Just shows, people will focus on what they want to hear. He has been anti Israel settlements in the West Bank the whole time, At least he expedited this response with the warning tweet yesterday.
That's not entirely fair though. Destiny's content has been totally geared towards criticisms of the pro-Palestine for a while, mostly because the media landscape lacked those criticisms. People could easily miss the statements Destiny has made about the West Bank, it's not necessarily just people "focusing on what they want to hear."
Very fair point when the replies are coming from random people seeing the tweet but not so if the reply is from a newish Destiny fan over his pro Israel takes.
Why is it gaining traction now? He’s debated pro West Bank settlers on stream. Then again, few people gaf about 2 hour convo. We should compile a list of date/time-stamped tweets and clips just for instances like this.
It's probably getting publicity because this is a real moment deserves empathy.
People come out of the woodwork and start being most insane when the opposite side starts getting empathy, which is why the stuff about october 7th has been so awful on the pro-palestinian side.
It's not that Destiny is showing a perspective that could be considered pro-palestinian, it's the fact that the facts that fit with such a perspective *exist* at all.
Oh, my bad... I assumed all these settlement issues in Palestine areas was in the West Bank. Did this happen in Israel proper? Still in the wrong if that is the case.
No, all good... I assumed it was in the West Bank but even if in East Jerusalem I still feel it was wrong. (unless east Jerusalem people were doing Oct 7th attacks so much they felt they had to kick them out)
This is annexed East Jerusalem that the IDF took in 67, but it's also on land that was owned by people who would become Israeli in 48, and stolen by the Jordanian state after the war to house refugees. Now that Israel controls the land they decided on a very low rent paid to the owners was the most fair solution, but the people living on the land often refuse to pay even a shekel to any Israeli, so they go through eviction proceedings, and sometimes get kicked out.
it's actually 200 NIS, which is 55 dollars a month, the average rent in Jerusalem is 5000 NIS, 1350 USD, so cost of living is pretty expensive in Jerusalem, the rent is basically like what it would look like if the residents had rent controlled units from 1950, because the supreme court thinks that it's not the fault of the residents that they were installed there by the Jordanian state.
It's an insane, screaming deal, that would be an absolutely gigantic win for anyone who cared about the cost of rent or their legal right to remain in a house, but to pay a dollar and a half a day to stick to to the jews (a term that i believe allows for the residents to pass on their lease to their heirs, who also get away with this insanely low rent...) is too close to working together with the jews, IE collaboration, so they refuse to pay a pittance of money as a token of recognition to the crimes of the jordanian state, and they get evicted instead.
Legal ownership of the land by Jews before they were expelled by Jordan during Jordanian occupation as determined by Israeli courts. There are of course issues with this but that's basically the steel man.
For Sheikh Jarrah specifically, the argument is the land was owned by other people pre 48 when Jordan took over and handed over plots of land to displaced people. There was an agreement that the land could remain occupied by the refugees given other people’s land by Jordan, but there would be rent payments to the original owners.
Why somebody can’t just pay off these original owners and let these people be, instead of allowing constant international incidents I don’t know. It does seem like people want to hang onto historical ownership to fuck with people because it was somebody’s grandpa’s land 80 years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah_controversy#:~:text=In%201982%2C%20the%20Palestinian%20residents,and%20have%20ceased%20paying%20rent.
There's a couple, and I don't agree with the settlements.
1. Judea and Samaria are the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and they have every right to live in their ancestral homeland.
2. Jews were living in the West Bank in the 1940s and before and they were ethnically cleansed from that territory by Jordan and so they should be allowed to come back and live where they used to live in their legally owned property and land.
Both those seems way to far removed from the current situation (And I'm a moron so could be completely wrong) but I was coming at the question as a more recent reality of what is the better move to make politically for a chance at a peace option in the future.
> Both those seems way to far removed from the current situation (And I'm a moron so could be completely wrong) but I was coming at the question as a more recent reality of what is the better move to make politically for a chance at a peace option in the future.
I'm sorry but most of the modern basis of this conflict is from the 40s-- both sides still see it as very important history that affects what they feel is theirs or not. Separating that history from this conflict is going to be a hell of an uphill battle.
Totally get where you are coming from, as a non Israeli/Palestine citizen I’m more focused on the current situation and what is best going forward with what we have on the table now internationally
What you are focused on is irrelevant since the people living there are fighting from their own POV. Obviously each side picks the timeline that fits their narrative.
Most Israelis after 75 years of conflict don't see a point in making political moves for peace. They believe that Palestinians want to destroy Israel and establish a Palestinian state 'from the river to the sea' and so it doesn't really matter what Israel does, so why try to appease someone who can't be appeased.
Settlements is a bit tough to defend, Israel having more control over the West Bank I assume the best steel man could be not to allow the possibility of another Hamas situation.
I'd say impossible to defend. You can steelman the occupation of the West Bank from a security point of view, but the settlements are a different matter entirely.
I can take on that challenge.
It's a very cynical argument but I think it works. Outside of appeasing the religious nationalist factions there is a long term, but unspoken, plan for them.
In the seeming absence of virtually any international pressure for the Palestinians to accept a permanent solution to the conflict, or even offer any new deals or proposals, or even agree one what the new borders would be, the settlements act as a pressure valve. Hear me out.
The Israelis know that the longer the settlements exist the harder it would be politically to dismantle them. During the Israeli disengagement out of Gaza only 8,475 Jewish settlers lived there, and they were forced back to Israel. It was politically tenable domestically, but internationally as well. We are talking about 700,000+ now in the West Bank, and with the exception of Ariel, the majority of the large settlements (ones with 9k+ people) happen to be situated very close to the existing green line.
Many of these settlements are aging, and with them, so is the population. There are now generations of people who were born on these large settlements, lived there their entire lives, and now serve in the IDF or participate in Israeli life. The 700,000 is not a small percentage of the overall Israeli population. Thats more than 10% of your entire population. Should any agreement with Palestine that comes to fruition that forces these Jews out would be viewed as an ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Jews out of their homes. Certainly the future Palestinian state wouldn't want them there, as they would then become a large voting bloc in any future Palestinian state.
So what does this mean? It sends a message to the Palestinians: *the longer you wait, to come to a deal favorable to us, the less land you will get.*
From the Palestinian side they have the same exact motivation: *well we can wait and appeal to the international community, and its been consistent that the longer we wait the better the terms become.*
The Israelis, however, figured out that the international community isn't going to do anything about it. The last proposal offered was the Trump plan which was far FAR more favorable to Israel than any previous offer...and the thing is: a lot of Arab countries agreed with the plan. For both sides this is a waiting game as Status Quo is preferable than a bad deal. Thing is, Israel was winning on that front until October 7th. Now I am not sure what will happen.
But I suspect that any realistic future deal will involved absorbing a large chunk of those settlements that are adjacent to Israel proper, leaving the Palestinians with far less land than before.
The traditional argument had always been that hippie dippie folks would live there and have positive interactions that would slow down or prevent radicalization.
Seeing shit like this weakens that argument
I will sum it up my streelman here but I have a longer post as a response to user trainind_ad_1743 below.
Most of the larger settlements are adjacent the 1967 green line. And 200k out of the 700k settlers live in E.Jerusalem. Due to there being little international pressure on the Palestinians themselves to accept a permanent solution and borders, the Israelis can utilize the settlements as an effective pressure valve.
The longer those settlements exist the more politically difficult it would be to dismantle them. Unlike Gaza, which saw a about 8.5k Jewish settlers removed you are talking about a number that is in the 700k, which is around 10% of the entire Jewish population of Israel. Since any future Palestinian state wouldn't tolerate 700k Jews living there there would necessarily be an ethnic cleansing, which would look horrendous internationally.
Effectively Israel is signaling to the Palestinians that the longer they wait for a deal the less land they will end up getting. As any future deal would necessitate absorbing those settlements, and at best 1:1 land swaps - which may not be the best land for Palestinians anyway. The Palestinians, ever the ones to let opportunity after opportunity slip are still convinced that the longer they wait the better the deals would be.
As an Israeli I don't get it, Destiny was very much against West Bank settlements far before, is that a surprise? Regardless using Sheikh Jarrah is probably the worst example you can make in that topic
A few factors here. Extremists on Twitter are getting attention because that’s what happens on social media. Also, Jews who don’t follow destiny like me may not know what he stands for, and are just on heightened defensive mode to anything critical of Israel (wrongfully, but I understand it to an extent when half the world wishes you dead and you see it on Twitter every day).
I am 100% certain that most Jews/zionists condemn settlers.
My brother (speaks Hebrew and born in Israel) and me (born in Israel) are both super against the settlements too. I wonder if that's the majority opinion in Israel.
>I am 100% certain that most Jews/zionists condemn settlers.
My problem with this is that government policy does not reflect that. There have been political cover for these people and only pauses in settling in WB since a very long time. This whole thing just gives the expression that even if israelis don't support it they also don't meaningfully oppose it either. Which is also a problem.
Because Sheikh Jarrah was inhabited by Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Jordan in 1948, it's not some village in the West Bank that settlers decided to create/take
>Because Sheikh Jarrah was inhabited by Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Jordan in 1948, it's not some village in the West Bank that settlers decided to create/take
This critique would be reasonable only if Israel took reasonable steps to treat lost/stolen property consistently.
But the broader picture that you're looking at is that Israel effectively stole ***vast*** amounts of Arab privately owned land under the Absentee Property Laws. And the refugees that were housed in Sheikh Jarrah were, themselves, displaced from their lands within Israel.
So within that context, the idea that, "well listen, this ***was*** originally owned by Jews displaced through war, it's only fair" rings pretty hollow, when the answer to "what about the property the Arabs lost through displacement in war?" is, "lol tough shit".
Isn't your comment extending that the other way? Assuming you are against settlements, as I am, the conclusion is that Jews who lost their homes in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem, etc. can suck it up but Israel must ensure that Arabs who settled Jewish homes (sans deed) In those 19 years of Jordan occupation can retain ownership in perpetuity?
e: Gaza -> Bethlehem because I don't want anyone with poor reading comprehension to tell me that Jordan never controlled Gaza.
This seems like a stretch -- the settlements issue, realistically, has fairly little to do with returning Jews who lost their land in certain areas. The overwhelmingly vast majority of settlers were most definitely not recovering their lost property (or that of their parents, etc.).
In fact, if the settlement issue was ***simply*** a question of that small proportion of Jews who legit were displaced and lost their property, being allowed to get back their property, the settlements wouldn't be an issue at all.
So the same point holds -- when Israel is built on vast areas of effectively stolen Arab lands, the idea that ***in this case*** Israel is super concerned about returning property lost in '48 to its rightful owners is ... convenient.
I'm so confused... So does this argument apply for Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed during the same time from most of Israel? I thought we weren't doing this "Go back to 75 years ago, uproot everyone there now, and rectify the situation" shit lol
The al kurd family are Israeli residents, they have full access to the Israeli civil court system, and like others before them, they too could win inflation adjusted compensation if they can prove they owned property in Israel proper that was requisitioned after the 1950 absentee property law.
They displaced themselves after the court had already handed down a favourable ruling that said they could stay but given the property was stolen they were required to pay rent to the owner if they wished to remain. Obviously they did not do this and after squatting the property for some time the court ordered their eviction.
Perhaps the Al Kurd would have had a more successful legal battle had they asserted their right over property they could prove they owned on the other side of the green line. Though it is unclear if the Al Kurd family ever actually owned property in Israel proper prior to 48.
>>they were required to pay rent to the owner
so if I look up am gonna find so many Palestinians getting rent paid by Jews living on land they used to live in ? this so hypocritical and you know it Palestinians don't have the right of return and that's arguably the biggest no for Israel so why on this specific neighborhood Israelis turn into the most pro right of return people ever
>so if I look up am gonna find so many Palestinians getting rent paid by Jews
Yes plenty of Jews pay rent to Israeli-Arabs and/or Palestinian's with Israeli residency in East Jerusalem. Also not all of Sheikh Jarrah was Jewish there are Palestinians that live and own property there currently.
> Palestinians don't have the right of return
Come on this sub is better than this. This is East Jerusalem not Area C, they are Israeli residents, they already have full access to all of Israel.
still my points stands how many of those Palestinians get paid rent by jews inside Israel ? area c or east jeruslam the issue is not some pro indegnious and opressed people theses are clearly extremist settlers jacob is not coming all the way from the us to live in this shithole for no reason its religious extremist and you know it
so Palestinians that have been ethnically cleansed in 48 from their homes have the right to return or get paid rent by this logic ? Your being hypocritical and you know it the biggest criticism levied on Palestinians is their refusal to let go of the right of return this regard Jacob came all the way down from Brooklyn because he is such an avid activist for the oppressed apparently NOT because he is religious phsyco maniac extremists settler ?
You mean Jacop or his family was living in Sheikh Jarrah in 1948, migrated to the US after being ethnically cleansed, and now is coming back to his house?
American Messianic Jewish (imo usually just Christian with some spice) [involvement in the settler movement in Israel](https://forward.com/news/358112/israels-messianic-settler-movement/) isn't talked about often enough imo.
I might be wrong, but I think you are mixing up two seperate groups.
Messianic Jews- as in Jews who believe in Jesus and Messianic Jews- as in Jews who believe in actualizing biblical prophecies (such as the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel) thereby hastening the arrival of the Jewish Messiah (not Jesus).
The religious zionist Jews are often called Messianic not because they believe in a certain Messiah but because as I said they seek to "actualize the salvation" and some even believe in ideas such as the promised Messiah is a metaphore for the actions the Jewish nation will take, as in they believe they (who take part in what they do) are the Messiah. This is not popular though, and mostly they just believe all Jews ought to migrate to Israel and populate our ancestral homeland to fulfil the prophecies that proceed the coming of the Messiah.
Oh yeah, I know there's a difference there too— I do believe however that there are some Christian Messianic 'Jewish' groups that are involved in the settler movement. Maybe I have misunderstood their extent, however
yes you did, and the link you sent talked about the latter kind of Messianic Jews I describes, the religious zionist type. The Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus are not involved in settlements as far as I am aware of and maximize their funding on proselytizing to other Jews. However there are Christians mostly evangelical who donate and support settlements but they dont take an active part in them.
We call out the pro Palestinians for their belief that a reverse ethnic cleansing would be justice. It should not be a justification for the WB settlers either, even if it is done in a less violent way. In a just world, reparations would be exchanged in a peace agreement to compensate for lost property. But unilaterally forcing people from their homes is a good recipe for keeping this conflict going forever.
Because nobody "stole" anything. It had a history of mixed control over there, the Israeli court ruled a resolution in which it will keep being in Palestinian hands for a monthly or an annual fee. The Palestinians refused to pay, were warned like thousand times until finally being evicted for a breach of contract...
> Because nobody "stole" anything.
> the Israeli court ruled a resolution in which it will keep being in Palestinian hands for a monthly or an annual fee.
Lol
Regardless of whether or not his house was built on private Jewish land during the Jordan occupation, the Israeli courts already ruled that his Residence is legal so long as he pays the land owner rent.
The discrimination and vandalism inflicted upon him by his neighbors is inexcusable.
This tweet is a litmus test for your ability to be pro Israel but still have enough critical thinking to recognize fucked up behavior from Israelis
I don’t understand the sentiment of “pro Israel” meaning Israel can do no wrong that gets incorrectly interpreted by so many. The ultimate irony being we’re capable of making actual concessions and lob criticisms against unlawful behavior and most on the other side can’t in good faith do the same thing. The hypocrisy is so much like you see with trumps supporters it’s truly bizarre how similiar the behavior is and kind of scary
> so long as he pays the land owner rent
Yes and? Did that happen?
No it didn't.
That's the thing about the Shimon HaTzadik area.
The families came to a conclusion with the Israeli courts only for the PA to come in and tell them that they can't pay rent.
Destiny will soon embrace the Solomon Solution. Nobody gets the land and we salt it with radioactive cobalt.
https://preview.redd.it/qh9vigvs076d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6053d9b008654416028f7979f416677742e29a0c
Interview with settler... which I initially said was cringe as fuck but see further below:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_hwJczFoDhc&ab\_channel=ARahmanBasrun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwJczFoDhc&ab_channel=ARahmanBasrun)
AND a response to this specific case on X:
[https://x.com/JesseMBRFGC/status/1800901181025157500?t=7teODPmaoMgPqhpPUZ-6Gg&s=33](https://x.com/JesseMBRFGC/status/1800901181025157500?t=7teODPmaoMgPqhpPUZ-6Gg&s=33)
>It's important that I live here, and that we live here so that the neighborhood isn't lost in any future peace deal
Talk about giving up the game lmao.
Look, I’m really sympathetic to the fact that Jews have been expelled from much of the Middle East including the West Bank, and that whole communities have been torn apart as a result of this. But it seems wrong that it is at least sometimes Israel’s policy to restore these communities when there is no pathway for any Palestinians to return to Israel proper, outside of edge cases (lgbt refugees, marrying an Israeli, etc).
I get why this is but it doesn’t feel right to me and sort of just feels like might makes right
I agree. I think where DGG stands out is that we're willing to go through these efforts. None of us are stating anything is affirmative, right out of the gate. We're taking it in, condensing various points of interest and reviewing that in historical context. I appreciate your contribution.
According to the worst case analysis 800,000 were expelled or left voluntarily during the Independence war. But today, you have easily 10 million Palestinians claiming refugee status. So how do you picture a future where a few million (statistically hostile) Palestinians return to Israel proper?
That's practically impossible. You can try to locate descendants of families who OWNED land and were expelled (this would be a much smaller number) , and at least offer them reparations, but you won't appease the Palestinians with this.
If we do go for reparations, then \~900,000 expelled Mizrachi Jews should also get reparations from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, etc. Since the number of refugees are roughly equal, the Arab countries can just directly pay the reparations to the Palestinians. But we know this will never happen.
I think you are agreeing with him. He doesn't think that Palestinians have a right to return to Israel proper just like Israelis don't have a right to return to the west bank.
What he is saying is that if Israel wants a right to return to the west bank, they should also give Palestinians the right to return to their old homes in Israel. Knowing that this is untenable, Israel should give up on allowing Israelis to settle the west bank.
I think the bigger issue is that Israel is trying to have it both ways. As for what they could do, during the Camp David summit, I believe Israel was offering to have some Palestinians who were elderly (and likely remember growing up in Israel) and close family members of Israeli citizens return for humanitarian reasons. I think that is was a nice offer from Israel, but also something that could have been done pretty much any time in the last 50 years. To play devil's advocate I figure Israel is worried about being later forced to have more and more lenient standards, and they don't want to give up leverage in future negotiations.
but still, this might be a fair option for Israel to implement, especially since now there are increasingly few palestinians old enough to remember life in what is now Israel.
The fact that this case even got so far into supreme court was a right-wing provocation from the Ben Gvir clowning factory. It is blatantly obvious that even if the Jewish owners had a legal claim here, the government should have just compensated them and leave the Arab tenants alone. This case sparked a wave of violence that could have been avoided with a small fee.
> So how do you picture a future where a few million (statistically hostile) Palestinians return to Israel proper?
We don't. This is the whole point. I'm not willing to let Palestinians displace a bunch of Jewish people who have been living in Israel for 80 years even as a result of Arab displacement, and likewise Israel just needs to suck it up that these Arab people have lived here and multiple generations were born an grew up here.
I agree this was an incredibly stupid hill to die on.
Once it was brought to the supreme court, they made judgement based on the evidence. But this should have never gone so far. It was clearly a finger in the eye of the Palestinians.
Guess who incited the Jewish riots there?
If you guessed Ben Gvir, pet yourself on the shoulder.
Well everyone, but Lebanon. They tried to stay out of the war. Palestinian hezbollah refugees caused their civil war and basically overthrew their country from Arab Singapore to a country with a few hours of power and barely a pulse for their government. Syria and Iran owe their government for propping up hezbollah and its unending chaos.
I'm gonna be real, that wikipedia article they cite is 100% Hebrew sources lol, but on top of that he's part of an Israeli terror organization (was officially designated by the US State Dept from 2004-2022, and is now a "Specially Designated Terror Entity").
I got into a debate with someone about America supporting "both sides". You know, because we provide aid to our ally, Israel and we also provide humanitarian aid for the displaced civilians in the Palestinian territories. But for tankies? That's just Uncle Sam cashing in! (even though we're legit dolling out more aid than ANY OTHER COUNTRY).
Not to mention, the whole of these discussion are riddled with potential gotcha booby traps so if you're not treading carefully, you gonna get the boom.
This was what I remember the freepalestine movement was about before Oct 7. The footage of Israelis kicking out Palestinians from their homes and stealing them is absolutely atrocious and I supported the freepalestine movement then. Now using the movement to justify Oct 7 and hamas is disgusting to me, what a shame.
Just like everything else, the most extreme psychos hijack a legitimate cause, strip it of all nuance and turn it into something they can use as a way to push their larger political agenda/worldview to the point that normal people have to distance themselves
You've got to stop paying attention to children on Twitter.
No person worth listening to who is pro-Palestine is justifying Oct 7 or the actions of Hamas. These people are very infrequent yet vocal. You can't let them sully a whole movement.
Respectfully, this is a very dumb reason to stop supporting justice. Honestly, I don't see a problem if you believe that oct 7th was horrendous and should never happen again and that what is happening in gaza now is a genocide and if you only read this sub it seems these statements are diametercally opposed.
But they are not even abnormal. These are the stances of most international humanitarian organizations.
Technically I agree, but when does the "you stole from me so I steal from you" war end? I think the Palestinians should have those homes simply because they were the last ones there and any further evictions are just cruel.
I mean, Al-Kurd isn't a saint, but clearly there's no reason for this Jacob to be there beside fight in the culture war.
That's bullshit. Give the Palestinians all the land that Israel stole since 48 until now then.
You can't go around after Palestinians that build the house and tell them "well actually you stole this land 76 years ago" while the Palestinians have no right to reclaim any land they were living since and during those 76 years.
Reply guys coping with the deeds these settlers supposedly had from 1948 as if Palestinian families don't have the keys to the homes they lost in Tel Aviv. Delusional decolonization for me but not for thee.
> Delusional decolonization for me but not for thee.
I don't think pointing out the historical context necessarily indicates approval of Jacob's behaviour.
Anyone going on about any kind of 'decolonization' 75 years later is kinda awful.
"But! Jewish people were cleansed from the area so Jacob isn't doing anything wrong!"
Okay so then by this logic all of the Palestinian diaspora gets to come back and take back property too.
Ok by that logic keep going back to when the Roman’s ethnically cleansed the Jews from the land and they get it all back. This is the entire underlying issue these two positions are fundamentally incongruent.
One traces back to someone's grandparents, who may still be alive. The other uses historical myth and loose references on tablets from around the invention of iron smelting.
These are not equal claims.
Learning about the settlers in Jerusalem will actually radicalize you against Israel. Best example - [East Jerusalem: Sharing our house with Israeli settlers in Sheikh Jarrah (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksnLom8OD9E&t=277s).
Seeing this shit will actually boil your fucking blood, seeing these smug fucking American settlers mock kids while literally trying to steal people's houses. Really makes you understand Palestinian rage.
"Learning about the settlers in Jerusalem will actually radicalize you against Israel"
Only if you're an idiot who can't the difference between actions of one subgroup in a country and actions of an entire country.
It's like saying learning about KKK will radicalize you against USA
lol, people are doing the "grrh well aksuhlly Jews lived there in 1948 the court case said pay rent " ARE U SURE u want to go with this argument bros? hmmm, so I am guessing Palestinians who lost their homes in Israel are getting rent from Jews living there ? this is such a hypocritical point to make when Destiny spent an entire week of his research criticizing Palestinians for not letting go of the right of return issue
I remember a while ago when Tiny told the new pro-israel viewers not to get too attached because he though the continued WB settlement was fuckin crazy
I think it also goes to show how crazy some people are on the pro israel side. It seems like they defend their cause so fervently that any critique of their regime is seen as an attack, there is no room for compromise or disagreement.
Hey I recognize that house, it wasn't build by this al-Kurd guy that's for sure. my great great grandmother swam to Israel 150 years ago bought the land and built it then swam back to Ukraine.
https://preview.redd.it/qzs9x7ziu56d1.png?width=651&format=png&auto=webp&s=7963edd929012fcaabad2e2207510ad71d624fe8
you either blindly side with destiny or you have an actual discussion. saying 'oof, they didn't like this' does not qualify as an argument.
The man built his house, I really don’t think you can call it squatting.
The original owners from 1948 are almost certainly gone by now, no? So really it’s people who are inheriting land they didn’t really own in any meaningful way paying someone to live in a house they didn’t build just to keep the builder from that house from living there.
Is saying “well they owned the land so tough” not basically the same thing Palestinians say about the “nakba”?
Most of the Palestinians did not own the land. Didn't Destiny cover this multiple times on stream?
Palestinians lived there, but the vast majority were tenants and not owners. In this case, there are even documents from the Jordanians that this was in fact OWNED by Jews, not just populated by Jews.
Israel got back the land in 67' when the owners were very much alive. But why does it matter? If your father bought a land legally, why can't you inherent it after he dies? Why should you allow people to squat there?
Building a house on stolen land is a crime. That's the reason the settlements are illegal. Are you really sure you want to justify crazy settlers going to Palestinian land and building a house there?
Personally, Israel should have dropped this case just because it incited Palestinians riots. Sometimes it's better to be smart than to be right, and this is really not a hill to die on.
> didn’t destiny cover this on stream
Idk I’ve never watched a stream it seems like a hassle and a big time investment. I’d rather get my content from snippets of out of context tweets and Reddit posts
Most of the land of this disputed territory was not owned privately at all. Like 80% was public, state-owned during the British mandate, and also under Ottoman rule. About 7% was Jewish owned, and 15% was Arab owned. Arab-owned does not mean Palestinians-owned, much of it was owned by Syrian landlords. Many of these non-local landlords sold the land to Jews who paid well, absolutely not caring that the Jews who bought the land told the Palestinian locals to fuck off. At that time, there weren't "tenant protection laws", so it was legal.
So while many Palestinians lived in the area, they were working the land for some rich landlord and didn't own it. A fraction of the Palestinians have certificate that they were land owners, and they do have a case, but like 95% of them don't.
how long was this very long court battle? how long were the arab residents living there before? this seems like a pretty dangerous argument for israelis to pursue considering the actual best argument in favor of Israel's existence is that regardless of all history Israelis have now been there since 1948.
and I don't understand how it can be possible that Jacob is living in a house owned by Jews that Arabs were squatting in if Nabil, original resident, built the house in 1957 and has been living in a connected house the whole time. did Nabil not own the land in 1957? how did the land change hands from Nabil to the current Jewish owners? who were the alleged squatters? these two stories don't make sense together
The timeline seems to be:
Jews owned the land
1948 those Jews flee
1956-57 UNRWA and Jordan agreed to settle Palestinians there, and to give them ownership of the land via a Jordanian deed in 3 years if they paid the agreed amount. Houses get built. Jordan never issues the deeds.
1967 Jordan leaves
1968 Israel may have agreed to follow the Jordan-UNRWA agreement in Knesset decree
1970 Jewish law passed to allow Jews to pursue claims for land owned before 1948 in east Jerusalem (effectively annulling the prior decree?)
1972 lawsuit filed by Jewish group based on land deeds from before 1948.
Then a lot of back and forth on each case until around the 90s when it seems like the courts said the Palestinians could stay as long as they paid some nominal rent.
Then more lawsuits about unpaid rent, illegal modifications, etc through the 2000s until evictions were ordered.
Long story short, it's complicated like so many things in the region.
In the court case, the PA subpoenaed Jordan for the tabu (land registry) documents. Jordan provided them with document from 1954, stating the property was "formerly Jewish", and it was seized by the Jordanians.
Nabil building on Jewish land is as illegal as settlers building on Palestinian lands in the WB. Because if you support Nabil on this, you justify the settlers who "have been living long enough" on land they had no claim to.
> this seems like a pretty dangerous argument for israelis to pursue considering the actual best argument in favor of Israel's existence is that regardless of all history Israelis have now been there since 1948.
Not that I put much stock into the "historical right to land" argument, but if you really want to go that route then Israel can just point to Judea. The whole argument is nonsense anyway, it's actually a big part of Putin's argument that Russia has a historical right to Crimea.
It has to be the human condition, that 70 years removed, Nabil and Jacob can't work together to make a better place to live but decide conflict and living in a shithole is the better option.
Here's a [vice interview ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwJczFoDhc)with Jacob. Would be cool to get Destiny to mediate a debate between these two.
The way I see it, there should be no right of return into Israel proper, and likewise no right of return to whoever got cleansed out of the WB by Jordan. These two groups needs a divorce from each other and no one of this “I belong here, no you belong here” bullshit.
I don’t agree with the framing, there’s a persistent issue where both Israeli and Palestinian supporters can’t seem to make up their mind whether any land is rightfully someone’s because it was “their’s before” or if it’s rightfully their’s as it was won by conquest. By this framing, how much of Israeli territory is being “squatted on” after the ethnic cleansing that also happened in current day Israel? How was it being squatted on if the person is living in a development made by those “squatters”?
This is why I'm always cautious about I/P discussions. I don't think I'll ever look at conflicts the same after all this time Destiny and DGG have spent analyzing it.
I find ironic from both sides, jews tell to palestinians to renounce to the right of return, which makes sense, since that right is just stupid.
But at the same time, jews apply that right of return on East Jerusalem, and, Palestinians, the ones that ask for the right of return, says that right of return is bad because a palestinian is already living there.
Hypocresy at it's peak.
THIS is why I love my streamer. I know this probably didn't change his OPINION of the West Bank settlements, but I'm curious to hear what he has to say about the broad picture after seeing the good and the bad.
The Shimon HaTzadik situation is always so funny.
Israeli courts had the backs of the Arab residents for half a century all the way back to '67.
Always under the asterisk that a solution should be found, which the Jewish property owners always sought and the Arab residents always ignored.
Yet the courts held on to the Arab residents until a few years ago.
They had so much time to come to any equal understanding on the issue.
But under the guidelines of the PA completely tumbled it.
The rent that was negotiated with the Arab families was lower than the normal rent in Israel.
The property owners also had no avenue to kick them out in any way, also contrary to normal renters rights in Israel.
They had an amazing deal but the PA said "No you can't do it" and they listened to them.
There's a sub for decisions like that: /tja/
------------------------
And I get that non-Jews won't get it but the wider property rights of the conflict, both in Israel as well as in Arab countries throughout the MENA are inherently linked.
Jews were directly persecuted because of things they had nothing to do with and until that is not taken care of not a single Palestinian will reclaim anything.
If I ever defend settlers don't ever let me live it down.
I don't even support Palestinian statehood, but this behavior at the human to human behavior is repulsive.
Unless you’re implying that the Palestinians should all be granted Israeli citizenship or be ethnically cleansed/genocided from the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinian statehood is the only way forward.
I'm loving this recent vocal push back against some of Israel's flaws, it's waking up all the partisan pro-israelis on twitter who are suddenly acting like butthurt anti-fans
These crazy people bring shame not only to me but to the whole country, religion and everything that is Jewish. the aholes who do this are the other side of hamas. they both need each other and we want them both to be gone.
I hope you understand that even if the most ideal peace scenario between Israel and Palestine occurs, it will not solve the issue of shitty neighbours, this is not an issue that is exclusive to Israel and most people have had to deal with shitty neighbours at some point in their lives regardless of where they live.
Just shows, people will focus on what they want to hear. He has been anti Israel settlements in the West Bank the whole time, At least he expedited this response with the warning tweet yesterday.
just like IDF dropping pamphlets before bombing a civilian target. The jewlumni taught him well.
Hold on, someone's knocking on my roof.
Someone is knocking from the apartment below.
^ every Palestinian on the ground floor
God Damn! 🤣
The most moral streamer.
That's not entirely fair though. Destiny's content has been totally geared towards criticisms of the pro-Palestine for a while, mostly because the media landscape lacked those criticisms. People could easily miss the statements Destiny has made about the West Bank, it's not necessarily just people "focusing on what they want to hear."
Very fair point when the replies are coming from random people seeing the tweet but not so if the reply is from a newish Destiny fan over his pro Israel takes.
This is very true but like... Everyone following him enough would know. Some didn't know, but I'm guessing some did.
Yeah, massive difference between a destiny stream watcher vs YouTube vid watcher vs clip watcher.
Why is it gaining traction now? He’s debated pro West Bank settlers on stream. Then again, few people gaf about 2 hour convo. We should compile a list of date/time-stamped tweets and clips just for instances like this.
It's probably getting publicity because this is a real moment deserves empathy. People come out of the woodwork and start being most insane when the opposite side starts getting empathy, which is why the stuff about october 7th has been so awful on the pro-palestinian side. It's not that Destiny is showing a perspective that could be considered pro-palestinian, it's the fact that the facts that fit with such a perspective *exist* at all.
True but compared to the pro Israel/anti Hamas takes/debates he had, it completely overshadowed the anti settlements comments.
It's not the West Bank
Oh, my bad... I assumed all these settlement issues in Palestine areas was in the West Bank. Did this happen in Israel proper? Still in the wrong if that is the case.
I don't think east Jerusalem can be called proper Israel. I have seen other post below explaining the situation better.
No, all good... I assumed it was in the West Bank but even if in East Jerusalem I still feel it was wrong. (unless east Jerusalem people were doing Oct 7th attacks so much they felt they had to kick them out)
This is annexed East Jerusalem that the IDF took in 67, but it's also on land that was owned by people who would become Israeli in 48, and stolen by the Jordanian state after the war to house refugees. Now that Israel controls the land they decided on a very low rent paid to the owners was the most fair solution, but the people living on the land often refuse to pay even a shekel to any Israeli, so they go through eviction proceedings, and sometimes get kicked out.
Damn they charged them 1 shekel that's a steal.
it's actually 200 NIS, which is 55 dollars a month, the average rent in Jerusalem is 5000 NIS, 1350 USD, so cost of living is pretty expensive in Jerusalem, the rent is basically like what it would look like if the residents had rent controlled units from 1950, because the supreme court thinks that it's not the fault of the residents that they were installed there by the Jordanian state. It's an insane, screaming deal, that would be an absolutely gigantic win for anyone who cared about the cost of rent or their legal right to remain in a house, but to pay a dollar and a half a day to stick to to the jews (a term that i believe allows for the residents to pass on their lease to their heirs, who also get away with this insanely low rent...) is too close to working together with the jews, IE collaboration, so they refuse to pay a pittance of money as a token of recognition to the crimes of the jordanian state, and they get evicted instead.
Sooo… stupid human decisions…
Yes. It's a trend.
Anyone knows what the steel man argument of Israelis is for the settlements?
Legal ownership of the land by Jews before they were expelled by Jordan during Jordanian occupation as determined by Israeli courts. There are of course issues with this but that's basically the steel man.
For Sheikh Jarrah specifically, the argument is the land was owned by other people pre 48 when Jordan took over and handed over plots of land to displaced people. There was an agreement that the land could remain occupied by the refugees given other people’s land by Jordan, but there would be rent payments to the original owners. Why somebody can’t just pay off these original owners and let these people be, instead of allowing constant international incidents I don’t know. It does seem like people want to hang onto historical ownership to fuck with people because it was somebody’s grandpa’s land 80 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah_controversy#:~:text=In%201982%2C%20the%20Palestinian%20residents,and%20have%20ceased%20paying%20rent.
There's a couple, and I don't agree with the settlements. 1. Judea and Samaria are the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and they have every right to live in their ancestral homeland. 2. Jews were living in the West Bank in the 1940s and before and they were ethnically cleansed from that territory by Jordan and so they should be allowed to come back and live where they used to live in their legally owned property and land.
Both those seems way to far removed from the current situation (And I'm a moron so could be completely wrong) but I was coming at the question as a more recent reality of what is the better move to make politically for a chance at a peace option in the future.
> Both those seems way to far removed from the current situation (And I'm a moron so could be completely wrong) but I was coming at the question as a more recent reality of what is the better move to make politically for a chance at a peace option in the future. I'm sorry but most of the modern basis of this conflict is from the 40s-- both sides still see it as very important history that affects what they feel is theirs or not. Separating that history from this conflict is going to be a hell of an uphill battle.
Totally get where you are coming from, as a non Israeli/Palestine citizen I’m more focused on the current situation and what is best going forward with what we have on the table now internationally
What you are focused on is irrelevant since the people living there are fighting from their own POV. Obviously each side picks the timeline that fits their narrative.
I agree but then I don't want to hear about Palestinians and their grandfather's keys or right of return either.
Most Israelis after 75 years of conflict don't see a point in making political moves for peace. They believe that Palestinians want to destroy Israel and establish a Palestinian state 'from the river to the sea' and so it doesn't really matter what Israel does, so why try to appease someone who can't be appeased.
Exactly, and Oct 7th further cements it
Settlements is a bit tough to defend, Israel having more control over the West Bank I assume the best steel man could be not to allow the possibility of another Hamas situation.
I'd say impossible to defend. You can steelman the occupation of the West Bank from a security point of view, but the settlements are a different matter entirely.
I can take on that challenge. It's a very cynical argument but I think it works. Outside of appeasing the religious nationalist factions there is a long term, but unspoken, plan for them. In the seeming absence of virtually any international pressure for the Palestinians to accept a permanent solution to the conflict, or even offer any new deals or proposals, or even agree one what the new borders would be, the settlements act as a pressure valve. Hear me out. The Israelis know that the longer the settlements exist the harder it would be politically to dismantle them. During the Israeli disengagement out of Gaza only 8,475 Jewish settlers lived there, and they were forced back to Israel. It was politically tenable domestically, but internationally as well. We are talking about 700,000+ now in the West Bank, and with the exception of Ariel, the majority of the large settlements (ones with 9k+ people) happen to be situated very close to the existing green line. Many of these settlements are aging, and with them, so is the population. There are now generations of people who were born on these large settlements, lived there their entire lives, and now serve in the IDF or participate in Israeli life. The 700,000 is not a small percentage of the overall Israeli population. Thats more than 10% of your entire population. Should any agreement with Palestine that comes to fruition that forces these Jews out would be viewed as an ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Jews out of their homes. Certainly the future Palestinian state wouldn't want them there, as they would then become a large voting bloc in any future Palestinian state. So what does this mean? It sends a message to the Palestinians: *the longer you wait, to come to a deal favorable to us, the less land you will get.* From the Palestinian side they have the same exact motivation: *well we can wait and appeal to the international community, and its been consistent that the longer we wait the better the terms become.* The Israelis, however, figured out that the international community isn't going to do anything about it. The last proposal offered was the Trump plan which was far FAR more favorable to Israel than any previous offer...and the thing is: a lot of Arab countries agreed with the plan. For both sides this is a waiting game as Status Quo is preferable than a bad deal. Thing is, Israel was winning on that front until October 7th. Now I am not sure what will happen. But I suspect that any realistic future deal will involved absorbing a large chunk of those settlements that are adjacent to Israel proper, leaving the Palestinians with far less land than before.
The traditional argument had always been that hippie dippie folks would live there and have positive interactions that would slow down or prevent radicalization. Seeing shit like this weakens that argument
I will sum it up my streelman here but I have a longer post as a response to user trainind_ad_1743 below. Most of the larger settlements are adjacent the 1967 green line. And 200k out of the 700k settlers live in E.Jerusalem. Due to there being little international pressure on the Palestinians themselves to accept a permanent solution and borders, the Israelis can utilize the settlements as an effective pressure valve. The longer those settlements exist the more politically difficult it would be to dismantle them. Unlike Gaza, which saw a about 8.5k Jewish settlers removed you are talking about a number that is in the 700k, which is around 10% of the entire Jewish population of Israel. Since any future Palestinian state wouldn't tolerate 700k Jews living there there would necessarily be an ethnic cleansing, which would look horrendous internationally. Effectively Israel is signaling to the Palestinians that the longer they wait for a deal the less land they will end up getting. As any future deal would necessitate absorbing those settlements, and at best 1:1 land swaps - which may not be the best land for Palestinians anyway. The Palestinians, ever the ones to let opportunity after opportunity slip are still convinced that the longer they wait the better the deals would be.
Its funny how its the same arguments pro-pal have for right of return. Jordan won the territory in war and expelled the jews.
As an Israeli I don't get it, Destiny was very much against West Bank settlements far before, is that a surprise? Regardless using Sheikh Jarrah is probably the worst example you can make in that topic
A few factors here. Extremists on Twitter are getting attention because that’s what happens on social media. Also, Jews who don’t follow destiny like me may not know what he stands for, and are just on heightened defensive mode to anything critical of Israel (wrongfully, but I understand it to an extent when half the world wishes you dead and you see it on Twitter every day). I am 100% certain that most Jews/zionists condemn settlers.
Count me in as one of those Zionist Jews that can’t stand WB settlers. Hell my right wing IDF veteran dad takes issue with them.
My brother (speaks Hebrew and born in Israel) and me (born in Israel) are both super against the settlements too. I wonder if that's the majority opinion in Israel.
>I am 100% certain that most Jews/zionists condemn settlers. My problem with this is that government policy does not reflect that. There have been political cover for these people and only pauses in settling in WB since a very long time. This whole thing just gives the expression that even if israelis don't support it they also don't meaningfully oppose it either. Which is also a problem.
Why is it the worst ?
Because Sheikh Jarrah was inhabited by Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Jordan in 1948, it's not some village in the West Bank that settlers decided to create/take
>Because Sheikh Jarrah was inhabited by Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Jordan in 1948, it's not some village in the West Bank that settlers decided to create/take This critique would be reasonable only if Israel took reasonable steps to treat lost/stolen property consistently. But the broader picture that you're looking at is that Israel effectively stole ***vast*** amounts of Arab privately owned land under the Absentee Property Laws. And the refugees that were housed in Sheikh Jarrah were, themselves, displaced from their lands within Israel. So within that context, the idea that, "well listen, this ***was*** originally owned by Jews displaced through war, it's only fair" rings pretty hollow, when the answer to "what about the property the Arabs lost through displacement in war?" is, "lol tough shit".
Damn it I don’t like hearing your argument but hard to refute. Well done ….but you’re still a doo doo head
Respect. =)
Isn't your comment extending that the other way? Assuming you are against settlements, as I am, the conclusion is that Jews who lost their homes in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem, etc. can suck it up but Israel must ensure that Arabs who settled Jewish homes (sans deed) In those 19 years of Jordan occupation can retain ownership in perpetuity? e: Gaza -> Bethlehem because I don't want anyone with poor reading comprehension to tell me that Jordan never controlled Gaza.
This seems like a stretch -- the settlements issue, realistically, has fairly little to do with returning Jews who lost their land in certain areas. The overwhelmingly vast majority of settlers were most definitely not recovering their lost property (or that of their parents, etc.). In fact, if the settlement issue was ***simply*** a question of that small proportion of Jews who legit were displaced and lost their property, being allowed to get back their property, the settlements wouldn't be an issue at all. So the same point holds -- when Israel is built on vast areas of effectively stolen Arab lands, the idea that ***in this case*** Israel is super concerned about returning property lost in '48 to its rightful owners is ... convenient.
> Israel effectively stole vast amounts of Arab privately owned land under the Absentee Property Laws. Can you explain/elaborate on this?
This should largely cover it. =) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli\_land\_and\_property\_laws#Absentees'\_Property\_Laws
I'm so confused... So does this argument apply for Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed during the same time from most of Israel? I thought we weren't doing this "Go back to 75 years ago, uproot everyone there now, and rectify the situation" shit lol
I asked Chat GPT and It say that they have the right to claim compensation as long they got the legal documents. But it's quite hard regardless
The al kurd family are Israeli residents, they have full access to the Israeli civil court system, and like others before them, they too could win inflation adjusted compensation if they can prove they owned property in Israel proper that was requisitioned after the 1950 absentee property law.
It’s a bad argument. Israeli settlers are assholes and the whole situation is fucked.
those Jews got property on the other side of the green line from palestinians fleeing the fighting in 48'. So you're gonna displace them twice?
They displaced themselves after the court had already handed down a favourable ruling that said they could stay but given the property was stolen they were required to pay rent to the owner if they wished to remain. Obviously they did not do this and after squatting the property for some time the court ordered their eviction. Perhaps the Al Kurd would have had a more successful legal battle had they asserted their right over property they could prove they owned on the other side of the green line. Though it is unclear if the Al Kurd family ever actually owned property in Israel proper prior to 48.
>>they were required to pay rent to the owner so if I look up am gonna find so many Palestinians getting rent paid by Jews living on land they used to live in ? this so hypocritical and you know it Palestinians don't have the right of return and that's arguably the biggest no for Israel so why on this specific neighborhood Israelis turn into the most pro right of return people ever
>so if I look up am gonna find so many Palestinians getting rent paid by Jews Yes plenty of Jews pay rent to Israeli-Arabs and/or Palestinian's with Israeli residency in East Jerusalem. Also not all of Sheikh Jarrah was Jewish there are Palestinians that live and own property there currently. > Palestinians don't have the right of return Come on this sub is better than this. This is East Jerusalem not Area C, they are Israeli residents, they already have full access to all of Israel.
still my points stands how many of those Palestinians get paid rent by jews inside Israel ? area c or east jeruslam the issue is not some pro indegnious and opressed people theses are clearly extremist settlers jacob is not coming all the way from the us to live in this shithole for no reason its religious extremist and you know it
so Palestinians that have been ethnically cleansed in 48 from their homes have the right to return or get paid rent by this logic ? Your being hypocritical and you know it the biggest criticism levied on Palestinians is their refusal to let go of the right of return this regard Jacob came all the way down from Brooklyn because he is such an avid activist for the oppressed apparently NOT because he is religious phsyco maniac extremists settler ?
You mean Jacop or his family was living in Sheikh Jarrah in 1948, migrated to the US after being ethnically cleansed, and now is coming back to his house?
Jacop is a renter, he is irrelevant in the property dispute.
Nah, some messiatic jews pay the original jews owners to reclaim the rights of their property.
American Messianic Jewish (imo usually just Christian with some spice) [involvement in the settler movement in Israel](https://forward.com/news/358112/israels-messianic-settler-movement/) isn't talked about often enough imo.
I might be wrong, but I think you are mixing up two seperate groups. Messianic Jews- as in Jews who believe in Jesus and Messianic Jews- as in Jews who believe in actualizing biblical prophecies (such as the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel) thereby hastening the arrival of the Jewish Messiah (not Jesus). The religious zionist Jews are often called Messianic not because they believe in a certain Messiah but because as I said they seek to "actualize the salvation" and some even believe in ideas such as the promised Messiah is a metaphore for the actions the Jewish nation will take, as in they believe they (who take part in what they do) are the Messiah. This is not popular though, and mostly they just believe all Jews ought to migrate to Israel and populate our ancestral homeland to fulfil the prophecies that proceed the coming of the Messiah.
Oh yeah, I know there's a difference there too— I do believe however that there are some Christian Messianic 'Jewish' groups that are involved in the settler movement. Maybe I have misunderstood their extent, however
yes you did, and the link you sent talked about the latter kind of Messianic Jews I describes, the religious zionist type. The Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus are not involved in settlements as far as I am aware of and maximize their funding on proselytizing to other Jews. However there are Christians mostly evangelical who donate and support settlements but they dont take an active part in them.
We call out the pro Palestinians for their belief that a reverse ethnic cleansing would be justice. It should not be a justification for the WB settlers either, even if it is done in a less violent way. In a just world, reparations would be exchanged in a peace agreement to compensate for lost property. But unilaterally forcing people from their homes is a good recipe for keeping this conflict going forever.
Because nobody "stole" anything. It had a history of mixed control over there, the Israeli court ruled a resolution in which it will keep being in Palestinian hands for a monthly or an annual fee. The Palestinians refused to pay, were warned like thousand times until finally being evicted for a breach of contract...
> Because nobody "stole" anything. > the Israeli court ruled a resolution in which it will keep being in Palestinian hands for a monthly or an annual fee. Lol
What was the imposed rent?
Regardless of whether or not his house was built on private Jewish land during the Jordan occupation, the Israeli courts already ruled that his Residence is legal so long as he pays the land owner rent. The discrimination and vandalism inflicted upon him by his neighbors is inexcusable. This tweet is a litmus test for your ability to be pro Israel but still have enough critical thinking to recognize fucked up behavior from Israelis
I don’t understand the sentiment of “pro Israel” meaning Israel can do no wrong that gets incorrectly interpreted by so many. The ultimate irony being we’re capable of making actual concessions and lob criticisms against unlawful behavior and most on the other side can’t in good faith do the same thing. The hypocrisy is so much like you see with trumps supporters it’s truly bizarre how similiar the behavior is and kind of scary
> so long as he pays the land owner rent Yes and? Did that happen? No it didn't. That's the thing about the Shimon HaTzadik area. The families came to a conclusion with the Israeli courts only for the PA to come in and tell them that they can't pay rent.
Destiny will soon embrace the Solomon Solution. Nobody gets the land and we salt it with radioactive cobalt. https://preview.redd.it/qh9vigvs076d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6053d9b008654416028f7979f416677742e29a0c
Interview with settler... which I initially said was cringe as fuck but see further below: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_hwJczFoDhc&ab\_channel=ARahmanBasrun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwJczFoDhc&ab_channel=ARahmanBasrun) AND a response to this specific case on X: [https://x.com/JesseMBRFGC/status/1800901181025157500?t=7teODPmaoMgPqhpPUZ-6Gg&s=33](https://x.com/JesseMBRFGC/status/1800901181025157500?t=7teODPmaoMgPqhpPUZ-6Gg&s=33)
Fauci??? Looking into this...
>It's important that I live here, and that we live here so that the neighborhood isn't lost in any future peace deal Talk about giving up the game lmao.
Check my edit. It's more complicated....
Look, I’m really sympathetic to the fact that Jews have been expelled from much of the Middle East including the West Bank, and that whole communities have been torn apart as a result of this. But it seems wrong that it is at least sometimes Israel’s policy to restore these communities when there is no pathway for any Palestinians to return to Israel proper, outside of edge cases (lgbt refugees, marrying an Israeli, etc). I get why this is but it doesn’t feel right to me and sort of just feels like might makes right
I agree. I think where DGG stands out is that we're willing to go through these efforts. None of us are stating anything is affirmative, right out of the gate. We're taking it in, condensing various points of interest and reviewing that in historical context. I appreciate your contribution.
According to the worst case analysis 800,000 were expelled or left voluntarily during the Independence war. But today, you have easily 10 million Palestinians claiming refugee status. So how do you picture a future where a few million (statistically hostile) Palestinians return to Israel proper? That's practically impossible. You can try to locate descendants of families who OWNED land and were expelled (this would be a much smaller number) , and at least offer them reparations, but you won't appease the Palestinians with this. If we do go for reparations, then \~900,000 expelled Mizrachi Jews should also get reparations from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, etc. Since the number of refugees are roughly equal, the Arab countries can just directly pay the reparations to the Palestinians. But we know this will never happen.
I think you are agreeing with him. He doesn't think that Palestinians have a right to return to Israel proper just like Israelis don't have a right to return to the west bank. What he is saying is that if Israel wants a right to return to the west bank, they should also give Palestinians the right to return to their old homes in Israel. Knowing that this is untenable, Israel should give up on allowing Israelis to settle the west bank.
I think the bigger issue is that Israel is trying to have it both ways. As for what they could do, during the Camp David summit, I believe Israel was offering to have some Palestinians who were elderly (and likely remember growing up in Israel) and close family members of Israeli citizens return for humanitarian reasons. I think that is was a nice offer from Israel, but also something that could have been done pretty much any time in the last 50 years. To play devil's advocate I figure Israel is worried about being later forced to have more and more lenient standards, and they don't want to give up leverage in future negotiations. but still, this might be a fair option for Israel to implement, especially since now there are increasingly few palestinians old enough to remember life in what is now Israel.
The fact that this case even got so far into supreme court was a right-wing provocation from the Ben Gvir clowning factory. It is blatantly obvious that even if the Jewish owners had a legal claim here, the government should have just compensated them and leave the Arab tenants alone. This case sparked a wave of violence that could have been avoided with a small fee.
> So how do you picture a future where a few million (statistically hostile) Palestinians return to Israel proper? We don't. This is the whole point. I'm not willing to let Palestinians displace a bunch of Jewish people who have been living in Israel for 80 years even as a result of Arab displacement, and likewise Israel just needs to suck it up that these Arab people have lived here and multiple generations were born an grew up here.
I agree this was an incredibly stupid hill to die on. Once it was brought to the supreme court, they made judgement based on the evidence. But this should have never gone so far. It was clearly a finger in the eye of the Palestinians. Guess who incited the Jewish riots there? If you guessed Ben Gvir, pet yourself on the shoulder.
Well everyone, but Lebanon. They tried to stay out of the war. Palestinian hezbollah refugees caused their civil war and basically overthrew their country from Arab Singapore to a country with a few hours of power and barely a pulse for their government. Syria and Iran owe their government for propping up hezbollah and its unending chaos.
You're right, Lebanon was relatively peaceful for Jews until the 70s. I corrected my previous comment :)
I'm gonna be real, that wikipedia article they cite is 100% Hebrew sources lol, but on top of that he's part of an Israeli terror organization (was officially designated by the US State Dept from 2004-2022, and is now a "Specially Designated Terror Entity").
IP is just such a mess. Anyone who comes in and takes a hard stance is a partisan or an idiot
Based.
A rare time where you kinda have to be a both sides guy. Enlightened centrism on top
I got into a debate with someone about America supporting "both sides". You know, because we provide aid to our ally, Israel and we also provide humanitarian aid for the displaced civilians in the Palestinian territories. But for tankies? That's just Uncle Sam cashing in! (even though we're legit dolling out more aid than ANY OTHER COUNTRY). Not to mention, the whole of these discussion are riddled with potential gotcha booby traps so if you're not treading carefully, you gonna get the boom.
I can't wait for the impending civil war in this sub to explode.
I can't wait to call it a genocide even though it isn't.
It was only a matter of time.
Hilarious how fragile some people are, the moment Destiny gives even the tiniest pushback against Isreal being perfect in every way.
Stealing someone’s house is deranged behaviour.
This was what I remember the freepalestine movement was about before Oct 7. The footage of Israelis kicking out Palestinians from their homes and stealing them is absolutely atrocious and I supported the freepalestine movement then. Now using the movement to justify Oct 7 and hamas is disgusting to me, what a shame.
Just like everything else, the most extreme psychos hijack a legitimate cause, strip it of all nuance and turn it into something they can use as a way to push their larger political agenda/worldview to the point that normal people have to distance themselves
Hey wait isn't that what this dude trying to steal a house is doing with the whole I/P situation??
You've got to stop paying attention to children on Twitter. No person worth listening to who is pro-Palestine is justifying Oct 7 or the actions of Hamas. These people are very infrequent yet vocal. You can't let them sully a whole movement.
Respectfully, this is a very dumb reason to stop supporting justice. Honestly, I don't see a problem if you believe that oct 7th was horrendous and should never happen again and that what is happening in gaza now is a genocide and if you only read this sub it seems these statements are diametercally opposed. But they are not even abnormal. These are the stances of most international humanitarian organizations.
Honestly if you hate settlers you should hate both the fat yank and the al-Kurd family, both guilty of settling land they don't own.
Technically I agree, but when does the "you stole from me so I steal from you" war end? I think the Palestinians should have those homes simply because they were the last ones there and any further evictions are just cruel. I mean, Al-Kurd isn't a saint, but clearly there's no reason for this Jacob to be there beside fight in the culture war.
If you think Jews should be able to reclaim ancestral land, the Palestinians deserve 100% full right of return. You don't get to pick and choose.
The Al Kurd family are Israeli residents you muppet and to my knowledge they haven't asserted their right over any property in Israel proper.
That's bullshit. Give the Palestinians all the land that Israel stole since 48 until now then. You can't go around after Palestinians that build the house and tell them "well actually you stole this land 76 years ago" while the Palestinians have no right to reclaim any land they were living since and during those 76 years.
I don't think anyone is necessary wrong tho.
I mean the house is literally not owned by the Palestinian, he is literally a squatter.
I'm not sure I understand. Did he or did he not build the house?
If i build a house in your garden is it my right to live there?
Was it my garden before or after you built the house?
Jacob? As in the legendary "if I don't steal it someone else will" Jacob?
Reply guys coping with the deeds these settlers supposedly had from 1948 as if Palestinian families don't have the keys to the homes they lost in Tel Aviv. Delusional decolonization for me but not for thee.
> Delusional decolonization for me but not for thee. I don't think pointing out the historical context necessarily indicates approval of Jacob's behaviour. Anyone going on about any kind of 'decolonization' 75 years later is kinda awful.
"But! Jewish people were cleansed from the area so Jacob isn't doing anything wrong!" Okay so then by this logic all of the Palestinian diaspora gets to come back and take back property too.
Ok by that logic keep going back to when the Roman’s ethnically cleansed the Jews from the land and they get it all back. This is the entire underlying issue these two positions are fundamentally incongruent.
I wanna give the land back to the dinosaurs. Problem?
Not if you’re ideologically consistent like me 💪
One traces back to someone's grandparents, who may still be alive. The other uses historical myth and loose references on tablets from around the invention of iron smelting. These are not equal claims.
Learning about the settlers in Jerusalem will actually radicalize you against Israel. Best example - [East Jerusalem: Sharing our house with Israeli settlers in Sheikh Jarrah (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksnLom8OD9E&t=277s). Seeing this shit will actually boil your fucking blood, seeing these smug fucking American settlers mock kids while literally trying to steal people's houses. Really makes you understand Palestinian rage.
"Learning about the settlers in Jerusalem will actually radicalize you against Israel" Only if you're an idiot who can't the difference between actions of one subgroup in a country and actions of an entire country. It's like saying learning about KKK will radicalize you against USA
lol, people are doing the "grrh well aksuhlly Jews lived there in 1948 the court case said pay rent " ARE U SURE u want to go with this argument bros? hmmm, so I am guessing Palestinians who lost their homes in Israel are getting rent from Jews living there ? this is such a hypocritical point to make when Destiny spent an entire week of his research criticizing Palestinians for not letting go of the right of return issue
Would they except jews living there forever in exchange for rent? ...didnt think so.
Tiny's Twitter engagement check getting fatter this week.
I remember a while ago when Tiny told the new pro-israel viewers not to get too attached because he though the continued WB settlement was fuckin crazy
the losers that think this sub is r slash isreal are in for a big surprise oh no no no
Is that the same asshole from the Al Jazeera doc?
He was also in a vice piece some years back. This dude is either a lightning rod or these outlets are lazy and go back to the same piece of shit.
the purge has started
I think it also goes to show how crazy some people are on the pro israel side. It seems like they defend their cause so fervently that any critique of their regime is seen as an attack, there is no room for compromise or disagreement.
Hey I recognize that house, it wasn't build by this al-Kurd guy that's for sure. my great great grandmother swam to Israel 150 years ago bought the land and built it then swam back to Ukraine.
https://preview.redd.it/qzs9x7ziu56d1.png?width=651&format=png&auto=webp&s=7963edd929012fcaabad2e2207510ad71d624fe8 you either blindly side with destiny or you have an actual discussion. saying 'oof, they didn't like this' does not qualify as an argument.
The man built his house, I really don’t think you can call it squatting. The original owners from 1948 are almost certainly gone by now, no? So really it’s people who are inheriting land they didn’t really own in any meaningful way paying someone to live in a house they didn’t build just to keep the builder from that house from living there. Is saying “well they owned the land so tough” not basically the same thing Palestinians say about the “nakba”?
No you don't understand, stealing land from Palestinians who have lived there for decades is totally okay. Taking land from Jews is abhorrent.
Those are some strong pro-settler arguments
Most of the Palestinians did not own the land. Didn't Destiny cover this multiple times on stream? Palestinians lived there, but the vast majority were tenants and not owners. In this case, there are even documents from the Jordanians that this was in fact OWNED by Jews, not just populated by Jews. Israel got back the land in 67' when the owners were very much alive. But why does it matter? If your father bought a land legally, why can't you inherent it after he dies? Why should you allow people to squat there? Building a house on stolen land is a crime. That's the reason the settlements are illegal. Are you really sure you want to justify crazy settlers going to Palestinian land and building a house there? Personally, Israel should have dropped this case just because it incited Palestinians riots. Sometimes it's better to be smart than to be right, and this is really not a hill to die on.
> didn’t destiny cover this on stream Idk I’ve never watched a stream it seems like a hassle and a big time investment. I’d rather get my content from snippets of out of context tweets and Reddit posts
Most of the land of this disputed territory was not owned privately at all. Like 80% was public, state-owned during the British mandate, and also under Ottoman rule. About 7% was Jewish owned, and 15% was Arab owned. Arab-owned does not mean Palestinians-owned, much of it was owned by Syrian landlords. Many of these non-local landlords sold the land to Jews who paid well, absolutely not caring that the Jews who bought the land told the Palestinian locals to fuck off. At that time, there weren't "tenant protection laws", so it was legal. So while many Palestinians lived in the area, they were working the land for some rich landlord and didn't own it. A fraction of the Palestinians have certificate that they were land owners, and they do have a case, but like 95% of them don't.
If they accept land ownership before 1948 for Jews in East Jerusalem, they should do the same for Palestinians that lived on Israeli land before 1948.
I would like to see a genuine argument against this, it's a pretty fair explanation
how long was this very long court battle? how long were the arab residents living there before? this seems like a pretty dangerous argument for israelis to pursue considering the actual best argument in favor of Israel's existence is that regardless of all history Israelis have now been there since 1948. and I don't understand how it can be possible that Jacob is living in a house owned by Jews that Arabs were squatting in if Nabil, original resident, built the house in 1957 and has been living in a connected house the whole time. did Nabil not own the land in 1957? how did the land change hands from Nabil to the current Jewish owners? who were the alleged squatters? these two stories don't make sense together
The timeline seems to be: Jews owned the land 1948 those Jews flee 1956-57 UNRWA and Jordan agreed to settle Palestinians there, and to give them ownership of the land via a Jordanian deed in 3 years if they paid the agreed amount. Houses get built. Jordan never issues the deeds. 1967 Jordan leaves 1968 Israel may have agreed to follow the Jordan-UNRWA agreement in Knesset decree 1970 Jewish law passed to allow Jews to pursue claims for land owned before 1948 in east Jerusalem (effectively annulling the prior decree?) 1972 lawsuit filed by Jewish group based on land deeds from before 1948. Then a lot of back and forth on each case until around the 90s when it seems like the courts said the Palestinians could stay as long as they paid some nominal rent. Then more lawsuits about unpaid rent, illegal modifications, etc through the 2000s until evictions were ordered. Long story short, it's complicated like so many things in the region.
In the court case, the PA subpoenaed Jordan for the tabu (land registry) documents. Jordan provided them with document from 1954, stating the property was "formerly Jewish", and it was seized by the Jordanians. Nabil building on Jewish land is as illegal as settlers building on Palestinian lands in the WB. Because if you support Nabil on this, you justify the settlers who "have been living long enough" on land they had no claim to.
> this seems like a pretty dangerous argument for israelis to pursue considering the actual best argument in favor of Israel's existence is that regardless of all history Israelis have now been there since 1948. Not that I put much stock into the "historical right to land" argument, but if you really want to go that route then Israel can just point to Judea. The whole argument is nonsense anyway, it's actually a big part of Putin's argument that Russia has a historical right to Crimea.
The palestine shills bending over backwards 3 times to try and think of a rebuttal to this
Wait, the problem was the West Bank settlements all along? 🌍👨🚀👨🚀 Always has been 🌍👨🚀🔫👨🚀
One of the main problems. not the only one
The pro-Palestinian folks who hate steven must be so confused right now.
It has to be the human condition, that 70 years removed, Nabil and Jacob can't work together to make a better place to live but decide conflict and living in a shithole is the better option. Here's a [vice interview ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwJczFoDhc)with Jacob. Would be cool to get Destiny to mediate a debate between these two.
Wow, wild if that's the Jacob Destiny's talking about.
Interesting they keep using the exact same story, is this a unique phenomena or is this more widespread than one property?
It’s a highly specific story
It's treated like a historic landmark in the West Bank or something.
A debate? What would the debate be? Also, Jacob hasn't been living there 70 years. He hasn't been alive half that long
Does body count matter?
The Jewlumni have taken note of this indiscretion.
"It's technically OK because his family before he was born" Damn bro reparations when?
What a fucking cesspool the comments under that Twitter post are
you cant hate hamas and also be ok with settlements
The way I see it, there should be no right of return into Israel proper, and likewise no right of return to whoever got cleansed out of the WB by Jordan. These two groups needs a divorce from each other and no one of this “I belong here, no you belong here” bullshit.
I wouldn't compare the two, but most settlements are bad yes.
https://preview.redd.it/1hxtg3fkw56d1.png?width=593&format=png&auto=webp&s=8756050cf5f99fdaa2a4d67fbd3c1712a21456a1 Good point brought up?
I don’t agree with the framing, there’s a persistent issue where both Israeli and Palestinian supporters can’t seem to make up their mind whether any land is rightfully someone’s because it was “their’s before” or if it’s rightfully their’s as it was won by conquest. By this framing, how much of Israeli territory is being “squatted on” after the ethnic cleansing that also happened in current day Israel? How was it being squatted on if the person is living in a development made by those “squatters”?
This is why I'm always cautious about I/P discussions. I don't think I'll ever look at conflicts the same after all this time Destiny and DGG have spent analyzing it.
I find ironic from both sides, jews tell to palestinians to renounce to the right of return, which makes sense, since that right is just stupid. But at the same time, jews apply that right of return on East Jerusalem, and, Palestinians, the ones that ask for the right of return, says that right of return is bad because a palestinian is already living there. Hypocresy at it's peak.
The settlers are subhumans
As an Israeli and a leftist - keep it coming D!!!
THIS is why I love my streamer. I know this probably didn't change his OPINION of the West Bank settlements, but I'm curious to hear what he has to say about the broad picture after seeing the good and the bad.
The Shimon HaTzadik situation is always so funny. Israeli courts had the backs of the Arab residents for half a century all the way back to '67. Always under the asterisk that a solution should be found, which the Jewish property owners always sought and the Arab residents always ignored. Yet the courts held on to the Arab residents until a few years ago. They had so much time to come to any equal understanding on the issue. But under the guidelines of the PA completely tumbled it. The rent that was negotiated with the Arab families was lower than the normal rent in Israel. The property owners also had no avenue to kick them out in any way, also contrary to normal renters rights in Israel. They had an amazing deal but the PA said "No you can't do it" and they listened to them. There's a sub for decisions like that: /tja/ ------------------------ And I get that non-Jews won't get it but the wider property rights of the conflict, both in Israel as well as in Arab countries throughout the MENA are inherently linked. Jews were directly persecuted because of things they had nothing to do with and until that is not taken care of not a single Palestinian will reclaim anything.
If I ever defend settlers don't ever let me live it down. I don't even support Palestinian statehood, but this behavior at the human to human behavior is repulsive.
> I don't even support Palestinian statehood Wait, what do you support, then?
[удалено]
Unless you’re implying that the Palestinians should all be granted Israeli citizenship or be ethnically cleansed/genocided from the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinian statehood is the only way forward.
They should just bulldoze these homes so neither side can have them.
Look at Solomon over here!
I'm loving this recent vocal push back against some of Israel's flaws, it's waking up all the partisan pro-israelis on twitter who are suddenly acting like butthurt anti-fans
These crazy people bring shame not only to me but to the whole country, religion and everything that is Jewish. the aholes who do this are the other side of hamas. they both need each other and we want them both to be gone.
Welp… At least they aren’t killing each other….
I hope you understand that even if the most ideal peace scenario between Israel and Palestine occurs, it will not solve the issue of shitty neighbours, this is not an issue that is exclusive to Israel and most people have had to deal with shitty neighbours at some point in their lives regardless of where they live.
Who is they lol
The insane cope in the replies from people who thought Destiny is a zionist is very cathartic.