Israel/Palestine

[ousdahl]

Yea.

It seems like just another chapter in the same old problem of colonialism and indigenous displacement and stuff.

Or somethin.

[Deleted User 89]

i blame europeans

[Mjl]

But the Jews didn't aggressively conquer the territory in 1948, they were given the garbage land, most of which they had already purchased before WW2 by the Zionist movement.

And they didn't try to force any inhabitants out of that land until they were attacked by those inhabitants for the crime of being given the land they had already purchased (plus the useless Negev desert).

[zsn]

To be clear, I’m not trying to assign blame or malign the intentions of anyone. I am trying to understand the roots of the resentment.

What gave the authority to whoever “gave the garbage land” to the immigrants? Did the people to whom the land ostensibly belong have any say in the giving or the purchase?

The second paragraph in MjI’s post is somewhat self-contradictory and has an eye-of-the-beholder feel. Basically the way I understand it, there were a bunch of inhabitants on a piece of land that someone bought from someone else who didn’t have the right to sell it. Then the buyers showed and took the land and tried to kick the inhabitants out they fought back. The buyers being better resourced drove out the original inhabitants who have resented the situation ever since and are making miserable the lives of those who drove them out. Do I have it more or less correct?

Also to clarify, Israeli government and armed forces have aggressively conquered territory since 1948?

[Deleted User 89]

my understanding is that multiple entities drove out or murdered the jewish people that originally inhabited a Israel/Palestine

multiple muslim factions have done it over the years, and the romans did it a bunch as well

you are correct though, zsn, in questioning the authority of those that “gave” the land back to the Jews when the baton of Israel was formed

that’s why i questioned the validity of the Brits and the UN in an earlier post. Napoleon apparently had a say in it too, back in his day

and as i said before, it seems only in “modern” times have the Jews really ever been the aggressor. i know it’s probably not as cut and dry as that, but that’s the general impression i’ve gotten from my readings

[Deleted User 880]

Just found my Israel "diary" and re-read it.
When I was there I fortunate to be a part of something that my cousin coordinated called "Breakfast for the Brain" in which many prominent people spoke about different topics but mainly about the "conflict".
I also met with other "important" people who expressed their views regarding the "conflict".
I mention this because each of them had very different opinions and ideas and yet they were all Israelis.
Granted it was 10 years ago but these people were extremely candid. I'm not going to go in to details because frankly I don't feel anyone on here really cares enough but if you do - PM me and I would be happy to share what the following people said.

Giora Eiland (Former General and head of the Israeli National Security council).
Dalia Rabin (Daughter of Yitzhak Rabin)
Noam Tibon (Basically his "title" was the head of counter terrorism and security for the West Bank)
Miri Eisen (Highest ranking female in Israel's military - Deputy head of Combat Intelligence, other important government roles).

Moral/point of my post is that the "conflict" is actually VERY complicated despite people trying to simplify it.

While looking for my "diary" I found a book that was written by Aaron David Miller titled "The Much Too Promised Land". I read it about 10 years ago and don't remember much so I think I may start reading it again.

[Mjl]

To be clear, I’m not trying to assign blame or malign the intentions of anyone. I am trying to understand the roots of the resentment.

What gave the authority to whoever “gave the garbage land” to the immigrants? Did the people to whom the land ostensibly belong have any say in the giving or the purchase?

The second paragraph in MjI’s post is somewhat self-contradictory and has an eye-of-the-beholder feel. Basically the way I understand it, there were a bunch of inhabitants on a piece of land that someone bought from someone else who didn’t have the right to sell it. Then the buyers showed and took the land and tried to kick the inhabitants out they fought back. The buyers being better resourced drove out the original inhabitants who have resented the situation ever since and are making miserable the lives of those who drove them out. Do I have it more or less correct?

Also to clarify, Israeli government and armed forces have aggressively conquered territory since 1948?

Less. Late 1800s and early 1900s Jews from around the world were legally buying land in the Ottoman Empire and after that the British colony in the land we now know as Israel. In 1948 Great Britain gave up their colony, with the majority of the useful land going to the Arabs, and the rest becoming Israel, with the intent of nobody having to leave their home - Jews and Arabs could both live in the lsrael, just like they do today. But the Arabs didn't approve of a Jewish state so they attacked the Jews. Every time the Arabs attacked the Jews, Israel won and became bigger, as they should, because dammit, actions have consequences.

[ousdahl]

is this map accurate?

https://twitter.com/_reemks_/status/139 ... 31777?s=21

[Mjl]

No, it wasn't Palestinian land in 1947, it was a British colony.

And if they are going to mark Jews living in the west bank it seems they should mark Arabs living in Israel.

Land grabs, with the debatable exceptions of the settlements (which I am not a fan of) and the '67 war (because technically Israel fired the first shots, though it was against troops lined up on their border preparing to attack Israel), are the results of them being attacked

[Mjl]

When Israel strikes Gaza they give warning to the people in the area. Hamas does not, and they're killing their own people too.

https://twitter.com/DCIPalestine/status ... 27424?s=20

[ousdahl]

It’s so sad either way.

The who-started-it rhetoric doesn’t seem to do any good either.

Is there any path to a cease fire?

[NewtonHawk11]

When Israel strikes Gaza they give warning to the people in the area. Hamas does not, and they're killing their own people too.

https://twitter.com/DCIPalestine/status ... 27424?s=20

Noticed that too. Definitely interesting. Buildings clear out in Gaza, and then Israel strikes. I mean media sets up where the targets will be and good pictures and videos of almost everything. When Hamas strikes, you're getting cell phone footage from citizens because it catches everyone off guard.

[Mjl]

It’s so sad either way.

The who-started-it rhetoric doesn’t seem to do any good either.

Is there any path to a cease fire?

Yes. Netanyahu put it best and accurately.

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more ‎violence. If the Jews put ‎down their weapons ‎today, there would be no ‎more Israel"

Palestinians voted for representatives of a terrorist organization to represent them. Elections have consequences.

[ousdahl]

That’s more who-started-it. — the Palestinians say the same thing about the Israelis.

It seems there’s just too much finger pointing and blood on the hands of both sides in both the short and long run.

Didn’t Sasha baron cohen’s character try to foster a truce in that gay movie?

[Mjl]

That’s more who-started-it. — the Palestinians say the same thing about the Israelis.

It seems there’s just too much finger pointing and blood on the hands of both sides in both the short and long run.

Didn’t Sasha baron cohen’s character try to foster a truce in that gay movie?

That sounds like Republican whataboutism.

Just because you don't know the history doesn't mean both sides are equal. One acknowledges the others right to existence, the other doesn't.

[Deleted User 89]

and at least for me, the acknowledgement (or lack thereof) is a huge issue

if not for the international community, the US in particular, i think there’s a pretty good chance Jewish Israel wouldn’t even be a thing. one Muslim group or another (Iran) would do as they’ve been doing for thousands of years

[ousdahl]

Again, “One acknowledges the others right to existence, the other doesn't” sounds like something both sides can say. And neither side is wrong!

I hope I don’t come across as having a dog in the fight, tho. I think if either side wants to exist, they’re best off nixing the violence.

let’s avoid finger pointing the Palestinians to the point of condoning all the violence the Israelis have committed, and Vice versa.

To the Palestinians who just had their homes bombed and maybe even lost a child, you really think they’re shrugging it off like “it’s ok, we deserved this, we’re the terrorists, not them”. (And vice versa)

Heck, isn’t bombing civilian residential homes a war crime?

[ousdahl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/COyYiLDAAlk ... swg1u0agom

[Deleted User 89]

it’s not just Palestinians, tho...Iran has made explicit threats towards Israel, and supported others who’ve done the same

check out this article:

https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/ir ... lestinians

[Deleted User 89]

and i’m in no way absolving Israel

it’s just that if you look over the whole of the history, it’s pretty easy to see where the predominance of aggression has come from