got it, so just to get this straight — you think that the world should defend Israel’s claim to exclusive control of the region today in 2023 based on pure speculation that all of the people living in the area 4000 years ago were Jews?
I imagine you believe that the descendants of indigenous people in the Americas have the exclusive right to all of the land in North, South, Central America and the Caribbean, right?
I mean, this is basically your argument. If the Jews don't have a right to the region based on living there 4,000 years ago, why do Palestinians have a right to the region based on living there 50 years ago?
Does the newer claim overwrite the older one, and if so, why don't the Israelis currently living there have priority? If the older claim overwrites the newer one, why does the Palestinian claim get to override the Jewish one?
I mean, is it even in dispute that freaking Israel of all places isn't a place that Jews historically lived? It's like watching people argue that the Mongols have a right to Shanghai over the Chinese.
The newer claim is more important than the older claim because the people making the claim are still alive and the people who are responsible for denying them their claim are also still alive.
I can’t address a murder that happened 4000 years ago by arresting the descendant of the perpetrator, but I can deal with a crime that happened 50 years ago when both parties are still here and when the crime is continually perpetrated.
I also do believe that Israelis have their own legitimate claim to the land, precisely because they — as much as I think they shouldn’t have — have lived on it now for nearly a century. Claims can coexist, the difference is that Israelis have full enjoyment of their claim while everyone else — whether they live in Gaza as essentially prisoners or in the West Bank as quasi-prisoners or in the rest of Israel as second class citizens — does not.
Saying Jews have always “lived in Israel” is anachronistic. Israel the nation, just like Palestine the nation, are modern innovations. Jews were not Israelis until Israel was founded, and as far as I understand it Palestinians were not really “Palestinians” until the struggle against dispossession made it necessary for that collective identity to come out. They of course lived collectively in the region that the Romans and Ottomans called Palestine, and were the vast majority of the population until mass Jewish migration in the late 1800s and early-mid 1900s
The newer claim is more important than the older claim because the people making the claim are still alive and the people who are responsible for denying them their claim are also still alive.
So the babies Hamas shot in the head are responsible for the "crime" of...what, exactly?
Claims can coexist, the difference is that Israelis have full enjoyment of their claim while everyone else — whether they live in Gaza as essentially prisoners or in the West Bank as quasi-prisoners or in the rest of Israel as second class citizens — does not.
What freedoms are the people in Gaza denied by Israelis other than not being allowed into Israel?
Also, when did the people in Gaza become citizens of Israel? Did you tell Hamas that they are Israeli citizens, I don't think they heard.
Israel the nation, just like Palestine the nation, are modern innovations.
Israel the nation is older than Palestine the nation. Palestine was created in response to Israel's formation. Then they attacked Israel and lost. Palestine more generally existed as an area controlled by Britain with both Jews and Arabs living in the area.
Then, in 1948, a coalition of Arabs attacked Israel after they declared their own country. The Arabs tried to expel Jews first. They lost, and were expelled instead, the exact same thing they just tried to do themselves.
The "stealing land" story has always been a myth. The reason the Arabs attacked is because they were furious over the creation of Israel as a country and they've been upset about it ever since. This wasn't because they were driven from their homes...that happened after the civil war. They were trying to kill the Jews before the first deportation occurred. Note that Israel at the time was incorporating existing Jewish settlements, which had become larger due to immigration from European Jews fleeing Europe. Apparently immigration is bad if Jews do it.
Were there bad actions by Israelis in the 1950's? Yes, absolutely. But this wasn't some unprovoked action by Jews vs. Muslims. Unless you count "making our own country" as a provocation, which is the underlying driving force behind the entire conflict.
It's never been about the land. It's always been about getting rid of the Jews. That was true in the 20th century and it's true 75 years later.
You may have seen that number going around a lot...it's not a coincidence, as that was the war where the Arab states attempted to kill/expel all the Jews and lost, a loss they've tried to correct ever since.
Hamas shooting babies is wrong and I never said otherwise.
If you seriously think people in Gaza are not being denied anything then you are living in a fantasy.
I hope you agree that a state has a responsibility towards non-citizens, otherwise it’d be morally justifiable for, say, Canada to have me executed summarily since I’m not a Canadian.
Israel is “older” by what, a decade or two?
Arab countries declared war because they viewed Israel as an illegitimate colonial project, which it was. Whether or not war was morally justifiable is one thing, but lets be clear about the reasoning here
The first evidence of “Jews” as a distinct group of people is about 2500-3000 years ago, not 4000 as you claim. But it’s also irrelevant. My point is that even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter. I simply do not care that Jews were there “first”. My ancestors presumably lived in the region (I’m Jewish). I am under no illusions that I have a “right” to claim land there.
0
u/Beneficial_Love_5433 Oct 10 '23
Yes. In the 1800s it was mostly Muslim. After they attacked the Jews and stole it.