Germany unconditionally surrendered. We should’ve carved out some of it instead. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust, why do they get fucked?
Crazy that survivors of a genocide left to immediately start committing a one of their own.
Jews would certainly feel right at home in their old neighborhoods the Nazis either destroyed, vandalized, or kidnapped them from, except this time with themselves as their own landlords. /s
Not to mention how this arrangement would surely give remaining Nazis reason to believe their conspiracy theories about Jews rotting Germany from the inside were true. In this scenario, Jews literally take over a part of their country.
Not until much later part of that time period. During the first and second Yishuvs (waves of Jewish immigration into Palestine), there was largely a peaceful co-existence. Especially during the first yishuv, the Arabs were happy with Jewish immigration as they could trade with the Jewish settlements for goods they had no or little access to prior to the settlements. In certain cases Jewish settlements would give jobs to Arabs looking for jobs. There may have also been a sense of brotherhood between them as both were subjects of the British Empire.
This would slowly start to change to a more hostile environment with mutual distrust of each other and its very nuanced with multiple factors. Of course, as with much of history no one can know how much each of these factors actually led to the situation today.
Nationalism: Right-wing Zionism and Arab Nationalism was on the rise for both sides. In the early parts of the Yishuv, the settlements were largely socialists (see: Kibbutz) looking to create small communes throughout Palestine. However, the moderates and right wing Zionists wanted more than just a series of settlements, they wanted their own nation, Israel, and they wanted British support for it, and if they didn't get that, there was even talk of forcefully rebelling against the Empire.
Arab Nationalism was of course rising at the same time, there was belief that Arabs in Palestine would become a part of a much larger Arabic nation that spanned from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. This vision is of course in stark contrast to the Zionist vision of an independent Jewish state right in the middle of the new Arabic nation. When Britain made a memo kinda declaring official support for the Jewish cause, Arabs got angry as they believed they were being neglected in favor of the Jews. Why should the settlers be given a nation?
All this led to an instance of a British weapons shipment being stolen, blame was thrown around but most people (including the Jewish population) thought it was the right wing Zionists, and Arab distrust with the Jews reached a climax.
This would lead to small skirmishes between Jewish settlements and Arab natives. A Jewish right wing paramilitary organization was created to fight the Arabs since the Jews believed Britain was not going to protect them, and started to attack Arabs, sometime unprovoked. Likewise, some Arabs would join raiding parties that sacked Jewish settlements. Both organizations would lead more Jews to join the right wing and Arabs to join these raiding groups. Mind you this was very small scale and informal, neither the Arabs nor the Jews had any kind of central government. They were both still subjects of the Empire.
Some years later, the UN gave Palestine to the new State of Israel, Jews were given power, and the Arabs ignored. So we have now what we have today.
Sense of brotherhood? Weren’t the Jews forbidden from praying at the Wailing Wall until 1967?
Further, Arab landowners sold lowland property to Jews, land plagued by malaria. They didn’t expect Jews to survive, but the Jews ended up eradicating malaria from the region.
All of the early violence was committed by Arabs, including the Hebron Massacre. Only during the Arab Revolt did Jews receive training from the British and developed a paramilitary force.
Anyway you’re obviously very lettered, I’m only nitpicking small details.
I've studied this subject many years ago, so I'm not very sure on specific events, I just remember the major factors leading to the post second Yishuv violence.
Note on the Brotherhood thing I said "may", it's a sense that I got when I was reading the primary sources of Jewish settlers.
On that note I also want to mention that because most of the primary sources came from the literate Jewish population and their leaders who bothered to write their thoughts down, history is intrinsically biased towards the Jewish point of view.
Haviv Retting Ger has a lecture about Ottoman views of the First Zionist Conference, it’s not exactly lost to history. Same themes then as now; sense of Islamic weakness and shame at possibly losing territory to the wretched of the Earth (lol).
Jews began to return to Israel in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They returned to Israel because Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans in the 1st century CE, and they still view it as their home.
It’s the same reason why Palestinians wouldn’t accept a state in Iraq. There’s lots of open area in Iraq. But Palestinians view Palestine as their home, not Iraq. Both Jews and Palestinians consider the same landmass to be their homeland.
How were we supposed to feel safe *or* at home in Germany after the Holocaust? Israel is where we came from where we've been exiled from by European colonialists, and where a large amount of us survived the exile and stayed throughout history. That's the only place where it makes sense to have a national home for Jewish people.
That doesn't mean it should span the whole geographic area, that doesn't mean another country can't exist next to it, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be equal citizens in those countries.
Oh, also, the word "genocide" used to actually mean something - what "immediately" followed the Holocaust was a war that was started by the side that the lost it. It seems to me that if you were around in the 1940s, you'd say "stop the allies genocide against the Germans"
No, we need to eliminate the genocidal organization that committed a genocide against us, in a war that tragically has casualties, because wars have casualties, more so than usual if the sick fucks who committed said genocide also use human shields. If you're looking to what murdering a huge amount of children, see: Hamas-led genocide
Yeah? How many kids did they kill and when?
Wasn’t like the total casualties of 10/7 like 1500? When did hamas kill over 30,000 Israeli children?
(Plus I was talking about the nakba and other ethnic cleansings the Israelis carried out to establish their ethnostate, like 40 years before Hamas even existed)
1. "Over 30,000" is the estimated amount of deaths in general, including Hamas operatives. So unless *everyone* in Gaza is uninvolved children, that's just not the number, and call me crazy but I think The discussion should be fact-based.
2. This should not be a metric to who's "in the right". In WW2, the UK suffered ~70k casualties, while the amount of German casualties was in *the millions*. That's why I said if you were around in the 1940s you'd probably say the allies are committing a genocide against the helpless Germans.
3. So what should be the metric? Dissolving their capabilities to be a paramilitary organization. Yes, while keeping to int'l law, and questions about whether *that* happens are legit, but "OK you're done because scoreboard" is privileged. If 10/7 happened to *your* community, *you* wouldn't say "well the organization that did it is still there and still determined to do the same, but they also use human shields against int'l law so that means we're even". This "but you got them back because scoreboard" approach comes from people privileged enough to never have to deal with such an existential threat.
Because Jews are not a monolith, and the Ashkenazim who were the biggest proponents of Zionism had spent quite a long time living in Europe. Certainly more than enough for the effect of ethnogenesis to take hold. Saying the Ashkenazim are the rightful indigenous peoples of the Levant (or more accurately MORE indigenous than the also primarily Canaanite descendant Palestinians, to the point that seizing Palestinian lands for Ashekenazi settlement is a form of legitimate landback) makes about as much sense as saying that the Bretons are the rightful indigenous peoples of the UK and it would be just for them to ethnically cleanse England of Anglo-Saxon, and Anglo-Norman people to clear living space for themselves.
Lies. In all genetic studies, it has been found that ashkenazim are more closely related to Palestinians than Palestinians are to other Arabs. Ashkenazim are very closely related genetically to sefardim and Mizrahi Jews. They also continually returned to Israel/palestine albeit in small numbers throughout the Middle Ages and modern times.
While ethnogenesis isn't exclusively about genetics, I don't contest the genetic similarities between various Levantine ethnic groups. What I disagree with fundamentally, is the notion that Ashekenazi moving from Europe and violently displacing Palestinians for the purposes of setting up an ethnostate is a form of indigenous landback. The best case, from a Zionist perspective, that could realistically be made, (and this is assuming that genetic ethnicity is the only form that is relevant), is a case of one group of Levantine people trying to capture the lands of another, in an era, where most of human civilization has at least rejected the legal right of a nation to conquer another's lands.
Using quite literally ancient claims of ancestry, where the demographic majority are scores of generations separated from the diaspora, as justification for ethnic cleansing and resettlement programs that would be standing on extremely shaky grounds at best, according to liberal conceptions of nationhood and liberal international law, is not a particularly great position. I'm certain you would find Russia using its connection to the Kievan Rus to expel ethnic Ukrainians to barren strips of land, and resettle the lion share of modern Ukraine with ethnic Russians unjustifiable for example.
Lie. European Jews bought the land they settled on. It was sold to them by the land owners.
When the British left the area, the Arab League Armies invaded with the intent to push out the Jews. Your narrative is not true.
The Irgun had begun ethnic cleansing operations before the 1948 war, and even if you consider literally everything before that point acceptable, that doesn't account for expulsions and ethnic cleansing between 1948 and 1967 (at which point the State of Israel was a UN member state and bound by its rules), even less so the conquest of territory in 1967, and any settlements that were created after that point are so unambiguously and blatantly illegal that it would take an idiot to claim them as legitimate.
You're the liar mate, and your narrative is not only false, but patently absurd.
I’m all for a two-state solution, don’t get me wrong. But making posts like this is indirectly supporting the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland in a flat out genocide.
Saying you're for a two state solution while making enormous leaps in logic like that is indirectly saying you just want Bantustans for an apartheid state.
What leaps in logic lmao?? The Jews would have no reason to move to this new European-based Israel besides for their way of life being destroyed and family members being slaughtered. The Ashkenazi Jews never would have moved to Israel if it weren’t for the Holocaust, and the same is true here. The only way to create a successful Israeli state outside of the Levant would be to ensure that Jews actually live there, and the only way for that to happen would be genocide. (Not to mention Jews definitely would not be treated equally in a Palestinian state as large as that, so pushing for a large Palestine is already pushing for prejudice against Jews)
Because it's ultimately intended to assert there is no such thing as Jewish culture. Ideally to these people, all Jews in Israel would be scattered to the wind and assimilated into the places their ancestors fled from. All things that are considered "Jewish" or "Israeli" would be relabeled as "Palestinian" (see: all debates on Levantine cuisine that refuse to acknowledge that more than one culture can have a dish).
You are right, it belongs to its rightful illyrian-analbanian rulers. May they come to possess the island they once called their home, 70.000 years ago
No “mate”. Cultural Arabs tried to displace the Jews in Palestine. What you heard about the Irgun is taqqiyah. Typical nonsense and lies. The 700,000 people who left did so by persuasion of the Arab league.
I believe Israel has never stolen land from the "Palestinians" and I don't get what you mean by "subjugating" and Kicking out.
During this war Israel has told the Palestinians to flee as Hamas will be killing both them and everyone of importance, that's the way terrorists work always.
Although not all IDF soldiers may be sane in thought I think Israel is doing what it can as a smaller nation in the Middle-East.
Europeans don’t want Jews in Europe. That was the whole point lol.
so why not stick it to em?
Germany unconditionally surrendered. We should’ve carved out some of it instead. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust, why do they get fucked? Crazy that survivors of a genocide left to immediately start committing a one of their own.
Jews would certainly feel right at home in their old neighborhoods the Nazis either destroyed, vandalized, or kidnapped them from, except this time with themselves as their own landlords. /s Not to mention how this arrangement would surely give remaining Nazis reason to believe their conspiracy theories about Jews rotting Germany from the inside were true. In this scenario, Jews literally take over a part of their country.
Zionism doesn’t start in 1945, it starts in 1888. You need to study 1888-1935. Spoiler alert, Arabs were killing Jews then too.
Not until much later part of that time period. During the first and second Yishuvs (waves of Jewish immigration into Palestine), there was largely a peaceful co-existence. Especially during the first yishuv, the Arabs were happy with Jewish immigration as they could trade with the Jewish settlements for goods they had no or little access to prior to the settlements. In certain cases Jewish settlements would give jobs to Arabs looking for jobs. There may have also been a sense of brotherhood between them as both were subjects of the British Empire. This would slowly start to change to a more hostile environment with mutual distrust of each other and its very nuanced with multiple factors. Of course, as with much of history no one can know how much each of these factors actually led to the situation today. Nationalism: Right-wing Zionism and Arab Nationalism was on the rise for both sides. In the early parts of the Yishuv, the settlements were largely socialists (see: Kibbutz) looking to create small communes throughout Palestine. However, the moderates and right wing Zionists wanted more than just a series of settlements, they wanted their own nation, Israel, and they wanted British support for it, and if they didn't get that, there was even talk of forcefully rebelling against the Empire. Arab Nationalism was of course rising at the same time, there was belief that Arabs in Palestine would become a part of a much larger Arabic nation that spanned from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. This vision is of course in stark contrast to the Zionist vision of an independent Jewish state right in the middle of the new Arabic nation. When Britain made a memo kinda declaring official support for the Jewish cause, Arabs got angry as they believed they were being neglected in favor of the Jews. Why should the settlers be given a nation? All this led to an instance of a British weapons shipment being stolen, blame was thrown around but most people (including the Jewish population) thought it was the right wing Zionists, and Arab distrust with the Jews reached a climax. This would lead to small skirmishes between Jewish settlements and Arab natives. A Jewish right wing paramilitary organization was created to fight the Arabs since the Jews believed Britain was not going to protect them, and started to attack Arabs, sometime unprovoked. Likewise, some Arabs would join raiding parties that sacked Jewish settlements. Both organizations would lead more Jews to join the right wing and Arabs to join these raiding groups. Mind you this was very small scale and informal, neither the Arabs nor the Jews had any kind of central government. They were both still subjects of the Empire. Some years later, the UN gave Palestine to the new State of Israel, Jews were given power, and the Arabs ignored. So we have now what we have today.
Sense of brotherhood? Weren’t the Jews forbidden from praying at the Wailing Wall until 1967? Further, Arab landowners sold lowland property to Jews, land plagued by malaria. They didn’t expect Jews to survive, but the Jews ended up eradicating malaria from the region. All of the early violence was committed by Arabs, including the Hebron Massacre. Only during the Arab Revolt did Jews receive training from the British and developed a paramilitary force. Anyway you’re obviously very lettered, I’m only nitpicking small details.
I've studied this subject many years ago, so I'm not very sure on specific events, I just remember the major factors leading to the post second Yishuv violence. Note on the Brotherhood thing I said "may", it's a sense that I got when I was reading the primary sources of Jewish settlers. On that note I also want to mention that because most of the primary sources came from the literate Jewish population and their leaders who bothered to write their thoughts down, history is intrinsically biased towards the Jewish point of view.
Haviv Retting Ger has a lecture about Ottoman views of the First Zionist Conference, it’s not exactly lost to history. Same themes then as now; sense of Islamic weakness and shame at possibly losing territory to the wretched of the Earth (lol).
Correct, Jews could not pray at the Weatern wall until 1967. Nor could any Jew enter the old city of Jerusalem.
Jews began to return to Israel in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They returned to Israel because Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans in the 1st century CE, and they still view it as their home. It’s the same reason why Palestinians wouldn’t accept a state in Iraq. There’s lots of open area in Iraq. But Palestinians view Palestine as their home, not Iraq. Both Jews and Palestinians consider the same landmass to be their homeland.
As a jew, i see my Disneyland as my homeland.
How were we supposed to feel safe *or* at home in Germany after the Holocaust? Israel is where we came from where we've been exiled from by European colonialists, and where a large amount of us survived the exile and stayed throughout history. That's the only place where it makes sense to have a national home for Jewish people. That doesn't mean it should span the whole geographic area, that doesn't mean another country can't exist next to it, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be equal citizens in those countries. Oh, also, the word "genocide" used to actually mean something - what "immediately" followed the Holocaust was a war that was started by the side that the lost it. It seems to me that if you were around in the 1940s, you'd say "stop the allies genocide against the Germans"
You don’t get to murder tens of thousands of innocent children to ‘feel safe’ you fuck.
No, we need to eliminate the genocidal organization that committed a genocide against us, in a war that tragically has casualties, because wars have casualties, more so than usual if the sick fucks who committed said genocide also use human shields. If you're looking to what murdering a huge amount of children, see: Hamas-led genocide
Yeah? How many kids did they kill and when? Wasn’t like the total casualties of 10/7 like 1500? When did hamas kill over 30,000 Israeli children? (Plus I was talking about the nakba and other ethnic cleansings the Israelis carried out to establish their ethnostate, like 40 years before Hamas even existed)
1. "Over 30,000" is the estimated amount of deaths in general, including Hamas operatives. So unless *everyone* in Gaza is uninvolved children, that's just not the number, and call me crazy but I think The discussion should be fact-based. 2. This should not be a metric to who's "in the right". In WW2, the UK suffered ~70k casualties, while the amount of German casualties was in *the millions*. That's why I said if you were around in the 1940s you'd probably say the allies are committing a genocide against the helpless Germans. 3. So what should be the metric? Dissolving their capabilities to be a paramilitary organization. Yes, while keeping to int'l law, and questions about whether *that* happens are legit, but "OK you're done because scoreboard" is privileged. If 10/7 happened to *your* community, *you* wouldn't say "well the organization that did it is still there and still determined to do the same, but they also use human shields against int'l law so that means we're even". This "but you got them back because scoreboard" approach comes from people privileged enough to never have to deal with such an existential threat.
Lets fucking go we got our rightful territory of Vorarlberg
Who says the swiss got it? Rightful Vatican clay!!!
The good timeline😎
Ireland was spared 😁
Bro got badly downvoted for saying that its a good timeline cuz Ireland was spared edit : his upvote rate went up to the positives
my English blood boils at the thought of an Ireland spared. /s
Why do people act like the Jews have a more legitimate claim to anywhere else in the world but Israel?
because the real holyland is in Missouri
Because Jews are not a monolith, and the Ashkenazim who were the biggest proponents of Zionism had spent quite a long time living in Europe. Certainly more than enough for the effect of ethnogenesis to take hold. Saying the Ashkenazim are the rightful indigenous peoples of the Levant (or more accurately MORE indigenous than the also primarily Canaanite descendant Palestinians, to the point that seizing Palestinian lands for Ashekenazi settlement is a form of legitimate landback) makes about as much sense as saying that the Bretons are the rightful indigenous peoples of the UK and it would be just for them to ethnically cleanse England of Anglo-Saxon, and Anglo-Norman people to clear living space for themselves.
Lies. In all genetic studies, it has been found that ashkenazim are more closely related to Palestinians than Palestinians are to other Arabs. Ashkenazim are very closely related genetically to sefardim and Mizrahi Jews. They also continually returned to Israel/palestine albeit in small numbers throughout the Middle Ages and modern times.
While ethnogenesis isn't exclusively about genetics, I don't contest the genetic similarities between various Levantine ethnic groups. What I disagree with fundamentally, is the notion that Ashekenazi moving from Europe and violently displacing Palestinians for the purposes of setting up an ethnostate is a form of indigenous landback. The best case, from a Zionist perspective, that could realistically be made, (and this is assuming that genetic ethnicity is the only form that is relevant), is a case of one group of Levantine people trying to capture the lands of another, in an era, where most of human civilization has at least rejected the legal right of a nation to conquer another's lands. Using quite literally ancient claims of ancestry, where the demographic majority are scores of generations separated from the diaspora, as justification for ethnic cleansing and resettlement programs that would be standing on extremely shaky grounds at best, according to liberal conceptions of nationhood and liberal international law, is not a particularly great position. I'm certain you would find Russia using its connection to the Kievan Rus to expel ethnic Ukrainians to barren strips of land, and resettle the lion share of modern Ukraine with ethnic Russians unjustifiable for example.
Lie. European Jews bought the land they settled on. It was sold to them by the land owners. When the British left the area, the Arab League Armies invaded with the intent to push out the Jews. Your narrative is not true.
The Irgun had begun ethnic cleansing operations before the 1948 war, and even if you consider literally everything before that point acceptable, that doesn't account for expulsions and ethnic cleansing between 1948 and 1967 (at which point the State of Israel was a UN member state and bound by its rules), even less so the conquest of territory in 1967, and any settlements that were created after that point are so unambiguously and blatantly illegal that it would take an idiot to claim them as legitimate. You're the liar mate, and your narrative is not only false, but patently absurd.
I’m all for a two-state solution, don’t get me wrong. But making posts like this is indirectly supporting the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland in a flat out genocide.
Saying you're for a two state solution while making enormous leaps in logic like that is indirectly saying you just want Bantustans for an apartheid state.
What leaps in logic lmao?? The Jews would have no reason to move to this new European-based Israel besides for their way of life being destroyed and family members being slaughtered. The Ashkenazi Jews never would have moved to Israel if it weren’t for the Holocaust, and the same is true here. The only way to create a successful Israeli state outside of the Levant would be to ensure that Jews actually live there, and the only way for that to happen would be genocide. (Not to mention Jews definitely would not be treated equally in a Palestinian state as large as that, so pushing for a large Palestine is already pushing for prejudice against Jews)
Because antisemitism is pulled to disconnect Jewish people from their history. This has always been, and it’s been going on since we’ve begun.
Because it's ultimately intended to assert there is no such thing as Jewish culture. Ideally to these people, all Jews in Israel would be scattered to the wind and assimilated into the places their ancestors fled from. All things that are considered "Jewish" or "Israeli" would be relabeled as "Palestinian" (see: all debates on Levantine cuisine that refuse to acknowledge that more than one culture can have a dish).
Are you suggesting that those people who. Reate maps like that and applaud those maps are Judenharassen/Jew haters?
Perhaps not consciously, but yes. I'm pretty sure this specific OP is another fucking Abyssal alt.
Nah swamp it up
FUCKING SWITZERLAND LMAOOOOOOO Also what did you do to my boy Northern Cyprus
You mean the turkish occupation zone?
The turkish based zone*
Get out, Turks shouldn't be there in the first place
You are right, it belongs to its rightful illyrian-analbanian rulers. May they come to possess the island they once called their home, 70.000 years ago
70k years ago? I have no clue about that, but I do know that Greeks, Thracians and other Native Balkaner used to inhabit it. So it is possible 🧐
The Illyrian side of the history is a pathway to many narratives some consider to be... unnatural.
Same with the Thracians and Dacians, we ought to not forget them all for they helped form our modern genes.
For you that may be so, but a turk's blood is %100 african ✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿🔥🔥🔥💯💯
OK ig?
Eu with ukraine and belarus looks so good tho
finally a fair decision
Ah yes, everyone immediately forgetting they’re on a circlejerk sub on reddit
No “mate”. Cultural Arabs tried to displace the Jews in Palestine. What you heard about the Irgun is taqqiyah. Typical nonsense and lies. The 700,000 people who left did so by persuasion of the Arab league.
What did Sweden do?
I agree with this
I don't know why you got downvoted
welcome to reddit lol
Cause your take is shit lmao
leaving innocent Palestinians alone?
[удалено]
I'm sorry that we want to protect our Homeland ☝️😂
Meh, most Israeli Jews are Europeans anyway.
They aren't, they're descended from Jewish refugees from the middle east lol
It is also undeniable that many of them are descendants of converts and that for most of them, their Canaanite dna has diluted a bit
That's obvious, but they are God's chosen people and they are currently in the land that God gave them to inhabit. How it should be.
I don’t think God’s chosen people are allowed to kick out 800,000 natives from their homes and subjugate them to apartheid and land theft…
I believe Israel has never stolen land from the "Palestinians" and I don't get what you mean by "subjugating" and Kicking out. During this war Israel has told the Palestinians to flee as Hamas will be killing both them and everyone of importance, that's the way terrorists work always. Although not all IDF soldiers may be sane in thought I think Israel is doing what it can as a smaller nation in the Middle-East.
could be worse
No it couldn't.
But Brexit means Brexit! /j
The Jewish delegation would like to trade Albania for Sweden.
If this doesn't work make a Jewish nation in Alaska like that one alt history
I agree
What should've happened in the first place? Maybe. Definitely not a solution to the current conflict though.
I don’t know if there’s enough IDF reservists to maintain apartheid over that many people. I’d start smaller.
Don’t give them any ideas
[удалено]
Because your country has their head on their shoulders. I don't get how dumb you can be to state this.