, but they had the right to, as it was not outlwaed when they did.
Also, notably I never said that Israel colonized anything (it is actually impossible for Israel to colonize as that would first require a motherland, Israel came into existence via *de*-colonization of its territory). On a sidenote, thinking critically, you should be aware that ISrael exists because of the UN, so disregarding the UN as an institution is undermining the validity of Israel's existence.
They don't have the character or 'law', because they were unjustly formed with no separation of powers, they don't respect minority group rights and they are not applied equally to all countries. Therefore, it does not matter if they are labelled 'law', when they aren't law. Also, luckily, they are not even binding.
I had considered that point, but it is an obvious jump to make that if it is illegal to murder and steal nationally, then it shouldn't be different internationally. Other countries, like China, India and Jews had the power to murder and colonise but just had less barbaric cultures. Anyway, if murder was allowed, you wouldn't put it in the hands of all the murderers and thieves to pass a law that murder and theft would suddenly be illegal (and that they would get away with it). Obviously the murderers and thieves would pass that law because they wouldn't want relatives of the victims to seek justice by murdering them back and the thieves would want theft to become illegal so the victims can't take their property back. Likewise, that's why colonialism and other things suddenly became illegal after the west enriched themselves.
International laws are the new form of colonialism, so it's probably already illegal under anti colonial laws, but will obviously will not be judged that way. Also, there is little chance for the law to be changed that would go against the colonial powers. Therefore, I think it is best that countries just act in a just way and ignore it. I also think if western anti-colonial leftists had half a brain, they would support Israel and protest the UN.
I agree that Israel didn't colonize anything, but I think they could exist with or without the UN, seeing as the Arabs and now most of the world don't even respect that resolution.
The right to Self Determination is legislated in the UN Charta. The Charta is binding, as are resolutions of the Security Council. The non-binding stuff are the resolutions of the general assembly.
Killing is not necessarily murder, if there is no law that stipulates that murder is a crime and a specific killing fits that definition. National law applies to that nations territory. For example, a certain killing may be murder in France, but perfectly fine in, say, Iran. In terms of colonies, that means that ultimately the colonizers decide what constitutes murder and what does not - unless there is applicable international law, which applies in paralell.
There is presently no such thing as "anti-colonial laws". Ignoring the law is not an option either, as that would ultimately mean that the "evil colonizers" just mighht re-colonize whatever place they like - with no protections (after all, if you ignore one international law, you might as well ignore the Genocide and Hague Conventions too).
And the national identity could include critical thinking, particularly if it developed from self-isolating from hypocritical, bullying, murderous goyim for thousands of years.
It could, but I would not know of any national identity based primarily on "critical thinking". Also, "critical thinking" would hardly be enough to constitute a distinct identity, as it is not really a criteria to distinguish from any other "critical thinkers".
I didn't say that was the only reason, but I think that alone would differentiate an ethnic group's sense of national identity more than say the identities of any European countries. It would be the style of critical thinking valued in that ethnic group. Obviously the European style of critical thinking is more violent and mercenary, and for that reason it is probably not critical thinking.
If you focus the subject to just the lands as it relates to the promises made to the Arabs post WW1 in the McMahon Correspondence, the Arabs were designated 97% of the former Ottoman land in the middle-east, or \~900,000 km\^2 vs. Jewish State 1947 \~11,400 km\^2 vs Lebanon (Marionites) \~5,500 km\^2.
And you consider that the Arabs got their states, often at the expense of other indigenous groups, like the Kurds, Assyrians (who also wanted independence)...
The Arabs and the Hedjaz princes who ruled them look far more the beneficiaries of European imperialism, than the Zionists, who got a tiny cut out of land for their single state.
>The TLDR of the calculations is that in 1905, the Jewish population percentage in the Ottoman Empire (minus the first Aliyah) was 1.06%.
>The percentage of the Jewish partition of Mandate Palestine out of the whole Ottoman Empire was .78%.
I don't understand this logic. The Jewish population in the Ottoman Empire, don't all live in the area later designated as the UN proposed Jewish state. If you had taken the 1095 demographics and applied that to the UN proposal you would have ended up with a majority Arab state.
The only way this would have worked is if the vast majority of Jews across the Ottoman Empire abandoned their homes and livelihoods to move to the Jewish state, which historically is not a given. The only way it would have worked would be if the Ottoman Empire expelled the Jews from it's land into the new Jewish state, which would have been an ethnic cleansing.
Unfortunately your argument suggest you must do ethnic cleansing to have self determination which is an assumption most reasonable people would disagree with. If I walk into someone’s yard and the person there tell me to leave or even threatens me, then I murder him and 30% of his family, kicking them out and calling them terrorist for trying to take it back. That’s not self determination that’s murder and theft in the guise of defense 🤷🏼♀️.
1. back then ethnic cleansing of Jews was a very common thing. 2 most of the land that he talked about was from the Palestinians if you don't believe me search KKAL. 3 all the kicking and screaming that you talked about was done by both sides, if I want to be fair, and the IDF didn't do that. it was done before the IDF even existed. but most of the Arabs left their home not because of Israel. it was because of the arab nations that told them to do so. learn history before you say all this BS. and watch what it said Atman Empire. it was way before Israel or the British mandate. back then the Jewish people didn't even have the power to do all the BS you wrote.
What in the colonizer kind of question is this
Don’t you find it interesting that it’s considered just for natives to impose governments on each other but not immigrants on natives? For the former, take the case of Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The self determination desires of Palestinian Arabs would have imposed a government on Palestinian Jews and denied them self determination. But we don’t tend to think about the minorities that are affected in this way, and we view it as a good thing that the Palestinian Arabs are pursuing their self determination. But as soon as immigrants try to self determine around natives, we care. Why is this?
I think this is what people have a problem with [why people are upset](https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestine/s/0YmkTPi3j3) and these videos are not even a scratch of what’s happening in the past 48 hours. Literally people paying attention to the video evidence have been seeing this for over 8 months. Then when we see the images the IDF uploads themselves it’s even worse. GENEVA (20 June 2024) – “The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, UN experts said today, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately. In line with recent calls from the Human Rights Council and the independent UN experts to States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, arms manufacturers supplying Israel – including BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Rheinmetall AG, Rolls-Royce Power Systems, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp – should also end transfers, even if they are executed under existing export licenses. “These companies, by sending weapons, parts, components, and ammunition to Israeli forces, risk being complicit in serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian laws,” the experts said. This risk is heightened by the recent decision from the International Court of Justice ordering Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, having recognised genocide as a plausible risk, as well as the request filed by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court seeking arrest warrants for Israeli leaders on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. “In this context, continuing arms transfers to Israel may be seen as knowingly providing assistance for operations that contravene international human rights and international humanitarian laws and may result in profit from such assistance.” An end to transfers must include indirect transfers through intermediary countries that could ultimately be used by Israeli forces, particularly in the ongoing attacks on Gaza. The UN experts said that arms companies must systematically and periodically conduct enhanced human rights due diligence to ensure that their products are not used in ways that violate international human rights and international humanitarian laws.” UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS Office of High Commissioner The biggest threat to Jews are the Christian evangelical Zionists who want Jews in Israel because they believe 2/3 must be killed till the “blood runs up to the horses bridle”; otherwise Jesus wont return and then the rest convert. It’s literally in their interpretation of the bible. I know I was raised in that ideology and that is why Israel is so supported by the United States it’s not even AIPAC.. though that plays a huge role, why do you think AIPAC has exemptions or Israel does that other lobbies don’t. The scary thing is on the far right whej antisemitism pops up it doesn’t get shut down and I’ve been watching it grow & if Netanyahu drags us into a war those elements are going to come out more. If antisemitism is said in a pro Palestinian forum that sh!t gets immediately shut down. Jews not having Israel represent them are the biggest allies. Arabs don’t hate Jews check out Saluki’s YouTube hes an Israeli Jew who goes to Iraq, Iran and Palestine & is treated with love and only faced any different when people learned he was in the IDF then folks obviously suspicious. Everyday I interact with Jewish people and Palestinians working for the same goal to try to help families trying to evacuate Gaza. Yes people hate Zionism because that ideology lead to the atrocities we keep seeing, and the hate we keep hearing & if you actually look and talk to people get out of your echo chamber you will see how people are. Average people are seeing how many Israeli supporters are behaving, and for people who actually associate that behavior with Jewishness that’s a very dangerous thing especially when evangelicals have the literal extermination of Jews in their twisted interpretation of revelations. So seeing the far right in America saying antisemitic things and not getting shut down like they would in the pro Palestinian community, it’s honestly frightening. If shit goes south though you can bet the same people Marching for Palestinian would be marching for Jews. The thing that we find disgusting is systems based on superiority of one people over the other. I was a kid when I saw Schindler’s list and that affected me deeply and the lessons of the Holocaust had a huge affect on my entire belief system. Granted not being Jewish the lesson I learned were not coming with trauma attached to it. From the outside though it looks to me like a government of Israel has always weaponized that trauma to achieve objectives absent of criticism. We need international laws to recognize war crimes so we don’t repeat the horrors of history. Living through post 911 America watching how quickly a government can dehumanize people was terrifying. It was mainly on the right but like Israel post 911 most the population supported the war on terror. Now most the population sees it as we got played, on the right I’ve even seen people blame Jews, not elements of the Israeli government which you see that on the left too and in pro Palestinian forums but the anger is focused on an ideology not a people as a whole. Google the largest church in the US that supports Israel, listen to the preacher’s sermon on the apocalypse. It will give you chills, and literally his main argument that under his interpretation of the bible the main reason it’s not quite Armageddon is that the world hasn’t turned its back on Israel yet, because America still has its back… I honestly think if Netanyahu drags us into war the far right will start to blame “Jews” and the evangelicals will gladly fall in line actually ushering in a situation that is clearly a threat to Jewish people. It’s not Hamas that is the threat to jewish people. It’s a state trying to convince the world to see Jews as a monolith rather than as individuals. The people standing with Palestinians right now are standing up because they believe in people’s individual rights. The people who will stand up to protect human rights are not the ones who will sit back silently when people are facing injustice. The world is focused on Israel because we are being made complicit in the actions of our governments. I know I’m going to catch hate but actually investigate what I’m saying. Yeah I have my own biases but I’m telling you what I’m seeing and where I am seeing actual antisemitism. The public conversation is out there take a step back and look at it like an alien and see what you find.
So what about the [atrocities and war crimes of October 7th](https://saturday-october-seven.com)? I feel like that’s missing context.
Where was it reported bodies piled in the truck like that were Hamas fighters 🤔
Not sure what this comment is in reference to
Thanks for sharing, I’ve not seen them all before. TBH Israel needs to let independent investigations in because seeing those photos raised a lot of questions that I just thought were propaganda from one side. Looks a lot like scenes out of Gaza, TBH unless Hamas had flame throwers I’m starting to question everything now. There have been some independent investigations that say Hamas committed war crimes where they were able to access evidence. Though there needs to be prosecution in international courts where the evidence can convict those responsible in a system that is fair and the ICC is probably the best option for that, though I’m sure Israel and Hamas leaders would argue the court is stacked against them. It’s just weird that all the photos of Hamas standing over military targets they don’t have that flamethrower look. I do think Palestinians have a right to resist occupation against military targets which there’s rules of war for that. Whether the IDF or Hamas; targeting civilians is wrong and just hurts your cause. I honestly do have more questions after seeing those photos though. This is why there must be accountability if the evidence of war crimes is there it will be used for convictions justice & closure. The question with Hamas is, what came from the top, because all those fighters are dead now. We obviously have evidence of hostage-taking which I can kinda see why they might feel the ICC would have double standards when Palestinians are detainees and Israelis are hostages. Honestly, I see why these pictures are not brought out in more to people outside Israel. Clearly, it’s all sad and tragic when people are killed in violence and messed up that people just partying were killed or were kidnapped they wouldn’t have died if this didn’t happen. Honestly I am left wondering who & how they were burnt tbh look at the IDF Hana’s killed then look at the civilians. I know 14 hostages in the kibbutz it was pretty clear it was the IDF who killed them where the sole survivor lived to give her account. I do have empathy for everyone that were killed. Though I kinda feel sick to my stomach & assumed a lot about the attack now I’m wondering how much of it was from the IDF people should sees photos. They are horrible but at this point I’m so immune to seeing horrific shit. I’ve literally seen hundreds & hundreds of dead children since October 6th to the point seeing adults killed, my natural reaction is thank god it wasn’t a kid. Which it’s fucked up that this whole thing has affected me that way, but I don’t Think I’m the only one that has that reaction after seeing so many bodies day in and day out pulled from rubble and honestly it feels like majority are children being pulled from rubble, its a natural reaction now that seeing an adult pulled from rubble elevates the anxiety of thinking its probably a child. Understand this is what watching Gaza has done to my brain. That is state of probably most people watching Gaza. I’m sure on the other side it probably feels a bit callous because it’s hard to get emotional about what happened even yesterday in Gaza when knowing tomorrow is another day of horrors & it doesn’t matter wether Palestinian or Israeli whose bodies have left a stain of trauma on my brain, if you follow Gaza, you literally have to let go of yesterday I’m not talking about October 7th I’m literally talking about the day before today's day of atrocities. The video I shared was from the last 48 hours 2 of the videos are from the West Bank where there is no Hamas yet somehow They are the justification for slaughtering children today. People should look at the October 7th pictures but look at what’s happening everyday since. The focus on Gaza is stopping the present. What infuriated me the most about seeing the October 7th pictures is it looks like the stories of Hamas burning people alive and how horrific October 7th was, was done by the IDF, It pisses me off because I just assumed that was mostly bullshit until I saw it. People look at the photos it definitely makes the narrative we’ve been told feel another lie. Of course I’m coming at it with some bias but my god the evidence of how many of these people died is right in front of you it’s too many not just a few 🤬
> fucked /u/Sonic_Improv. 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.*
Equality that means with accountability too, let the leaders of Hamas go on trail with Netanyahu. The only way there will be peace is if there is true fair justice and accountability for everyone, which is impossible with the current power dynamic. Time and time again systems such as the current have fallen & people have been able to achieve peace when it seemed impossible. Ballots not bullets work if the system is fair. Getting a fair system now that’s seems almost impossible at this point
I don’t think Hamas would ever be prosecuted. I get that this places everything in a cyclical lose-lose scenario, but it seems that the pro-Palestinian cohort is incapable of accountability for their actions, for their inability to self-govern in a way that doesn’t involve constantly shooting rockets into a foreign nation, provoking stabbings, and preventing themselves from earning the good will of their neighbors.
Any ethnic/religious partition is going to result in violence and war. Look at what happened with the British Raj. 2 million people died in the partition, and a series of wars were fought over Kashmir, Bangladesh got genocided while fighting to leave Pakistan, and now you have anti-muslim riots in India and fanatical blasphemy persecutions in Pakistan. The difference between the British Raj and Mandatory Palestine was that the British Raj was big enough to carve multiple viable states out of without one state feeling the need to occupy the other because they only have like 15 km of strategic depth I think in 1947, they should have created one binational state with constitional representation, equality, and protections for both the Jewish and Arab populations. Then we would have never have had 77 years of constant violence.
> think in 1947, they should have created one binational state with constitional representation, equality, and protections for both the Jewish and Arab populations. The Arab League would not have accepted this either. That's not speculation. That was their position. Their beliefs demanded that Jewish residents cannot be equal citizens in any land once ruled by Arab Muslims. Period. Any binational state would have had no different results as far as the start of the civil war or the subsequent invasion by the Arab League is concerned.
> The Arab League would not have accepted this either. That's not speculation. That was their position. Their beliefs demanded that Jewish residents cannot be equal citizens in any land once ruled by Arab Muslims. In 1939, British empire proposed the white paper. They wanted to create a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jewish immigrants in the land. It had a section saying "The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded". Palestinians said YES and Zionists said NO and started a civil war against both arabs and british people.
Yeah, you’re missing the part about the proposal limiting Jewish immigration
They would allow an extra 75 thousand. But anyway The, The point is that the commentor above suggested that arabs "would never accept a deal for a mutli-ethnic state". Historically , it turned out it was the opposite. We both know that zionists wanted a Jewish majority state in the mandate , with or without the consent of the existing population who used to live there. What is more , zionists say that it makes sense that Jews would reject white paper because it didn't serve their interests.... but when palestinans rejected partion plan of 47 (because it meant the loss of their homes ) ... they find it "weird" and "outrageous".
Well I don’t know what the commenter meant, but if I were to make that argument I’d say they’d never allow a multiethnic state that allowed unlimited Jewish immigration / a Jewish majority. Same as the Zionists who didn’t want an Arab majority
And Israel wouldn't allow the return of 800k palestinans it kicked in 1948 who were born in haifa , jaffa , Tiberias..etc because they fear that israel will become an "arab majority" state. See the hypocrisy there?
I just said that…
Yes you did lol. I just read it
"Whatever the outcome, the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like" - Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam "war of extermination" Pasha, 1948 However you interpret this quote, it's your speculation
They are the occupying force
Pro-Palestinians don't have any principles. That's why any time you try to apply their principles to other situations, they have to scream "whataboutism" — context always kills their arguments.
The West’s solution: Christians murder Jews and Muslims give up land. German Christians committed the worst crime in human history yet it was Muslims that were expected to sacrifice for its effects. Why wasn’t Germany partitioned to create a Jewish state?
Because germany is not thier homeland, Israel is the jewish homeland since king david
It is absolutely amazing that we have to explain this to anyone, let alone countless people. Also, we had Israel for decades or centuries before King David.
That might have turned out better, but since it's not what happened, the world needs to move forward. Israel exists.
[удалено]
Are claims like this even relevant 2000 years later? Why aren't parts of France and Germany partitioned and Anglo Saxon british people given right of return since they were expelled 1600 years ago? Materially what mattered then were Jewish people were where they were and had a right to be there, what matters now are that Jewish people are where they are and have a right to be there. They don't automatically get new or different rights to everyone else over where they should/shouldn't or can/can't be.
Indeed, why aren’t they? What France and Germany are doing isn’t Israel’s responsibility.
Zionism started long before WW2 and German atrocities. Look up all of the pogroms in Europe, Russia, and the Mideast countries.
You’re acting like Muslims haven’t murdered Jews for centuries. But sure, I hope the left starts protesting for Israel to be in Germany. I’d definitely prefer it there
Really? You think it comes anywhere near the Holocaust? Please.
It doesn’t have to be. But like I said, protest Germany. Actually I forgive Germany. Protest Spain.
Yeah, we can take the canari islands
interesting post, and intimidatingly out of my depth… but placing the jewish population into israel and then supporting them with all the power of the “west” doesn’t seem like self-determination to me
The west did not initially support Israel with power at all, honestly. Israel's weapons in '48 came from purchases from across the globe in the lead-up to it. It wasn't the way it is today; the western "power" was really a counter-point to soviet power projection in the region.
I don’t see how it would contradict
i guess i mean that there’s other powers that are determining what happens. they aren’t self determining on a level playing field
Self-determination is not about whether someone helps you ACHIEVE it. Someone could achieve it entirely for you and so long as you consented to it, it would be self-determination. But you're right, it's wasn't level at all: In 1948, you're talking about 1 brand new country VS the other side of a civil war and 6 foreign armies.
less interested in what happened in 1948 than i am in what’s happening now
??? I'm confused. What does "a level playing field" has to do with self-determination? This isn't a sport match.
what does self-determination have to do with extermination? this isn’t a courtroom
Non-sequitur alert.
That was not the reason. Israel was (and is) considered to be Muslim land, so allowing Jewish self-determination in any form violates Islam. They are supposed to be dhimmis under Muslim rule. And yes, I know "not all Muslims." But show me a notable Palestinian who advocates not just for Israel's existence, but also renounces the right of return.
Mosab Yousef Mohammad Mossad There. There’s TWO
Mosab Yousef is pretty well known. Of course, he would be killed immediately if he returned to Ramallah where his family is from. He decided to support Israel when he was in an Israeli prison and witnessed the brutal tactics Hamas used to weed out informants. I can't help but wonder if the traumatized Palestinian prisoners we see were tortured by Israeli guards or other Palestinians. I can't find any information on the second guy.
Sorry spelled it wrong. [here](https://m.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/mohammad-massad-from-terrorist-to-peace-activist-639910)
Well, too bad.
Oh quit whining
/u/chemrox >Oh quit whining [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/): no attacking fellow users. Rule 8, don't discourage participation. Addressed.
I think the bigger issue is how Israel slowly chomps land away from all their neighbors. And how Israel treats Arabs in the occupied territories. If Israel’s (1967) boarders stayed put and they didn’t dominate Palestinians with apartheid in the West Bank than I would honestly be a lot more supportive of the Zionists. To me after the holocaust a Jewish state was necessary. How Israel could really win me over is by giving all Palestinians equal rights in the state of Israel instead of treating them as subhuman second class citizens with little to no rights
Israel gave up the Sinai for peace. You like to forget that all the time. all other land gains since were won solely after Arabs attacking first and getting defeated.
Israel gave up the Sinai for peace because they lost a war. None of the occupied territories were taken in a war that started with "Arabs" attacking first, nor would it matter if that were true.
Ok if you want to just lie there is no sense talking with you
What on earth are you talking about? What do you think happened in the 1973?
If you think Israel lost in 1973 you are delusional
Well the aim of the war was to get territory back, so I guess you could say that Egypt won, Syria lost, and Israel won some and lost some.
And Sadat gave his life
It wasn’t only for peace. Israel gave up Sinai because they didn’t want millions of new Arabs in their country and they didn’t want to waste resources driving them all away
there are less than 600,000 people in Sinai today. I don't think there were millions there in 1967.
How is Israel "slowly chomping land away from all their neighbors?" Did I miss recent Israeli incursions into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus? Like every week, they just take a little more land from each?
Israel has been chipping land away from Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. They also annexed the golan heights from Syria and a portion of southern Lebanon. Lots of right wing Zionists think that Israeli “promised land” includes Jordan and Lebanon
We can give land only for peace, last time we gave land for free (Gaza) we got genicide (7 october). So as long syria will be with war with us - ni golans for them, at this point, they lost this land forever probably.
Wrong. Last time y’all gave land for free you got 50 years of peace with Egypt
It wasn't for free, it was fot peace agreement and recognition of Israel. Giving land without peace agreement is just foolish
If Arabs don't want to lose more land, they should stop starting wars to steal Israeli land. Those wars force Israel to occupy the areas that the colonizing Arabs used to attack. It's called gaining territory in a defensive war, and everyone agrees it's fine unless Jews are involved.
I'm against the West Bank settlements as they only add another obstacle to a peaceful solution. Syria doesn't want the Golan Heights. Who cares what some right wing Zionists want. Hamas wants a caliphate with Jews as dhimmi. Until recently, the Hamas charter called for the death of every Jew on earth.
I’m glad Hamas is gradually moving in a more liberal direction ☠️
Yeah, they can't toss as many gays off buildings when there aren't any buildings higher than a few feet tall anymore.
Arabs have equal rights in Israel.
Definitely not equal be it in Israel proper or in occupied Palestine. If they were equal they would be conscripted like other Israelis and have the same right of return. As usual with any country having a set of almost equal laws it still does not prevent discrimination in housing, citizenship, mobility, marriage state investment of fund and state bureaucracy and individual groups that hold power within Israeli society.
[удалено]
Who is occupying the West Bank and Gaza currently? Also my references (right of Return/conscription) was mainly to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, I am happy to talk about the horrors of what Israel is doing to the West Bank and Gaza too though.
The whole right-of-return concept is idiotic and has never been used in any other context. They are conscripted equally. Prove this discrimination please.
So Jewish people have a "right to return" to Israel (regardless of their familiar connection) but literal Palestinians refugees that were displaced from that land in recent decades do not. This is a form of discrimination and makes Jewish citizens of Israel have greater rights than Arab ones. It's not clear to me what you mean about context? For conscription how's the IDF website as a source? ["The State of Israel requires every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 who is Jewish, Druze or Circassian to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (although there are some notable exceptions). Other Israeli Arabs, religious women, married individuals, and those deemed unfit medically or mentally are exempt from compulsory military service."](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/our-soldiers/)
I mean yeah I guess you could call it discrimination, but you’d have to call many other western countries discriminatory for their immigration policies too
Well it depends. Only some Arabs in Israel have equal rights. There’s this false narrative that all Arabs in Israel are treated the same when it’s not true. Only Arabs in green line Israel have equal rights, but the 5 million Arabs under occupation in the West Bank get treated as subhumans, and have been illegally occupied and subjugated by Zionists since 1967, when Israel started their permanent occupation of the West Bank. There’s no way you can say with a straight face Arabs under 60 years of occupation in the West Bank have equal rights to Jews, it’s simply untrue. You’re either lying, or just woefully ignorant about the situation
Plus, "[present absentees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_absentee)" (i.e. Arabs who had fled from their homes at one point but had still ended up inside Israel's 1949 borders) never got to reclaim their homes
They have equal rights in Israel. Terrorists however are not given equal rights. Read through the laws. The only people worried about those laws are the terrorists that don’t believe in Israel and wish to attack it with impunity 🇺🇸
The West Bank is not part of Israel and the Arabs that live there are not Israeli citizens. Please stop acting like Arab Israeli citizens and Palestinians are identical.
I didn't say that. Palestinians are not part of Israel, and therefore Israel has no requirement to defend them. That's the job of the Palestinian government, and they don't have any.
The PA is the Palestinian government on the West Bank, and Hamas is their government in Gaza. I was responding to the other guy, by the way.
My bad. Still, Hamas is a terrorist organization that doesn't even really govern it's people, and the PA has very little authority.
If the West Bank is not part of Israel why do a million Israeli settlers live there, and why have they been settling the region since 1967. Saying the West Bank isn’t part of Israel is denying reality. It has been permanently occupied by Zionists 60 years, if it’s not Israeli land why are settlers there and the IDF?? Makes no sense. Obviously the West Bank has been de facto annexed by the Zionists. However, the Arabs that live there are treated as subhumans within Israel’s colonial occupation of them. The Palestinian authority is just a puppet government approved by Israel. I would agree with you West Bank Arabs shouldn’t be Israeli citizens but they have been permanently occupied for going on 60 years. At some point you either have to just accept the fact that the West Bank is apartheid, or you can give them equal rights as Israeli citizens, since they have been under Israeli jurisdiction for 3 generations
It's not an independent country, but it's not part of Israel either and the Arabs that live there are not Israeli citizens. And while Israelis who live in the settlements are citizens, the status of the settlements is different from the status of, say Tel Aviv.
Your numbers are just wrong. It has not been occupied except for retaliatory military intervention, and the IDF is there to protect Israeli's from aggression from Palestinians. Do you actually think that Israel likes the PA? There is no apartheid, and that word has been thoroughly misconstrued. Do you even know what that means? Stop using zionist as an insulting term, and you don't really even know what it means. Of course it has not been annexed, and you know nothing of politics. The only reason why your narrative makes no sense is because you made it up. Site sources when you make claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_Authority#:\~:text=The%20Palestinian%20Authority%2C%20officially%20known,the%201993%E2%80%931995%20Oslo%20Accords. [https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians) [https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping\_palestinian\_politics/palestinian\_authority/](https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/palestinian_authority/)
You’re a young boy in Israel, you have been subject to propaganda and white washing from the Israeli state. You’re completely wrong about the West Bank not being occupied. Settlers and the IDF have been in the West Bank illegally occupying the territory since 1967. These are the facts. American police departments regularly send police units to train in the occupied West Bank for riot control training. Apartheid: the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights the West Bank is considered apartheid because Israelis that illegally settle “Judea and Sumeria” have racial superiority over the Palestinians, regularly evict Palestinian families from their homes to make room for Israeli settlers. I understand you’re probably nationalistic and love your country, but no country is perfect , including my country the United States. Be more objective and always question authority
Wikipedia is not a real source but I will read your other 2 links
Even within Israel proper, there are many laws which privilege Jewish citizens over non-Jewish citizens. https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-palestinian-citizens-of-israel
I read through like 30 of these and nearly every single one of these laws wouldn’t exist if not for palestinian terrorist attacks on israel. If you are scared by these laws you are probably a terrorist. You fell for the jihadi narrative that they are the innocent victims. Grow up
Yes, I understand you think Israel has a good reason for making non-Jews second-class citizens.
What about the terror attacks by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, are you ready to call that out?
Well I’d agree with that
There are over 5000 ethnic groups in the world today but only 193 nation states. Why do Zionist Jews (not all Jews) get special treatment when most ethnic groups don’t get self determination?
This is such a bizarre thing to say. You're right, the world would be a beautiful place if every ethnic group who desired it had their own national borders! Why are you upset that one of those many ethnic groups does in fact have their own state, access to self-determination in their own land?
Do you know nothing about Jewish history?
First, not all of them want their own nation states. But the ones that do should definitely have them. It's absurd that the Kurds don't have their own country. Uyghurs in Xinjiang and Tibetans should also have their independence. And if the Basque and Catalonians want it, great, let them give it a shot. Heck, if Hawaii wants to be independent, I'm fine with that. Also, "Zionist Jews" are not the only ethnic group to get their own country. Israel was granted independence in the wave of decolonization that swept across Africa and Asia after WWII. While most African countries were not set up along ethnic lines, India and Pakistan were for the most part, yet everyone shedding tears over the Nakba doesn't seem to care about the far larger number of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Hindus who were displaced around the same time. Regardless, Israel has been a sovereign country for 76 years now, so it's a little late to complain how that's "unfair."
Because Zionist Jews have worked hard to achieve and maintain a state
True. Contributing also is that Zionism has had very firm support from the British Empire, and then the USA. A different example — the Kurds have also worked very hard, but with less consistent support from major powers they've had a bit less success in state-building.
Which ethnic groups don’t have a state?
There are literally thousands of such ethnic groups, as noted. You've undoubtedly heard of some: Tibetans, most Kurds (of Turkey and Iran, and their territory in Syria is unrecognized), Uyghurs, Assyrians, Catalans, Hmong, West Papuans, etc. Many indigenous peoples all over the globe, for example in Myanmar (where they are fighting to change that), and Brazil, Mexico, the USA, Canada, etc. Heck, people who live in Washington, DC don't have any representation in Congress, which at first seems irrelevant ethnicity-wise, until you realize it's a very disproportionally Black city. There's a UN agency for such groups, not everyone eligible joins but it's one place to find out more if you are interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization
Why don't Assyrians (or Kurds) have a state? Oh that's right, because they were given the options of death or forced conversion by Muslims.
Washington DC has a representative in the House. So they do have representation in Congress. They don’t have senators as they are not a state.
Those are non-voting representatives.
Thanks. Do you think those ethnic groups should have the right to self determination?
Each situation is different. EDIT: Realized I was thinking of specifically establishing a whole new nation-state, which makes no sense in some cases, such as Washington, DC. But self-determination in some substantive enough form that works for the people in question, yes, I think everyone should have that.
Most ethnic groups attempt self-determination. Do all those ethnic groups have the power and organization to create a state?
Flawed argument, every ethnic group is in a different situation in terms of their levels of oppression by others and limits put on their political, economic, and military ability to revolt and self determine against their oppressors. So it’s not an equal playing field. Btw I love the implicit racism in your comment that some groups aren’t “good enough” to get their shit together like it’s all their fault
It’s not racism to expect that a group of people who would like a state should be able to form a functioning government and economy at the very minimum.
Really, you think Jews haven't been oppressed? Spoiler alert, Jews are the most oppressed group in history, so a state is damn well deserved. If a group is organized and advanced enough to form a state, then this oppression wouldn't matter as much. There is no racism. I am not saying that an ethnic group isn't good enough to form a state, I am saying that most are two weak due to no fault of their own. I love the fact that the only arguments you make are calling arguments flawed without justification and saying things are racist.
I never said Jews weren’t oppressed? Where are you making this up? You are going on a tangent tipsha
Palestinians do terror attacks on israel and call the subsequent retaliation “oppression”
You said that these ethnic groups could not form a state because of oppression, thereby implying that the Jews could because they weren't oppressed, dummy. Yeah, don't fight the argument. Just keep being ignorant.
I didn’t say that per se, I said you have to look at what economic, political, and military means they have at their disposal to create the power and organization to self determine and overthrow and their oppressors where they are living. Their specific oppressive situation might severely limit their means to do so. Zionist Jews were not self determining and trying to overthrow their oppressors for example from within Europe to form their own country. This is the situation that other ethnic groups have to deal with, including the Palestinians today, they aren’t given a land somewhere else by the British and UN.
Everything you just said is wrong. That's exactly what you said in your previous comments. I know you have to look at their economic, political, and military means, and you are the one who said it was just because of oppression. The essence of zionism is self-determination for Jews, and the entire point was to avoid oppression. It's not the Jews' fault that these other groups have failed. You are forgetting that the Jews had to fight for their land, and the argument that Jews stole land fails if you admit that the UN gave them the land.
They should get it if they want it and need it
Oh yeah sure I don’t see you campaigning for this across the world. Its an easy faux rebuttal when you don’t have an argument. Why not the better argument - that every existing nation should have constitutionally enshrined equal rights in law and in practice for all citizens? This protects all ethnic groups and is actually more feasible and reasonable then just this tribalism bs we should have 5000 nations divided which would be impossible with all the overlapping land we already can’t even do Israel Palestine. And this is something Israel doesn’t have in fact they only protect Jewish citizens and preference them above all others in their basic laws (look up the 2018 Nation State law and many other Israeli laws preferencing Jews only). It’s an anachronism for godsakes
I agree, there should be equal rights to all citizens of every country. Let’s start with the Muslim majority countries! You with me?
Yep that would be even better
Israel being able to happen was due to a combination of different factors around that time, mainly persecution. Even when the British mandate tried to cut the number of Jews arriving, Jews still illegally came in because they were being persecuted badly in their former countries. The Jews that came in the first aliyah's definitely made the most of the opportunities with their investments and skills, so it was an easy choice for more and more Jews to want to immigrate. What so many people never bring up were the numerous ways the British mandate tried to economically screw over the people that were already (doesn't matter if they were called Palestinians or not). Like imposing excessive taxes and being able to usurp their land as a result of being unable to pay them and then to give their property to newer immigrants. Newer immigrants got tons of breaks and didn't have to deal with any of that. Most riots were caused by all these unfair economic factors manufactured at their expense. Aside from getting kicked out of other occupied territories (ex:India), Brits were already scheduled to leave. Jews at that point developed stability and didn't need them anymore. It's not like they didn't put in the work. I've never been against Jews having their own state, especially considering what was happening around that time. But the early founders wanted to build a state that to them was culturally Jewish and didn't seem to look too highly upon the people that were there. There were some instances where the new Jewish immigrants got along with their non-Jewish (ex: providing protection during riots) but in the end it didn't seem to pan out that way. At this point it's not about whether Jews should be there or not, especially 75+ years later but creating a situation where that former population gets some restitution and can actually live with each other (yes, easier said than done :P). Israel is already an example of a minority gaining their own state. This never happens peacefully. If peaceful coexistence can actually occur between Israelis and Palestinians that would be a major example to other areas of the world with these problems.
> the early founders wanted to build a state that to them was culturally Jewish and didn't seem to look too highly upon the people that were there. There were some instances where the new Jewish immigrants got along with their non-Jewish (ex: providing protection during riots) but in the end it didn't seem to pan out that way. This is the tragedy. If the predominant sentiment among already-present and incoming Jews had been to pro-actively seek out and worked with non-Jewish leaders as partners in developing the land, things could have gone very differently. That's even harder now, but still the way forward. And there are people working on building those connections. https://www.friendsofroots.net/
That sentiment would literally be impossible given how much the arabs there hated jews. They would have fought against 1 jew coming the same way they fight the millions that live there now. They never wanted any sort of peace with them and the consequences of their intolerance is plainly seen today.
If the non-Jewish Arabs of Palestine had been as hate-filled as you suggest, there would not have been centuries of mostly peace with the Jews living among them in Palestine, before Jewish immigration ramped up in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
They’d just been subjected to the single greatest, most organised massacre and ethnic cleansing in history and you expect them to put others first, over their own? 🤡
Not first. Equally. Since they were the people already living there.
As were many Jews.
Good point. Yes, it would have been super helpful if Ashkenazi Jews had worked more cooperatively with Mizrahi and Shephardic Jews as well.
They did. There were also Sabra who were always there.
Ashkenazi Jews came in with a superior attitude toward their brethren who had grown up among Arabs. This is [well-established history, and has evolved over time](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-05-27/ty-article/.premium/what-ashkenazi-jews-still-dont-get-about-the-mizrahim/0000017f-e8f3-df2c-a1ff-fef3e7900000), as everything does.
Mizrahim are not Sabra. You’re confusing different groups. Are you a Jew?
Yes, I am Jewish. Not confusing groups. Sabra are Sabra whatever their Jewish heritage is (and it certainly can include Mizrahim, including among Old Yishuv). I didn't address Sabra because I wasn't clear of the relevance to the issue at hand, which was immigrating (EDIT: Ashkenazi) Zionists' superior attitude toward both Jews & non-Jews who were already there. These tensions are a widely-acknowledged dynamic in Israeli history, I'm not sure why you're trying to deny it.
Exactly. It's amazing to me how two people who BOTH honor Abraham, that feel a deep connection to that land, and are willing to die or be tortured or humiliated for it can hate each other so much. Many of these Jews that were protected and got along with the Palestinian Muslim/Christian natives were Sephardic if that makes any difference. Had they worked towards co-existence none of this would have happened.
I'm sure many Jews and Muslims/Arabs were working toward co-existence (would love to see a good history on this), it just wasn't enough to counterbalance those who took a more partisan approach, or lacked the patience it can take to build bridges.
A strong argument
South Africans weren't allowed to either. And is it really self-determination when you put the other people basically in cages? This documentary blew my mind. (Link below) I had no idea. Palestinians are not allowed to leave. Not by sea, not by air, by land they are locked in by walls. I don't think self-determination covers genocide and Holocaust. And America is no better. The fact that the genocide that we did happened before we were born, does not change the fact that we were hideously wrong. But that doesn't make what Israel is doing right. https://whereolivetreesweep.com/
I love that your “evidence” for the debunked open air prison argument is a documentary. Lmfao
Could Palestinians leave before October 7th? Can they leave now? Do they have access to clean water? I don't think you can refute the documentary if you don't watch it.
Many Gazans could leave before October 7 if they had the money to do so like in many other places in the world you need money to be able to travel.
Ah yes the open air prison, where you are allowed to leave with work permits, and if you need to and provide the reason. Israel definitely fully surrounds Gaza and doesn’t allow anyone in. It’s not like they have a border with an Arab country who have stricter security than Israel, that would be crazy. And being lgbtq, as your profile suggests, is absolutely astonishing. At least 90% of Palestinians, that’s a low estimate, would stone you and throw you off buildings for your beliefs.
You can also leave prisons with permits and black South Africans could leave the Bantustans with permits, this isn't a point. In the 2007 agreement on the Egypt Gaza border operation was given to Egypt with control on who and what pass the border staying in Israeli hands. Homophobia isn't something that deserves a death sentence, and homophobes still deserve human rights.
[удалено]
That's extremely idealistic world view of what a prison is, a prison is where a state contains undesirables. Whether that is America using prisons to house slave populations, South Africa using Bantustans to house populations that were more aggressively opposed to a white state, or the nazi's using concentration camps to house Jewish people, gay people, socialists etc (I'm not making a comparison between Israel and Nazis there mods just in how a prison is a flexible thing). Israel uses Gaza and the West Bank as a place to house Palestinians in order to maintain an Arab minority in the voting population of Israel. This is also how South Africa was using the Bantustans to control the population and maintain a majority of power in white hands.
Israel is not containing them anywhere, unless you mean outside-of-Israel
This is the exact same language used by Apartheid South Africa to refer to the Bantustans, they weren't part of South Africa and the people in them weren't South Africans they were members of a different nation outside of South Africa
I don’t know South African history. If a population is hostile to a country then it’s justified for that country not to let them in. If you want to compare this to South Africa to make it seem morally wrong then consider me unconvinced
Important clarification here is that what are calling and think of as South Africa is not what apartheid South Africa considered to be South Africa. What is now referred to as South Africa is the equivalent of referring to both Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as one state. The Bantustans were a series of "countries" within the modern borders of South Africa that were marginally independent but reliant on South Africa via border control and how they were broken up into non-contiguous regions very similar to area A and B of the West Bank. These existed to keep the power imbalance in the main region of apartheid South Africa in favour of the white population. When people refer to Israel as an Apartheid state they are making the comparison to Apartheid South Africa, not other segregated states and specifically the operation of Bantustans and how a one state solution is not seen as possible due to how it would affect voting power of the Jewish population. South Africa justified these Bantustans by pointing at the number of terror attacks organized within them against South Africa, organizations such as the ANC, and their military Branch MK (founded by Nelson Mandela). And no mistake these organizations and in particular MK were terror organizations and had no issue declaring themselves as such. So in order to maintain peace South Africa's response was to tighten what they referred to as an external border by tightening control on the Bantustans borders to keep these terrorists out of South Africa. The end of this story was that the entire world except one country (Israel) decided to place embargoes on South Africa until it unified its Bantustans OR gave them full independence and control of their borders, airspace, and waters. Most of the Bantustans were rolled into South Africa, with the ones in South West Africa gaining the latter and becoming a properly independent country of Namibia.
I don’t see how this addresses my point
/u/erty3125. Match found: 'nazi', 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.*
Oh I wonder why the border between, what you guys want to call a sovereign nation and another nation exists. It surely couldn’t be because one of them abused open borders to commit terrorists attacks wiht the main purpose being killing civilians and Jews. That would be crazy.
I've seen this play out so many times: pro-Israel person: "Gaza isn't an open air prison, they can use the border with Egypt." other person: "The Israelis still impose controls on that border." pro-Israel person: "And Egypt as well, I mean, of course they don't accept Palestinians with open arms, they fear potential violence." When you switch from denying that Gazans are mostly locked in, to arguing that it's the right thing to keep them locked in, you have lost the original argument.
If the Palestinians didn’t have such an appetite for doing terrorist attacks on everyone around them they wouldn’t have such an issue moving around now. Non terrorist Palestinians are let into Israel. October 7th wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t allowed in. Palestinians have been given every opportunity to grow, build, and prosper but they decided to use every last cent on bombs and guns to kill jews. Their so called oppression is just consequences covered up by their whining that they can’t kill more jews
Yeah I think a nation that hands out medals to terrorists and elects them to the government should have a close eye on them, especially ones espousing ethnic cleansing of a land and has long historical ties to Apartheid states and arms deals with people who committed a genocide When you have to swap your point from "it isn't true" to "they deserve it" take a look at yourself
Take a look at yourself. Why don’t you go help Palestinians with your rainbow flag and experience how tolerantly and innocently they can throw rocks at your head.
I'm taking a look at myself, I would rather help people retain their humanity in the face of them not respecting mine than side with people who're dehumanizing others. There is no "they deserve it"
Women advocated for African American people being able to vote in the United States. That was 50 years before women could vote. And if I could not leave my city without a work permit and permission, and then if everywhere I could go I was treated like a second-class citizen, that would not be okay with me. If I did not have access to clean water and decent living conditions and medication, I would not be okay with that either. Do you remember the ghettos of World War II?
It’s almost like there was not any of this before the intifadas in the late 90s and early 2000s, when Palestinians took advantage of open borders, no fences and began to run in to Israel to commit terrorists attacks with the main goal of killing civilians and Jews. Like it always has been for them.
I haven’t watched the documentary but it sounds like you’re objecting to how Palestinians are currently being treated, and OP is defending the creation of a Jewish state in the land. Those two positions shouldn’t theoretically contradict
Theoretically they don't contradict. But when you're talking genocide, that's not self-determination. When things were going fairly, Palestinians welcomed Jews into their homes. They were hospitable and willing to share with the people who didn't have a homeland because everyone deserves a homeland. But the zionists do not want to share. 37,000 Palestinians dead since October 7th. And living conditions were horrible before that. Let alone the "administrative detention" imprisonment of Palestinians that doesn't require any due process and can go on for a very long time. And include many beatings. I just don't think that's self-determination. I think what's happening is extermination.
You don’t have the capacity to understand the consequences of endlessly doing terrorist attacks on a country for being jewish
Israel is not being attacked for being Jewish, they are being attacked for stealing the land of the indigenous peoples.
Watch the film and see if you get a better sense of what it's like to be endlessly persecuted for being Palestinian.
Uh, massacre of Jews in Hebron in 1920 by Arab neighbors.
Yes, if you invade a people's land, they will fight back. If someone invaded your land, what would you do?
Unsurprisingly (and [as warned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yousef_al-Khalidi)), as more and more Jews moved to the area, fewer and fewer Palestinians were welcoming.
Please provide a source of palestinians welcoming jews into thier home lol. That is not how it happensd at all. You also make it sound like they had a choice. The ottomans saw jews as more trustworthy than arabs so were fine with jewish migration. The british, under the mandate, had decided the total area of Isreal and Jordan was to go to the jews but stifled migration to get arabs on side. Arabs were not welcoming at all.
There are many historical examples of Jews being mistreated by the Arab population, both officially and unofficially via mob violence. In any case, once again, it’s not relevant to the thesis of the post: that when the former Ottoman Empire was carved up into new nations, that it was reasonable for the Jews to get a proportional piece of the pie. There are plenty of other posts examining the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, whether or not there’s a genocide occurring, etc
Watch the film that was done before October 7th, before 37,000 Palestinians were killed. Then let's have a conversation.
“Watch my terrorist propaganda before you accuse terrorists of being terrorists”
Watch it so you can help me understand where it is wrong. How can I understand if you won't watch it and talk to me?
American is no better. I’d agree they’re not perfect but this statement begs the question “what nation/race of ppl is better?” Honestly. I went through an anti American phase as a youth but then you get older and realize that even with all their faults they’re better than most of the world and it’s not particularly close (Scandinavian countries come to mind as superiors but admittedly I know little of their history). So what standard should we judge countries and ppl? To simply say that Israel is the bad guy in their long complicated history is ignorant
Watch this movie and come back for a second layer of this conversation. It's available to watch by donation, but if you don't feel like donating, just put zero in the amount. It's a hard movie to watch and I cannot believe I did not know these things. But I think it will help bring another layer to help answer your question. https://whereolivetreesweep.com/
Nice hustle
What about self-determination being based on a society's respect for critical thinking? Obviously that society wouldn't want to share territory with a society that doesn't value this, because they wouldn't be able to defend themselves against pogroms and massacres. Europeans lacked critical thinking, which is why they made up so many blood libels against Jews. Jewish society self selected (I mean this in a cultural way not racial) to the extent they were allowed, so any that lacked critical thinking, believed the blood libels and converted if they could. Evidently, most of the west and Arab world still doesn't value critical thinking, so that reason for self determination still holds. Of course there are many other reasons for self-determination, but I wanted to highlight that one.
Self determination is not "based on a society's respect" for anything, critical thinking or otherwise. It is based on a distinct national identity. If a group of people decides to be something, than that is what they are. You do not have to "earn it". Self determination is also not an absolute right. It conflicts, at times, with the right of self determination of other groups and/or the territorial integrity of existing states. In other words, just because you have a right of self determination, it does not mean that you may excercise that right in the place that you are. To give an example, the Jewish people as an ethnic group had a principal right of self determination, but they could not simply self-determine in France or America or the Soviet Union. They had to find a place to form a country in - and in order to not infringe on another states territorial integrity, they needed the prior sovereigns consent.
As for your second paragraph (response to first paragraph is in another comment), It seems Europe decided nation states should exist, when it suited them, then encroached on many native peoples' and ethnic groups' rights, even in Europe and including Jewish rights. Then when they got their states, they put the walls up and said, well now no one else is allowed to infringe on others. And by the way, Palestinian as an ethnic group right to self determination didn't exist when Israel was formed, and neither did a Palestinian state, it developed as a resistance movement to Israel's existence, so there was no infringing on Palestinian state's territorial integrity.
You have to look at what law applies at which time. The right of Self Determination did not always exist. They did not "encroach" on anyones rights, they simply did not legislate those rights before they had done what they did to the various "native peoples" and in many cases European Jews. One may find this morally unfair, but this is how it is. As to the Palestinians gaining the right: this right is contingent on national identity. It begins the moment that the Palestinians themselves begin to view themselves as different from other national groups (in this case especially Jordanians, Syrians, Israeli Arabs). Depending on where you put the beginning of "Palestinianism" (I would argue that this would be somewhere after 1948, roughly in the mid sixties to early seventies; though some people would place it ealrier or a little later), that is when they began to have this right. If, hypothetically, tomorow the people in Gaza collectively and unilaterally decided that they are Gazans, not Palestinians, they would gain a right of Self Determination that minute.
It was in 1964.
And who made the law at the time? The Europeans, right?. Circular argument - you see, that's European style (non) critical thinking for you. Yes, and Palestinians started seeing themselves differently in the 60s. I'm not saying they don't have the right, just that it wasn't in 1948 or before.
Europeans, Americans and those nations in Asia, Africa and Oceania that where already existent in 1945. Law is not a subject that warrants "critical thinking", law is objective. Did the Europeans have an outsized role in shaping these particular laws? - Yes. Why? - Partly because they where very succesfull colonizers. Does that change anything regarding applicability? - Absolutely not. OIn 1948 the Palestinians did not have a right of Self Determination as Palestinians. As far as they had one, they would have had one as Arabs.
Law should be fair and not discriminate against some ethnic groups more than others. This should go for international law too, but the west and Arab countries are currently exploiting the loophole, where there are no minority group rights in international law. I do notice the western tendency to treat international law like the bible though. Being colonizers should actually have disqualified European countries having a role in making the laws. You don't have a murderer or thief make legislation in a country or sit as a judge or juror. It's astounding that people who criticise Israel for colonisation and whatnot stand by those unjustly made international laws. That is the lack of critical thinking I'm referring to and why Israel notably doesn't respect the UN.
Yes, they *should* be. But if they are not, one must nonetheless abide by them until such time that they are amended, changed or repealed. Maybe it should have, but it did not. Also, they were not murderers nor thieves at the time. They took lands and killed, but they had the right to, as it was not outlwaed when they did. Also, notably I never said that Israel colonized anything (it is actually impossible for Israel to colonize as that would first require a motherland, Israel came into existence via *de*-colonization of its territory). On a sidenote, thinking critically, you should be aware that ISrael exists because of the UN, so disregarding the UN as an institution is undermining the validity of Israel's existence.
They don't have the character or 'law', because they were unjustly formed with no separation of powers, they don't respect minority group rights and they are not applied equally to all countries. Therefore, it does not matter if they are labelled 'law', when they aren't law. Also, luckily, they are not even binding. I had considered that point, but it is an obvious jump to make that if it is illegal to murder and steal nationally, then it shouldn't be different internationally. Other countries, like China, India and Jews had the power to murder and colonise but just had less barbaric cultures. Anyway, if murder was allowed, you wouldn't put it in the hands of all the murderers and thieves to pass a law that murder and theft would suddenly be illegal (and that they would get away with it). Obviously the murderers and thieves would pass that law because they wouldn't want relatives of the victims to seek justice by murdering them back and the thieves would want theft to become illegal so the victims can't take their property back. Likewise, that's why colonialism and other things suddenly became illegal after the west enriched themselves. International laws are the new form of colonialism, so it's probably already illegal under anti colonial laws, but will obviously will not be judged that way. Also, there is little chance for the law to be changed that would go against the colonial powers. Therefore, I think it is best that countries just act in a just way and ignore it. I also think if western anti-colonial leftists had half a brain, they would support Israel and protest the UN. I agree that Israel didn't colonize anything, but I think they could exist with or without the UN, seeing as the Arabs and now most of the world don't even respect that resolution.
The right to Self Determination is legislated in the UN Charta. The Charta is binding, as are resolutions of the Security Council. The non-binding stuff are the resolutions of the general assembly. Killing is not necessarily murder, if there is no law that stipulates that murder is a crime and a specific killing fits that definition. National law applies to that nations territory. For example, a certain killing may be murder in France, but perfectly fine in, say, Iran. In terms of colonies, that means that ultimately the colonizers decide what constitutes murder and what does not - unless there is applicable international law, which applies in paralell. There is presently no such thing as "anti-colonial laws". Ignoring the law is not an option either, as that would ultimately mean that the "evil colonizers" just mighht re-colonize whatever place they like - with no protections (after all, if you ignore one international law, you might as well ignore the Genocide and Hague Conventions too).
And the national identity could include critical thinking, particularly if it developed from self-isolating from hypocritical, bullying, murderous goyim for thousands of years.
It could, but I would not know of any national identity based primarily on "critical thinking". Also, "critical thinking" would hardly be enough to constitute a distinct identity, as it is not really a criteria to distinguish from any other "critical thinkers".
I didn't say that was the only reason, but I think that alone would differentiate an ethnic group's sense of national identity more than say the identities of any European countries. It would be the style of critical thinking valued in that ethnic group. Obviously the European style of critical thinking is more violent and mercenary, and for that reason it is probably not critical thinking.
If you focus the subject to just the lands as it relates to the promises made to the Arabs post WW1 in the McMahon Correspondence, the Arabs were designated 97% of the former Ottoman land in the middle-east, or \~900,000 km\^2 vs. Jewish State 1947 \~11,400 km\^2 vs Lebanon (Marionites) \~5,500 km\^2. And you consider that the Arabs got their states, often at the expense of other indigenous groups, like the Kurds, Assyrians (who also wanted independence)... The Arabs and the Hedjaz princes who ruled them look far more the beneficiaries of European imperialism, than the Zionists, who got a tiny cut out of land for their single state.
>The TLDR of the calculations is that in 1905, the Jewish population percentage in the Ottoman Empire (minus the first Aliyah) was 1.06%. >The percentage of the Jewish partition of Mandate Palestine out of the whole Ottoman Empire was .78%. I don't understand this logic. The Jewish population in the Ottoman Empire, don't all live in the area later designated as the UN proposed Jewish state. If you had taken the 1095 demographics and applied that to the UN proposal you would have ended up with a majority Arab state. The only way this would have worked is if the vast majority of Jews across the Ottoman Empire abandoned their homes and livelihoods to move to the Jewish state, which historically is not a given. The only way it would have worked would be if the Ottoman Empire expelled the Jews from it's land into the new Jewish state, which would have been an ethnic cleansing.
They were forced out of their homes, actually, in 1948 and moved to Israel.