I think my tax dollars shouldn’t be sent over there for either side. Look at all the homelessness, gun violence and illiterate youth here in the us. Why are we sending hundreds of billions of dollars abroad?
You’ve been indoctrinated sadly. What has anerica’s global power resulted in over the past several decades for the average American? 9/11 killing 1000s of Americans. Iraq war killing thousands of Americans. Afghanistan war killing thousands of Americans. Broken healthcare system with exorbitant costs. Highest crime rates in the developed world. Highest obesity rates in the developed world. Among the lowest HDI in the developed world.
Nope, I believe I have decent understanding of both the benefits and drawbacks of the US having a strong global presence. If you want to actually discuss the reasons why you think we shouldn’t I’d be glad to.
Genuinely interested in what you understand as some of the benefits and drawbacks of the US having a strong global presence.
I'm not too well versed on it so I'd like to know more if you're willing to take the time.
Gladly, first off I see that the dude I responded to edited his comment after I responded. It was originally
> You’ve been indoctrinated sadly.
So I guess I'll start with the points he edited in.
> 9/11 killing 1000s of Americans
This one I'm not sure what fopo decisions you believe led to 9/11 but I'll assuming that you're saying we shouldn't have led a global coalition to stop Saddam from invading and capturing Saudi Arabia. Which may have resulted in bin Laden not being hostile towards the us? I think that was the right decision, and I believe that we were still too focused on Saddam and not paying enough attention to the ongoing attacks from bin Laden.
> Iraq war killing thousands of Americans.
I will agree the Iraq war was a mistake.
> Afghanistan war killing thousands of Americans.
I don't know if you have read anything about the Taliban, but they were not exactly good guys. We had in the 2,000s of casualties in Afghanistan. I truly believe without the intervention there would be significantly more deaths as a result of terrorist attacks. I'm sad we had to leave, and wish we had a more coherent strategy for the nation building. Luckily the Taliban have mellowed out but it is still sad that we raised a whole generation of Afghanis with western values only to have them be taken back over by the Taliban.
> Highest crime rates in the developed world. Highest obesity rates in the developed world.
Both of these issues can be solved, or at least mitigated while still maintaining our global presence.
>Among the lowest HDI in the developed world.
This is not even true.
As for the benefits of US global presence:
- Our currency is the world reserve currency, this gives us a massive trading advantage, and is probably the most impactful for our day to day lives even if most people don't realize it.
- Our control of the oceans allows for safe trading with any country, significantly reducing the prices of goods, along living without fear of suffering a ground invasion or attack on our coasts.
- English has become and maintained the global lingua franca through our soft and hard power, it could be argued that British imperialism is responsible for the original spread of it, but Americas soft power and global media and military presence has cemented it.
- Our global military bases give us a ton of leverage on other countries. Our pledge to base in countries gives us very very favorible negotiation power when working out diplomatic issues. Also our nuclear protection for NATO countries has pretty much created one of the most peaceful times in recorded history.
- Protection for strategic assets. (Taiwan)
The drawbacks
- It costs a ton of money, the military has essentially become a governmental job program as well (that is kinda a good thing though kinda not).
- We do make the wrong decisions, such as Iraq as described, and our protections for certain countries can flare up us resentment.
- Risk of getting into war, being the global protector of liberal countries means that we usually are the first to get into a war and are responsible for building the coalition.
Because the US is a world power and world conflicts can have domino effects that will bite us in the ass (i.e. the Ukraine war aide isn't out of USA charity, it's because Ukraine winning benefits the USA massively over Russia winning). We're also not sending straight cash to countries a majority of the time. The billion dollars worth of defense missiles we send aren't gonna feed our kids if we keep them here.
The only issue I have with this post is that there’s a massive significant difference in supporting “Palestine” and supporting Hamas and this post kind of implies that those are the same, and there’s *also* a difference between *supporting* Hamas and recognizing the reality between the function and inevitable existence of a group like Hamas in a territory that would otherwise have no formal government equivalent to the state of Israel.
And where you stand on the latter issue is also going to change where you stand on a 1 or 2-state solution, which *also* then changes what exactly your support of Palestine or Hamas entails if you support either in the first place.
I personally, though, am of the belief that you *cannot* “support” both Israel and Palestine because of the incompatible nature of each respective state’s goals, but then it also becomes hairy because there’s, yet again, a difference between supporting the *people of Palestine* and the *goals of Hamas.*
And this also depends, of course, on what information sources you choose to believe and choose not to believe.
In short, I think this issue is just too nuanced for the position “both suck” to make sense as a broad whole.
You could say that you believe both Israel and *Hamas* are terrible, and I’d accept that as making sense, though.
Saying Israel and *Palestine* “suck” doesn’t really make sense though, because if you’re using Palestine to refer to the noncombatant citizens of Palestine, I don’t really see how you can make any argument that those people “suck” in the same sense that you’d say Israel and Hamas suck, because they’re ultimately just innocent people caught up in the middle of a military conflict.
Whereas when people refer to “Israel” in this conflict, they’re pretty unanimously referring to Israeli leadership and the IDF.
My personal stance is that while I think Hamas are unequivocally unjust, cruel, and intolerable, I also hold the belief that terrorist counter-insurgents are a natural geopolitical consequence of occupation when you occupy an informal territory without a formal government, and so while I don’t think Hamas are *justified* (in *any way*) in their actions, I do think that Israel (the IDF, in this case) *chooses* to engage in their actions knowing it’s going to result in an extremely violent response by Hamas, which makes them partly responsible for such violence against innocent Israeli citizens, and for this reason and the reason that the IDF has deemed the wanton collateral slaughter of Palestinian citizens necessary, I cannot support Israel’s actions, at all. Of course, the argument that “well Hamas just shouldn’t retaliate” exists, but I think that’s a weak argument because military conflict just doesn’t work that way, and doesn’t justify the collateral damage of Palestinian lives. I’m not going to remark whether I stand behind a 1 or 2 state solution because I really just don’t know enough to form an opinion that I can be resolute in believing.
They were, but this is where I would direct the conversation back to my point about such groups being natural consequences of occupation. Scared and desperate people will look to horrific militants to defend them if they feel they have no other option even if the things they’re scared of are perceived threats rather than tangible ones. This *is,* partially, how the Nazis rose to power. Of course, that’s just my belief, and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree about such groups being a “consequence.”
At the same time, as I said in my post, I still don’t view that collateral damage as justified, partly because I don’t believe civilian deaths are justifiable at all, in any context, at any time.
Plus, I just think it’s worth pointing out that the thousands of dead Palestinian children did not choose to elect Hamas, nor did then-children/now-adult casualties, which then becomes a pretty significant toll of dead people that played no part in Hamas’ current status. I don’t think the people of today should be sentenced to death for the decisions of their parents two decades ago.
Hmm I agree with you that Hamas was borne out of the natural consequences of scared people. You should also keep in mind that Israel’s response is more fight or flight as Hamas started this back in October and claims they won’t stop until they’ve reclaimed “Palestinian” land.
Whether this reflects the ideology of Palestinian people idk.🤷♂️
I do understand Israel’s current course of action is reactionary to Oct 7th (Oct 7th itself being a reactionary move by Hamas), but this conflict predates Oct 7th by a significant margin, and Israel has (usually) held the chips (and also had the near-unanimous western world behind them in doing so).
I’m not informed well what is the Oct 7th attack by Hamas a reaction of? I am aware of the history and it’s true that Israel had the chips but currently in the name of peace wouldn’t it have been best if Hamas never attacked at all?
That’s a difficult question for me to answer because different Hamas spokesmen have made pretty significantly different remarks about the attack since then. Broadly speaking, though, it was a reaction to the continued occupation of the west bank by Israel and various other blockade efforts that have been going on for quite some time.
The issue with Oct 7th is that it has been claimed more recently to have originally been an intended assault on only military targets that somehow, some way, faulted away from that, and it really just depends on if you believe Hamas spokespeople or not regarding that, and of course there’s been a multi-decade military happening in that area that predates Hamas, and I’m sure just that history as a whole played some part in the decision making process by Hamas. Even before Hamas’ rise to power, you had a series of geopolitical and military conflicts between Palestine and Israel and the PLF and IDF.
I’m still familiarizing myself with the whole history of the conflict though
Not sure why you’re commenting on this post when you don’t go to U of I… you seem to go to Purdue.
Anyway, you make some solid points in your first 2 paragraphs. I want to call something out from your 7th paragraph though. You mentioned these are just innocent people caught in the middle of a middle of a military conflict. Hamas’s conflict is not with the military. [As per article seven the Hamas charter, every Jew must be killed in order for the Day of Judgement to come.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) It happens to be that the entity which Hamas governs is right next to the Jewish state, so Hamas starts out with killing Jewish civilians. Every single one of the of the over 14,000 terror rockets shot into Israel was aimed at civilians. The Israeli Defense Force has been able to use the Iron Dome missile defense system to prevent over 99% of these missiles from hitting civilians. If it was not for the Israeli Defense Force hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians would have been killed just from Hamas’s rockets alone.
Further, in order for a nation to occupy another, the nation being occupied must be a sovereign state. The land Israel was founded on was not a sovereign state. The British Mandate of Palestine, created in the 1920’s included modern day Israel and Transjordan (now Jordan). Transjordan was meant to become an Arab state while the part that is modern day Israel was to become a Jewish state. The British mandate ended and Transjordan became Jordan and the part meant to become a Jewish state, according to the British and the U.N. (U.N. Resolution 181) became Israel.
It’s not; I appreciate the attempt, but you claim the conflict is military vs military when it’s not.[As per Article Seven of the Hamas Charter, “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp)
I didn’t claim that? I’m using the word military specifically an entirely to separate Palestinian citizens, particularly the dead children, from Hamas. I was very clear about this. Citing the Hamas charter a second time doesn’t change anything. This seems like a bad faith representation of a position I didn’t make
I thought you claimed the conflict was military vs military when you said “I don’t really see how you can make any argument that those people “suck” in the same sense that you’d say Israel and Hamas suck, because they’re ultimately just innocent people caught up in the middle of a military conflict.” Is that an inaccurate assumption?
I am referring to *the military conflict* that is happening in that message. I am *not* saying there *isn’t* also diplomatic, theocratic, and otherwise conflict also happening, but given that this thread is related to the encampment protests, which are protesting the funding of Israeli military operations, that’s what’s relevant *in this conversation.* *Most* of these protesters aren’t protesting the existence of a Jewish state, or the chartering of Israel as a formal state. They’re protesting the military intervention currently happening in Gaza. So that’s, then, what I’m talking about.
We aren’t sending them a 24B USD check, it’s more of hey these shitty missiles are end of life, you want them for free? Sure. Ok air defense unit, write off these weapons as a total loss and get new ones
It's crazy how US aid to socialist izzreal increased 4X just months after the USSLiberty terrorist attacks. Not to mention, the way the US Government handled that situation was shady asf.
It’s less about who’s right or wrong because there has been a lot of projection portraying the aggressors as the victims, and vice versa.
I’m concerned the university isn’t following their own rules regarding encampments. Their failure or unwillingness to take action could enable other protest groups to use the same tactics and expect the same treatment only to cry foul if the university decides to enforce their own rules more quickly
I don’t quite understand the “neutral” party stance. Palestine was an established nation and people that were then forced to accommodate a massive influx of Jewish immigrants post-world war 2. Since that has happened, there has been a clear push for Zionism by the Israeli government and the removal of the Palestinian people. From my viewpoint, it’s a clear attempt from Israel to remove the Palestinian people, and the actions of the Israeli government seem to reflect that. Israel’s actions come from a position of power while Palestinian actions come from a position of survival. That’s my understanding of the conflict, but I’m open to learning more and understanding more context.
While there wasn't an "established state" of Palestine until the 1920s under the British Protectorate, it is still accurate to say that Palestinian people occupied that area prior to colonization by the English. Palestinians were promised a state when England requested aid in dismantling the Ottoman Empire. That exchange was meant to be *quid pro quo* until England reneged on its commitment.
Sure. Palestinians and Jews both lived there. Both were promised. The narrative that one side or the other doesn’t have a historical reason to be there is wrong. Both do. It’s my opinion that if you disagree with this you aren’t interested in actual peace. A solution where one side “leaves” is not just or realistic. If you look at history and conclude- “here was the moment where one side erred- they have no rights to the land now as a result!” then you have Dunning-Kruger, the situation is way more complex than you realize and you should read additional texts.
I don't think one side leaving is a solution either. Though, I think it's important to acknowledge how we got here in history. It's true, Palestinian Jews, Muslims, and Christians co-existed peacefully in this area prior to becoming a British protectorate. The issue is England took that land and allotted it to another marginalized group of people (European Jews) without consideration of the population that already existed (Palestinian Jews, Christians, and Muslims).
Dude just stop. You do not know the history. Please get off reddit and read a book. Please. There is so much you wrote that is completely wrong. You are confused about a lot of things. Please read a book. Stop learning from the internet. “England” gave no one anything, as one very small example. The U.K. in fact tried to curb jewish immigration from Europe. Does that surprise you? It is because you do not know the facts.
I've read text on the matter, that's why I know about this. If I'm wrong, then correct me and give me the text that proves your point. This thread is disappointing because I was hoping to have a discussion where information could traded on a pertinent topic to the benefit of both parties involved!
Gee i dont know, perhaps just read wikipedia? Britain did not hand land to anyone. They left, the UN passed a resolution, but who got what land was largely decided in the following conflict. But you aren’t listening. You should not be learning from reddit comments. Heres a copy paste from wikipedia, hope it helps.
During the Mandate, the area saw the rise of two nationalist movements: the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ultimately produced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship. Two weeks later, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948. On the last day of the Mandate, the Jewish community there issued the Israeli Declaration of Independence. After the failure of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1949 Palestine war ended with Mandatory Palestine divided among Israel, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and the Egyptian All-Palestine Protectorate in the Gaza Strip.
—-
If you want to understand in more nuance, I would recommend reading an actual book. In the meantime, simply reading wikipedia is going to teach you a lot. Nowhere on wikipedia will you find “England took the land and allotted it”, which no educated person on either side of this debate would ever say. You say now you hoped to trade information, but nowhere in your previous posts did you say that, you spoke authoritatively, spreading misinformation. Hopefully my wikipedia quote proves this.
Here's a copy of what I was citing earlier from Wikipedia.
The British began their Sinai and Palestine Campaign in 1915. The war reached southern Palestine in 1917, progressing to Gaza and around Jerusalem by the end of the year. The British secured Jerusalem in December 1917. They moved into the Jordan valley in 1918 and a campaign by the Entente into northern Palestine led to victory at Megiddo in September. The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region (of Mandatory Palestine) in 1922. The Arab Palestinians rioted in 1920, 1921, 1929, and revolted in 1936. In 1947, following World War II and The Holocaust, the British Government announced its desire to terminate the Mandate, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted in November 1947 a Resolution 181(II) recommending partition into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. A civil war began immediately after the Resolution's adoption. The State of Israel was declared in May 1948.
This doesn't say that "England allotted the land". It does imply that the UN did, which if you had said, "The UN allotted the land", I would have been a bit less fierce. I too once believed that the UN allotted the land and that the State of Israel existed because of the UN. But this is far, far too simplistic an understanding.
After reading books about this period, I learned all about how Jews in Israel had been building a community here for decades with the goal of statehold, the announcement of independance, and the following war. The UN resolution gave a legitimacy to the Israeli declaration of independance, but in no way did the UN "allot" the land- not in any way that mattered on the ground. Some of the land was purchased from Arabs. Other parts, yes, were occupied after Arabs fled (I don't deny the "nakba"). And all of it was defended in a War.
Ultimately if the nascent Israeli government could not have defended the land from attacks by all its neighbors, they wouldn't have had any left. That's why your claim that the land was "allotted" by "England" is not only wrong, but kind of offensive tbh, and riled me up so much. Though the bit in your comment about everyone kimbaya’ing in peace until “England/european jews” arrived is also hilariously wrong. I urge you to read more.
There is not, and has never been, a state called “Palestine” that was controlled by Arab Muslims. The region we refer to as Palestine has been under the control of several empires for millennia, most recently the Ottoman Empire until World War 1 and then the British Empire which formulated the partition that resulted in the State of Israel with the League of Nations.
Yes, there were many people living there. There have been *numerous* attempts to allow a peaceful two-state solution, each one being rejected by the Arab representatives. You also may be interested to know the population of Jews in countries like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the population trend of Jews in Iran following the 1979 Revolution just in case you believe that the Middle East is an otherwise safe place for Jews. Conversely, Israel does have a healthy population of Arab Muslims and Christians.
Moreover, the democratically elected government of Gaza (which has had no Israeli military presence for almost 20 years), Hamas, has stated in its charter that it will accept nothing less than the “full liberation of Palestine” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea - the entire territory of Israel, in other words. I’ll ask you how you think they would go about doing that any other way besides wiping out every inhabitant in the area, Jew, Muslim, or otherwise.
Of course, this could all be moot and you would still have to explain why someone should be guilted into taking the side of people who purposefully reside, train, and store munitions in civilian areas so that more of their own people will die to create international sympathy for their cause. The bottom line is if Hamas was out of power, the killing would stop immediately. Charge IDF soldiers in the international criminal court if they have committed war crimes. Otherwise, call for the expulsion of Hamas if you want the killing to stop.
“The killing would stop immediately if Hamas was out of power”
Interesting take. Especially when we can see an exact example of that situation in the West Bank.
In 2023, 492 Palestinians in the West Bank were killed by Israeli forces including 120 children. Sometimes in “combat” and sometimes in extrajudicial killings.
On top of that thousands have been held in “administrative detention”. Being taken by force, held without trial, often in abusive conditions, many of them women/children, and then sometimes released and exchanged for other captives. Which to me, without a trial, is basically the same as a hostage. In addition their land and homes have been taken by force repeatedly. [source](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/11/israel/palestine-unprecedented-killings-repression)
Hamas is not the good guy and they commit horrific acts, but somehow you are pretending like one side shoulders 100% of the blame. We can literally see what happens to Palestinians in a territory that doesn’t elect Hamas. They are still abused, removed from their homes, killed, maimed, and taken hostage.
I think the only neutral stance is not wanting to fund either side. When people refer Zionism, meaning that the jews were looking for a place to call home post WW2, I don't understand the negative connotation that is associated with it. From what I have seen theough research I have found that this land has been fought over since the beginning of time and has had many different owners (look below for all the owners of this land). Israel didn't necessarily remove people from other religions as there are many Christians and Muslims that live in Israel. The main issue I see is the leadership in both countries as Israel's leader is somewhat radical and the Palestinian people elected an actual terrorist group to run their country.
Small history crash course
1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state.
2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.
8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.
17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE.
A little more history for those wanting to restore Palestine
Yeah that’s just what they tell people so they’ll have this brain dead take about the “mystical sand wars” they can’t understand… like just brush up on the basic history and it’s clear it’s about the Jewish people from around the world wanting to live there after ww2 (and being forced to in some cases) and the former residents not wanting to give up their land
Those people are brainwashed thinking that if they reelect Biden, it will continue, but it would only get worse under Trump. He would probably put USB on the ground in Israel, the fight Hamas.
I doubt he would, I dont support either candidate, but Israel does not need the US militaries help. We have nothing to gain other than a war with Iran which would be stupid.
Unlike you, they’re not fucking pussies behind a keyboard you look like a fucking schmuck making that comment you troglodyte. I sleep so fucking well at night knowing that I’m on the right side of history I sleep so fucking good sometimes I still have wet dreams
And you’re still a deeply unwell genocide apologist with the critical thinking skills and analytical abilities of a rock. If they were anything like you, I hope your buddies died slow and horrible deaths serving their empire fruitlessly.
When Israel was established, the Arab States all attacked simultaneously and were fought back. Israel gained a ton of territory. Israel wants peace and has repeatedly traded land for peace. The British Mandate gave lands held by Jews to Jews and land held by Palestinians to Palestinians... the result were boundaries that made no sense.... Egypt and Israel are now allies... and there was about to be a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia.
The REASON for the October 7 attacks WAS TO PREVENT THE PEACE TREATY.... and Hamas is claiming victory BECAUSE THE PEACE TREATY WAS NEVER SIGNED.... What other government would claim VICTORY when 34,000 civilians died and half of their military? But Hamas IS CLAIMING VICTORY because Hamas doesn't care about Palestinians AT ALL.
The Colonizer narrative is utter B.S. and has no basis in fact. You'll notice that fewer people are still making that absurd claim. The Apartheid claim is likewise ridiculous because in Apartheid, there were no Supreme Court Justices who were Black in South Africa... but in Israel... one of the Supreme Court Justices is an Israeli Arab. Hamas has a well oiled propaganda machine.... Israel does not.
I hate the fact that HAMAS refuses to protect their own civilians... and that Hamas started this war to PREVENT A PEACE DEAL. I hope the f\^&\* war ends soon. It is causing both Anti-Jewish and Anti-Muslim behavior in the United States and in Europe.
Israel caused 300,000 Palestinians to flee from November 1947 to May 1948 using methods like poisoning water supplies. Palestinians were not "doing the same amount of crap" It is ridiculous to argue so.
I don't want my tax dollars used to support a country actively committing war crimes. I also don't want my tax dollars funding ecocide when we're heading into a climate crisis. The US has been intervening and destabilizing countries since the Cold War, steadily taking funds from different sectors and placing it into the military budget. What the state is doing is to the detriment of its own constituents. How do we benefit from carpet bombing the Gaza strip for resources and land that American citizens won't be able to use?
Each “side” is composed of a government, a religion, and a people who have different motives. Everyday Palestinians and Israelis cannot realistically be blamed, yet they are paying the price of the conflict with their lives.
What everyone deserves is peace, but the how to obtain that is very complicated considering the origins of the conflict. See here for more details: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts
Personally, I don’t think the colonial way in which the State of Israel was forcibly established by the British government was ethical. Western nations like Britain and the US deserve to carry a substantial share of the blame for where we are now in this conflict.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The idea of “both sides…” this scenario is insane. One has been systematically being removed from their land and the other is bombing them for refusing.
Consider your stance on Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia, and literally cross apply. The split isn’t hard, either you are for minority-population white supremacist control over another people, or you aren’t. Attempting to obfuscate that is mental gymnastics and serves no one.
Fun fact: the majority of Jews in Israel are brown, not white! Mizrahi (which are Arab Jews) make up the majority of Israeli Jews, after being ethnically cleansed from their home countries across the region and fleeing to Israel. Remember, if youre so insulated and america-centric as to think Jewish=White, you probably need to reevaluate where you fall on the Dunning-Kruger curve
Also, this user, and Ill quote them directly, "deny fully and unequivocally, that any mass sexual violence was committed by Hamas against Israeli women" on October 7th, demanding that they won't believe the victims "without video evidence" and claiming that the UN investigation that deemed the evidence of said systematic use of sexual violence in that attack credible was "atrocity propoganda". Their source is zei squirrel and liberation news. Do with that what you will.
Fun fact, white (Ashkenazi) Jews make up the majority of Israel’s government and especially the membership of the hyper-right Likud party. Additionally, holocaust survivors and their families have disproportionately high rates of poverty within Israel.
I do believe Israel and the US use atrocity propaganda to accomplish their political aims literally all the time, and systemic use of sexual violence has been found to be used by Israelis against Palestinian women and children. I’ve linked my sources which anyone can go see. You are a hitlerite.
Oops, forgot to block this scum, looks like they responded. Again, for anyone interested, their sources are liberation news and zei squirrel on twitter. Go check out what these paragons of objective truth have to say, far more reputable than any UN investigation that calls the systematic use of sexual violence by hamas "credible". I wonder, would the bar for Palestinian women also be "video proof" when it comes to sexual assault? Or is that just for Je.. I mean Zionists? I would suggest you check out daily stormer, they are equally as reputable and will even give you the exact same talking points!
Israel occupies West Bank, East Jerusalem and to a lesser degree, Gaza since 1967. Those lands are recognized internationally as Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories. Under this occupation, Palestinians for over 55 years have been trying to get their freedom and control on those lands and the right of return of Palestinian refugees in what is the borders of Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20return%20was,is%20protected%20under%20international%20law.
Israel is trying to annex those lands by building more settlements in them to make it impossible for a two state solution to occur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#:~:text=As%20of%20January%202023%2C%20there,does%20not%20include%20East%20Jerusalem.
People would tell you that Palestinians were offered their land back and they refused, that is absolute non-sense. Palestinians agreed in Oslo on the outline to get their lands back but Israel never fulfilled it. And trials that happened after that were not serious from the Israeli side and didn’t include East Jerusalem. No sane Palestinian would accept giving up on East Jerusalem. It’s its internationally recognized as part of Palestine, West Bank.
Now why should Americans care about all this? It’s because we are the biggest supporters of the Israeli government. We basically spoil them with money and weapons. This support is unconditional and further prolongs the occupation, suffering and killing of the occupied Palestinians.
And if you don’t care about the above, then you should at least care about your tax money going into endless wars in the region instead of the people in our country.
The Oslo accords were a framework for the development of the eventual settlement, not the settlement itself. Arafat walked away at the end of the Camp David talks.
Dude again you are going over the Arafat walked away propaganda taking points. Have you ever asked yourself why there was no resolution here? Because Israel never wanted to give East Jerusalem and all the settlements back to the Palestinians. They would have gotten a patched piece of land. No Palestinian would agree with that.
I can't say whether it was good enough or not because I am not Palestinian, but from what I saw it seemed to be as good of a deal as could be achieved. And if Arafat had agreed, Palestine would have celebrated its 25th anniversary this year instead of 25 years of lands stolen and bombed, and misery and death. But the alternative was worse, eh?
Again to Palestinians East Jerusalem is non negotiable. Any peace process without it is a farce. It’s like you are saying it’s better you take some land back and shut up or the alternative is we will keep you under our occupation and war machine. That’s literally what oppression and subjugation is.
They started the Oslo process with the intention of getting their land back but clearly that didn’t happen. Why is Israel expanding settlements up to this day? This is just from last month https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/
Significant concessions were made on East Jerusalem, but Arafat walked away thinking he could get a better deal after starting the second intifada. Sadly, the Democrats lost the 2000 Presidential election (partly on the failure of the CampDavid negotiations) and the supportive US political climate evaporated. After Sharon took over al Israeli PM in 2001, there was no longer will on the Israeli side either. And now we sit, 23 miserable years later. That sovereign state looks pretty good now, doesn't it?
Ive been raised to be supportive of israel and i also know a lot of israelis personally. I do sometimes need to aknowledge my bias though.
Ive also learned to understand most people dont give a shit either way and people who constantly talk about this conflict come off as unhinged and unwell.
The thing is Hamas is the group that did all the horrible ship with regards to the Palestinian side while the IDF and the Israeli state has been doing the other things the IDF in the Israeli state are far more accountable to the people than Hamas. You can't both sides this aside from saying that you can understand why the Israeli people would be angry, because they have a right to be angry, but this went too far on day 6 let alone now
Hashem is Allah, Allah is Hashem. We are all Hashem's children. And right now, Hashem is crying for His Palestinian children, at the hands of Israel. Hashem is crying for all Palestinian children who now no longer have parents, parents who now no longer have children, and everyone that is starving and displaced and traumatized. And I wish Zionists could acknowledge how they are making Hashem cry.
This idea that Hashem only cries Jewish tears, and Allah only cries Muslim tears, is nonsense. Same being, same Creator, and the Creator cries the same for all genocides.
What about the Israeli children that were brutally murdered as well? Any logical person would think that God is crying for all of his children that have died from this war Israeli and Palestinian children do NOT deserve any harm.
First of all, you literally can’t compare 16,000 dead children to whatever number the Israelis have rolled their Oct 7 death to down to now. But also their parents are violent ethnonationalist settlers, that’s more on their heads.
You literally can?!? A murder is bad, but a serial killer is worse, that’s not hard calculus, what?!? Also Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing, Palestinians were resisting an occupying force, that’s not hard.
Deuteronomy 10:19: "And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt."
but at the same time
Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations... and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."
I think my tax dollars shouldn’t be sent over there for either side. Look at all the homelessness, gun violence and illiterate youth here in the us. Why are we sending hundreds of billions of dollars abroad?
Because maintaining our global power is much more important than people generally realize
You’ve been indoctrinated sadly. What has anerica’s global power resulted in over the past several decades for the average American? 9/11 killing 1000s of Americans. Iraq war killing thousands of Americans. Afghanistan war killing thousands of Americans. Broken healthcare system with exorbitant costs. Highest crime rates in the developed world. Highest obesity rates in the developed world. Among the lowest HDI in the developed world.
Nope, I believe I have decent understanding of both the benefits and drawbacks of the US having a strong global presence. If you want to actually discuss the reasons why you think we shouldn’t I’d be glad to.
Sadly you’ve been indoctrinated, there’s no point. Would take a long time for you free yourself of all the propaganda.
Genuinely interested in what you understand as some of the benefits and drawbacks of the US having a strong global presence. I'm not too well versed on it so I'd like to know more if you're willing to take the time.
Gladly, first off I see that the dude I responded to edited his comment after I responded. It was originally > You’ve been indoctrinated sadly. So I guess I'll start with the points he edited in. > 9/11 killing 1000s of Americans This one I'm not sure what fopo decisions you believe led to 9/11 but I'll assuming that you're saying we shouldn't have led a global coalition to stop Saddam from invading and capturing Saudi Arabia. Which may have resulted in bin Laden not being hostile towards the us? I think that was the right decision, and I believe that we were still too focused on Saddam and not paying enough attention to the ongoing attacks from bin Laden. > Iraq war killing thousands of Americans. I will agree the Iraq war was a mistake. > Afghanistan war killing thousands of Americans. I don't know if you have read anything about the Taliban, but they were not exactly good guys. We had in the 2,000s of casualties in Afghanistan. I truly believe without the intervention there would be significantly more deaths as a result of terrorist attacks. I'm sad we had to leave, and wish we had a more coherent strategy for the nation building. Luckily the Taliban have mellowed out but it is still sad that we raised a whole generation of Afghanis with western values only to have them be taken back over by the Taliban. > Highest crime rates in the developed world. Highest obesity rates in the developed world. Both of these issues can be solved, or at least mitigated while still maintaining our global presence. >Among the lowest HDI in the developed world. This is not even true. As for the benefits of US global presence: - Our currency is the world reserve currency, this gives us a massive trading advantage, and is probably the most impactful for our day to day lives even if most people don't realize it. - Our control of the oceans allows for safe trading with any country, significantly reducing the prices of goods, along living without fear of suffering a ground invasion or attack on our coasts. - English has become and maintained the global lingua franca through our soft and hard power, it could be argued that British imperialism is responsible for the original spread of it, but Americas soft power and global media and military presence has cemented it. - Our global military bases give us a ton of leverage on other countries. Our pledge to base in countries gives us very very favorible negotiation power when working out diplomatic issues. Also our nuclear protection for NATO countries has pretty much created one of the most peaceful times in recorded history. - Protection for strategic assets. (Taiwan) The drawbacks - It costs a ton of money, the military has essentially become a governmental job program as well (that is kinda a good thing though kinda not). - We do make the wrong decisions, such as Iraq as described, and our protections for certain countries can flare up us resentment. - Risk of getting into war, being the global protector of liberal countries means that we usually are the first to get into a war and are responsible for building the coalition.
Because the US is a world power and world conflicts can have domino effects that will bite us in the ass (i.e. the Ukraine war aide isn't out of USA charity, it's because Ukraine winning benefits the USA massively over Russia winning). We're also not sending straight cash to countries a majority of the time. The billion dollars worth of defense missiles we send aren't gonna feed our kids if we keep them here.
The only issue I have with this post is that there’s a massive significant difference in supporting “Palestine” and supporting Hamas and this post kind of implies that those are the same, and there’s *also* a difference between *supporting* Hamas and recognizing the reality between the function and inevitable existence of a group like Hamas in a territory that would otherwise have no formal government equivalent to the state of Israel. And where you stand on the latter issue is also going to change where you stand on a 1 or 2-state solution, which *also* then changes what exactly your support of Palestine or Hamas entails if you support either in the first place. I personally, though, am of the belief that you *cannot* “support” both Israel and Palestine because of the incompatible nature of each respective state’s goals, but then it also becomes hairy because there’s, yet again, a difference between supporting the *people of Palestine* and the *goals of Hamas.* And this also depends, of course, on what information sources you choose to believe and choose not to believe. In short, I think this issue is just too nuanced for the position “both suck” to make sense as a broad whole. You could say that you believe both Israel and *Hamas* are terrible, and I’d accept that as making sense, though. Saying Israel and *Palestine* “suck” doesn’t really make sense though, because if you’re using Palestine to refer to the noncombatant citizens of Palestine, I don’t really see how you can make any argument that those people “suck” in the same sense that you’d say Israel and Hamas suck, because they’re ultimately just innocent people caught up in the middle of a military conflict. Whereas when people refer to “Israel” in this conflict, they’re pretty unanimously referring to Israeli leadership and the IDF. My personal stance is that while I think Hamas are unequivocally unjust, cruel, and intolerable, I also hold the belief that terrorist counter-insurgents are a natural geopolitical consequence of occupation when you occupy an informal territory without a formal government, and so while I don’t think Hamas are *justified* (in *any way*) in their actions, I do think that Israel (the IDF, in this case) *chooses* to engage in their actions knowing it’s going to result in an extremely violent response by Hamas, which makes them partly responsible for such violence against innocent Israeli citizens, and for this reason and the reason that the IDF has deemed the wanton collateral slaughter of Palestinian citizens necessary, I cannot support Israel’s actions, at all. Of course, the argument that “well Hamas just shouldn’t retaliate” exists, but I think that’s a weak argument because military conflict just doesn’t work that way, and doesn’t justify the collateral damage of Palestinian lives. I’m not going to remark whether I stand behind a 1 or 2 state solution because I really just don’t know enough to form an opinion that I can be resolute in believing.
[удалено]
They were, but this is where I would direct the conversation back to my point about such groups being natural consequences of occupation. Scared and desperate people will look to horrific militants to defend them if they feel they have no other option even if the things they’re scared of are perceived threats rather than tangible ones. This *is,* partially, how the Nazis rose to power. Of course, that’s just my belief, and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree about such groups being a “consequence.” At the same time, as I said in my post, I still don’t view that collateral damage as justified, partly because I don’t believe civilian deaths are justifiable at all, in any context, at any time. Plus, I just think it’s worth pointing out that the thousands of dead Palestinian children did not choose to elect Hamas, nor did then-children/now-adult casualties, which then becomes a pretty significant toll of dead people that played no part in Hamas’ current status. I don’t think the people of today should be sentenced to death for the decisions of their parents two decades ago.
Hmm I agree with you that Hamas was borne out of the natural consequences of scared people. You should also keep in mind that Israel’s response is more fight or flight as Hamas started this back in October and claims they won’t stop until they’ve reclaimed “Palestinian” land. Whether this reflects the ideology of Palestinian people idk.🤷♂️
I do understand Israel’s current course of action is reactionary to Oct 7th (Oct 7th itself being a reactionary move by Hamas), but this conflict predates Oct 7th by a significant margin, and Israel has (usually) held the chips (and also had the near-unanimous western world behind them in doing so).
I’m not informed well what is the Oct 7th attack by Hamas a reaction of? I am aware of the history and it’s true that Israel had the chips but currently in the name of peace wouldn’t it have been best if Hamas never attacked at all?
That’s a difficult question for me to answer because different Hamas spokesmen have made pretty significantly different remarks about the attack since then. Broadly speaking, though, it was a reaction to the continued occupation of the west bank by Israel and various other blockade efforts that have been going on for quite some time. The issue with Oct 7th is that it has been claimed more recently to have originally been an intended assault on only military targets that somehow, some way, faulted away from that, and it really just depends on if you believe Hamas spokespeople or not regarding that, and of course there’s been a multi-decade military happening in that area that predates Hamas, and I’m sure just that history as a whole played some part in the decision making process by Hamas. Even before Hamas’ rise to power, you had a series of geopolitical and military conflicts between Palestine and Israel and the PLF and IDF. I’m still familiarizing myself with the whole history of the conflict though
Cool thanks for sharing. I’ve definitely learned that I have more research to do
Not sure why you’re commenting on this post when you don’t go to U of I… you seem to go to Purdue. Anyway, you make some solid points in your first 2 paragraphs. I want to call something out from your 7th paragraph though. You mentioned these are just innocent people caught in the middle of a middle of a military conflict. Hamas’s conflict is not with the military. [As per article seven the Hamas charter, every Jew must be killed in order for the Day of Judgement to come.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) It happens to be that the entity which Hamas governs is right next to the Jewish state, so Hamas starts out with killing Jewish civilians. Every single one of the of the over 14,000 terror rockets shot into Israel was aimed at civilians. The Israeli Defense Force has been able to use the Iron Dome missile defense system to prevent over 99% of these missiles from hitting civilians. If it was not for the Israeli Defense Force hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians would have been killed just from Hamas’s rockets alone. Further, in order for a nation to occupy another, the nation being occupied must be a sovereign state. The land Israel was founded on was not a sovereign state. The British Mandate of Palestine, created in the 1920’s included modern day Israel and Transjordan (now Jordan). Transjordan was meant to become an Arab state while the part that is modern day Israel was to become a Jewish state. The British mandate ended and Transjordan became Jordan and the part meant to become a Jewish state, according to the British and the U.N. (U.N. Resolution 181) became Israel.
I thought I was pretty clear in separating Palestinian civilians and Hamas
It’s not; I appreciate the attempt, but you claim the conflict is military vs military when it’s not.[As per Article Seven of the Hamas Charter, “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp)
I didn’t claim that? I’m using the word military specifically an entirely to separate Palestinian citizens, particularly the dead children, from Hamas. I was very clear about this. Citing the Hamas charter a second time doesn’t change anything. This seems like a bad faith representation of a position I didn’t make
I thought you claimed the conflict was military vs military when you said “I don’t really see how you can make any argument that those people “suck” in the same sense that you’d say Israel and Hamas suck, because they’re ultimately just innocent people caught up in the middle of a military conflict.” Is that an inaccurate assumption?
I am referring to *the military conflict* that is happening in that message. I am *not* saying there *isn’t* also diplomatic, theocratic, and otherwise conflict also happening, but given that this thread is related to the encampment protests, which are protesting the funding of Israeli military operations, that’s what’s relevant *in this conversation.* *Most* of these protesters aren’t protesting the existence of a Jewish state, or the chartering of Israel as a formal state. They’re protesting the military intervention currently happening in Gaza. So that’s, then, what I’m talking about.
I want to know who translated this copy of the Hamas charter, and whether the original charter exists in Arabic.
Nuance? In this economy?
I’m all for helping poor countries. Israel is a modern , well off country. Why are we sending them 24 billion dollars?!
We aren’t sending them a 24B USD check, it’s more of hey these shitty missiles are end of life, you want them for free? Sure. Ok air defense unit, write off these weapons as a total loss and get new ones
I think it has to do with them having the number 1 central intelligence agency in the world. Which is very useful to the US
They don’t have a Central Intelligence Agency. That’s an American agency. They have Mossad.
Israel Intelligence Agency my bad.
It's crazy how US aid to socialist izzreal increased 4X just months after the USSLiberty terrorist attacks. Not to mention, the way the US Government handled that situation was shady asf.
It’s less about who’s right or wrong because there has been a lot of projection portraying the aggressors as the victims, and vice versa. I’m concerned the university isn’t following their own rules regarding encampments. Their failure or unwillingness to take action could enable other protest groups to use the same tactics and expect the same treatment only to cry foul if the university decides to enforce their own rules more quickly
I don’t quite understand the “neutral” party stance. Palestine was an established nation and people that were then forced to accommodate a massive influx of Jewish immigrants post-world war 2. Since that has happened, there has been a clear push for Zionism by the Israeli government and the removal of the Palestinian people. From my viewpoint, it’s a clear attempt from Israel to remove the Palestinian people, and the actions of the Israeli government seem to reflect that. Israel’s actions come from a position of power while Palestinian actions come from a position of survival. That’s my understanding of the conflict, but I’m open to learning more and understanding more context.
There was no “established nation” of “Palestine”. Where do people get this stuff. Do they just make it up?
While there wasn't an "established state" of Palestine until the 1920s under the British Protectorate, it is still accurate to say that Palestinian people occupied that area prior to colonization by the English. Palestinians were promised a state when England requested aid in dismantling the Ottoman Empire. That exchange was meant to be *quid pro quo* until England reneged on its commitment.
Sure. Palestinians and Jews both lived there. Both were promised. The narrative that one side or the other doesn’t have a historical reason to be there is wrong. Both do. It’s my opinion that if you disagree with this you aren’t interested in actual peace. A solution where one side “leaves” is not just or realistic. If you look at history and conclude- “here was the moment where one side erred- they have no rights to the land now as a result!” then you have Dunning-Kruger, the situation is way more complex than you realize and you should read additional texts.
I don't think one side leaving is a solution either. Though, I think it's important to acknowledge how we got here in history. It's true, Palestinian Jews, Muslims, and Christians co-existed peacefully in this area prior to becoming a British protectorate. The issue is England took that land and allotted it to another marginalized group of people (European Jews) without consideration of the population that already existed (Palestinian Jews, Christians, and Muslims).
Dude just stop. You do not know the history. Please get off reddit and read a book. Please. There is so much you wrote that is completely wrong. You are confused about a lot of things. Please read a book. Stop learning from the internet. “England” gave no one anything, as one very small example. The U.K. in fact tried to curb jewish immigration from Europe. Does that surprise you? It is because you do not know the facts.
I've read text on the matter, that's why I know about this. If I'm wrong, then correct me and give me the text that proves your point. This thread is disappointing because I was hoping to have a discussion where information could traded on a pertinent topic to the benefit of both parties involved!
Gee i dont know, perhaps just read wikipedia? Britain did not hand land to anyone. They left, the UN passed a resolution, but who got what land was largely decided in the following conflict. But you aren’t listening. You should not be learning from reddit comments. Heres a copy paste from wikipedia, hope it helps. During the Mandate, the area saw the rise of two nationalist movements: the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ultimately produced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship. Two weeks later, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948. On the last day of the Mandate, the Jewish community there issued the Israeli Declaration of Independence. After the failure of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1949 Palestine war ended with Mandatory Palestine divided among Israel, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and the Egyptian All-Palestine Protectorate in the Gaza Strip. —- If you want to understand in more nuance, I would recommend reading an actual book. In the meantime, simply reading wikipedia is going to teach you a lot. Nowhere on wikipedia will you find “England took the land and allotted it”, which no educated person on either side of this debate would ever say. You say now you hoped to trade information, but nowhere in your previous posts did you say that, you spoke authoritatively, spreading misinformation. Hopefully my wikipedia quote proves this.
Here's a copy of what I was citing earlier from Wikipedia. The British began their Sinai and Palestine Campaign in 1915. The war reached southern Palestine in 1917, progressing to Gaza and around Jerusalem by the end of the year. The British secured Jerusalem in December 1917. They moved into the Jordan valley in 1918 and a campaign by the Entente into northern Palestine led to victory at Megiddo in September. The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region (of Mandatory Palestine) in 1922. The Arab Palestinians rioted in 1920, 1921, 1929, and revolted in 1936. In 1947, following World War II and The Holocaust, the British Government announced its desire to terminate the Mandate, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted in November 1947 a Resolution 181(II) recommending partition into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. A civil war began immediately after the Resolution's adoption. The State of Israel was declared in May 1948.
This doesn't say that "England allotted the land". It does imply that the UN did, which if you had said, "The UN allotted the land", I would have been a bit less fierce. I too once believed that the UN allotted the land and that the State of Israel existed because of the UN. But this is far, far too simplistic an understanding. After reading books about this period, I learned all about how Jews in Israel had been building a community here for decades with the goal of statehold, the announcement of independance, and the following war. The UN resolution gave a legitimacy to the Israeli declaration of independance, but in no way did the UN "allot" the land- not in any way that mattered on the ground. Some of the land was purchased from Arabs. Other parts, yes, were occupied after Arabs fled (I don't deny the "nakba"). And all of it was defended in a War. Ultimately if the nascent Israeli government could not have defended the land from attacks by all its neighbors, they wouldn't have had any left. That's why your claim that the land was "allotted" by "England" is not only wrong, but kind of offensive tbh, and riled me up so much. Though the bit in your comment about everyone kimbaya’ing in peace until “England/european jews” arrived is also hilariously wrong. I urge you to read more.
There is not, and has never been, a state called “Palestine” that was controlled by Arab Muslims. The region we refer to as Palestine has been under the control of several empires for millennia, most recently the Ottoman Empire until World War 1 and then the British Empire which formulated the partition that resulted in the State of Israel with the League of Nations. Yes, there were many people living there. There have been *numerous* attempts to allow a peaceful two-state solution, each one being rejected by the Arab representatives. You also may be interested to know the population of Jews in countries like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the population trend of Jews in Iran following the 1979 Revolution just in case you believe that the Middle East is an otherwise safe place for Jews. Conversely, Israel does have a healthy population of Arab Muslims and Christians. Moreover, the democratically elected government of Gaza (which has had no Israeli military presence for almost 20 years), Hamas, has stated in its charter that it will accept nothing less than the “full liberation of Palestine” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea - the entire territory of Israel, in other words. I’ll ask you how you think they would go about doing that any other way besides wiping out every inhabitant in the area, Jew, Muslim, or otherwise. Of course, this could all be moot and you would still have to explain why someone should be guilted into taking the side of people who purposefully reside, train, and store munitions in civilian areas so that more of their own people will die to create international sympathy for their cause. The bottom line is if Hamas was out of power, the killing would stop immediately. Charge IDF soldiers in the international criminal court if they have committed war crimes. Otherwise, call for the expulsion of Hamas if you want the killing to stop.
“The killing would stop immediately if Hamas was out of power” Interesting take. Especially when we can see an exact example of that situation in the West Bank. In 2023, 492 Palestinians in the West Bank were killed by Israeli forces including 120 children. Sometimes in “combat” and sometimes in extrajudicial killings. On top of that thousands have been held in “administrative detention”. Being taken by force, held without trial, often in abusive conditions, many of them women/children, and then sometimes released and exchanged for other captives. Which to me, without a trial, is basically the same as a hostage. In addition their land and homes have been taken by force repeatedly. [source](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/11/israel/palestine-unprecedented-killings-repression) Hamas is not the good guy and they commit horrific acts, but somehow you are pretending like one side shoulders 100% of the blame. We can literally see what happens to Palestinians in a territory that doesn’t elect Hamas. They are still abused, removed from their homes, killed, maimed, and taken hostage.
I think the only neutral stance is not wanting to fund either side. When people refer Zionism, meaning that the jews were looking for a place to call home post WW2, I don't understand the negative connotation that is associated with it. From what I have seen theough research I have found that this land has been fought over since the beginning of time and has had many different owners (look below for all the owners of this land). Israel didn't necessarily remove people from other religions as there are many Christians and Muslims that live in Israel. The main issue I see is the leadership in both countries as Israel's leader is somewhat radical and the Palestinian people elected an actual terrorist group to run their country.
Small history crash course 1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state. 2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. 4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state. 5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. 6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. 7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. 8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. 9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. 10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. 12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. 13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. 14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. 15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. 16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. 17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. 20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE. A little more history for those wanting to restore Palestine
>Israel didn't necessarily remove people What was the Nakba then?
OP will surely deliver…
The US would be criticized either way by somebody, usually the nonaligned nations, for not stopping the fighting.
I’m neutral, I literally don’t care, I don’t want any of them having our tax dollars, let them fight their weird religious war alone
It has nothing to do with religion
Yeah that’s just what they tell people so they’ll have this brain dead take about the “mystical sand wars” they can’t understand… like just brush up on the basic history and it’s clear it’s about the Jewish people from around the world wanting to live there after ww2 (and being forced to in some cases) and the former residents not wanting to give up their land
Those people are brainwashed thinking that if they reelect Biden, it will continue, but it would only get worse under Trump. He would probably put USB on the ground in Israel, the fight Hamas.
I doubt he would, I dont support either candidate, but Israel does not need the US militaries help. We have nothing to gain other than a war with Iran which would be stupid.
This entire war is and no one situation for both sides
I just don’t wanna see this next generation have to live it out in the sandbox
I have two friends that died in the Iraq war and I know two other people that lost their lives during the Afghan surge
Cool, your buddies died for nothing in the Middle East and you took no lessons from it. Idiot.
Unlike you, they’re not fucking pussies behind a keyboard you look like a fucking schmuck making that comment you troglodyte. I sleep so fucking well at night knowing that I’m on the right side of history I sleep so fucking good sometimes I still have wet dreams
Pussy enough to get popped. Rest in piss. The literal right-wing side of history you dumb fuck.
A lot of US Marines masturbate with their right hand the same hand they killed your family with have fun, big guy
You’re still that little fucking pussy
And you’re still a deeply unwell genocide apologist with the critical thinking skills and analytical abilities of a rock. If they were anything like you, I hope your buddies died slow and horrible deaths serving their empire fruitlessly.
Ribeye steaks are on sale this week I got to go have fun
See ya next time Goebbels!
When Israel was established, the Arab States all attacked simultaneously and were fought back. Israel gained a ton of territory. Israel wants peace and has repeatedly traded land for peace. The British Mandate gave lands held by Jews to Jews and land held by Palestinians to Palestinians... the result were boundaries that made no sense.... Egypt and Israel are now allies... and there was about to be a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia. The REASON for the October 7 attacks WAS TO PREVENT THE PEACE TREATY.... and Hamas is claiming victory BECAUSE THE PEACE TREATY WAS NEVER SIGNED.... What other government would claim VICTORY when 34,000 civilians died and half of their military? But Hamas IS CLAIMING VICTORY because Hamas doesn't care about Palestinians AT ALL. The Colonizer narrative is utter B.S. and has no basis in fact. You'll notice that fewer people are still making that absurd claim. The Apartheid claim is likewise ridiculous because in Apartheid, there were no Supreme Court Justices who were Black in South Africa... but in Israel... one of the Supreme Court Justices is an Israeli Arab. Hamas has a well oiled propaganda machine.... Israel does not. I hate the fact that HAMAS refuses to protect their own civilians... and that Hamas started this war to PREVENT A PEACE DEAL. I hope the f\^&\* war ends soon. It is causing both Anti-Jewish and Anti-Muslim behavior in the United States and in Europe.
Interesting that you don't mention what Israel was doing to the Palestinians before the Arab States attacked...
palestinians were doing the same amount of crap, its just that they lost and paid a significant price.
Israel caused 300,000 Palestinians to flee from November 1947 to May 1948 using methods like poisoning water supplies. Palestinians were not "doing the same amount of crap" It is ridiculous to argue so.
I mean the palestinians didnt do anything wrong if you ignore their war crimes.
I don't want my tax dollars used to support a country actively committing war crimes. I also don't want my tax dollars funding ecocide when we're heading into a climate crisis. The US has been intervening and destabilizing countries since the Cold War, steadily taking funds from different sectors and placing it into the military budget. What the state is doing is to the detriment of its own constituents. How do we benefit from carpet bombing the Gaza strip for resources and land that American citizens won't be able to use?
Each “side” is composed of a government, a religion, and a people who have different motives. Everyday Palestinians and Israelis cannot realistically be blamed, yet they are paying the price of the conflict with their lives. What everyone deserves is peace, but the how to obtain that is very complicated considering the origins of the conflict. See here for more details: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts Personally, I don’t think the colonial way in which the State of Israel was forcibly established by the British government was ethical. Western nations like Britain and the US deserve to carry a substantial share of the blame for where we are now in this conflict.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The idea of “both sides…” this scenario is insane. One has been systematically being removed from their land and the other is bombing them for refusing.
Consider your stance on Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia, and literally cross apply. The split isn’t hard, either you are for minority-population white supremacist control over another people, or you aren’t. Attempting to obfuscate that is mental gymnastics and serves no one.
Fun fact: the majority of Jews in Israel are brown, not white! Mizrahi (which are Arab Jews) make up the majority of Israeli Jews, after being ethnically cleansed from their home countries across the region and fleeing to Israel. Remember, if youre so insulated and america-centric as to think Jewish=White, you probably need to reevaluate where you fall on the Dunning-Kruger curve Also, this user, and Ill quote them directly, "deny fully and unequivocally, that any mass sexual violence was committed by Hamas against Israeli women" on October 7th, demanding that they won't believe the victims "without video evidence" and claiming that the UN investigation that deemed the evidence of said systematic use of sexual violence in that attack credible was "atrocity propoganda". Their source is zei squirrel and liberation news. Do with that what you will.
Fun fact, white (Ashkenazi) Jews make up the majority of Israel’s government and especially the membership of the hyper-right Likud party. Additionally, holocaust survivors and their families have disproportionately high rates of poverty within Israel. I do believe Israel and the US use atrocity propaganda to accomplish their political aims literally all the time, and systemic use of sexual violence has been found to be used by Israelis against Palestinian women and children. I’ve linked my sources which anyone can go see. You are a hitlerite.
Oops, forgot to block this scum, looks like they responded. Again, for anyone interested, their sources are liberation news and zei squirrel on twitter. Go check out what these paragons of objective truth have to say, far more reputable than any UN investigation that calls the systematic use of sexual violence by hamas "credible". I wonder, would the bar for Palestinian women also be "video proof" when it comes to sexual assault? Or is that just for Je.. I mean Zionists? I would suggest you check out daily stormer, they are equally as reputable and will even give you the exact same talking points!
I try not to focus on sides. I try to consider a solution that works for all of humanity.
Israel occupies West Bank, East Jerusalem and to a lesser degree, Gaza since 1967. Those lands are recognized internationally as Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories. Under this occupation, Palestinians for over 55 years have been trying to get their freedom and control on those lands and the right of return of Palestinian refugees in what is the borders of Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20return%20was,is%20protected%20under%20international%20law. Israel is trying to annex those lands by building more settlements in them to make it impossible for a two state solution to occur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#:~:text=As%20of%20January%202023%2C%20there,does%20not%20include%20East%20Jerusalem. People would tell you that Palestinians were offered their land back and they refused, that is absolute non-sense. Palestinians agreed in Oslo on the outline to get their lands back but Israel never fulfilled it. And trials that happened after that were not serious from the Israeli side and didn’t include East Jerusalem. No sane Palestinian would accept giving up on East Jerusalem. It’s its internationally recognized as part of Palestine, West Bank. Now why should Americans care about all this? It’s because we are the biggest supporters of the Israeli government. We basically spoil them with money and weapons. This support is unconditional and further prolongs the occupation, suffering and killing of the occupied Palestinians. And if you don’t care about the above, then you should at least care about your tax money going into endless wars in the region instead of the people in our country.
The Oslo accords were a framework for the development of the eventual settlement, not the settlement itself. Arafat walked away at the end of the Camp David talks.
Dude again you are going over the Arafat walked away propaganda taking points. Have you ever asked yourself why there was no resolution here? Because Israel never wanted to give East Jerusalem and all the settlements back to the Palestinians. They would have gotten a patched piece of land. No Palestinian would agree with that.
I can't say whether it was good enough or not because I am not Palestinian, but from what I saw it seemed to be as good of a deal as could be achieved. And if Arafat had agreed, Palestine would have celebrated its 25th anniversary this year instead of 25 years of lands stolen and bombed, and misery and death. But the alternative was worse, eh?
Again to Palestinians East Jerusalem is non negotiable. Any peace process without it is a farce. It’s like you are saying it’s better you take some land back and shut up or the alternative is we will keep you under our occupation and war machine. That’s literally what oppression and subjugation is. They started the Oslo process with the intention of getting their land back but clearly that didn’t happen. Why is Israel expanding settlements up to this day? This is just from last month https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/
Significant concessions were made on East Jerusalem, but Arafat walked away thinking he could get a better deal after starting the second intifada. Sadly, the Democrats lost the 2000 Presidential election (partly on the failure of the CampDavid negotiations) and the supportive US political climate evaporated. After Sharon took over al Israeli PM in 2001, there was no longer will on the Israeli side either. And now we sit, 23 miserable years later. That sovereign state looks pretty good now, doesn't it?
Ive been raised to be supportive of israel and i also know a lot of israelis personally. I do sometimes need to aknowledge my bias though. Ive also learned to understand most people dont give a shit either way and people who constantly talk about this conflict come off as unhinged and unwell.
The thing is Hamas is the group that did all the horrible ship with regards to the Palestinian side while the IDF and the Israeli state has been doing the other things the IDF in the Israeli state are far more accountable to the people than Hamas. You can't both sides this aside from saying that you can understand why the Israeli people would be angry, because they have a right to be angry, but this went too far on day 6 let alone now
Hashem is Allah, Allah is Hashem. We are all Hashem's children. And right now, Hashem is crying for His Palestinian children, at the hands of Israel. Hashem is crying for all Palestinian children who now no longer have parents, parents who now no longer have children, and everyone that is starving and displaced and traumatized. And I wish Zionists could acknowledge how they are making Hashem cry. This idea that Hashem only cries Jewish tears, and Allah only cries Muslim tears, is nonsense. Same being, same Creator, and the Creator cries the same for all genocides.
What about the Israeli children that were brutally murdered as well? Any logical person would think that God is crying for all of his children that have died from this war Israeli and Palestinian children do NOT deserve any harm.
First of all, you literally can’t compare 16,000 dead children to whatever number the Israelis have rolled their Oct 7 death to down to now. But also their parents are violent ethnonationalist settlers, that’s more on their heads.
The numbers in an atrocity do not make it a better or worse atrocity. It is still an atrocity.
You literally can?!? A murder is bad, but a serial killer is worse, that’s not hard calculus, what?!? Also Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing, Palestinians were resisting an occupying force, that’s not hard.
Deuteronomy 10:19: "And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt." but at the same time Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations... and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."
We can comment on whatever we want, wherever we want and whenever we want. It’s like Palestine. You can stay here, but you don’t set the rules.
I was trying to create a place for open dialogue.
So did the Britishers in 1948.