All I see are memes but what what's it all about?
What happens in Israel?
Isaiah White
Adrian Green
Jews
Isaiah Foster
Colonizing those annoying Arabs. Why can't they just pack their bags and leave? This is Jewish land, Jewish religious scriptures clearly tell us so.
James Cruz
>scripture
Most of them aren't even practicing.
Ian Long
Religion is not a free pass to steal other people's land, Shlomo.
Henry Martinez
>Most of them aren't even practicing.
That's true. But since their grandparents were religious jews, they obviously have an undeniable right to live in Israel/Palestine. Palestinians whose families have lived there for generations have a much weaker claim because muh holocaust.
Parker Watson
Brayden Stewart
That's hypocritical since you quote the scripture as your basis.
>muh grandparents
Most of them were the same.
Kevin Adams
In the second map, state owned land is counted as "Palestinian", which is clearly biased. I also don't know why Jordan and Egypt occupied regions are counted as "Palestinian".
Anthony Foster
Religion is not a free pass to steal other people's land, Shlomo.
Jaxson Richardson
>Religion is not a free pass to steal other people's land, Shlomo.
I agree, the crusades were bad :)
Kayden Barnes
here's the real map
Jews aren't stealing land, since the entire former mandate territory legally belongs to the Jews, and not because of scripture and religion, but due to international law:
>San Remo decree, which happens to have passed it's 100th anniversary a couple days ago, and this is the document that partitioned the entire post-WW I land: 99% of them had been given to Arabs, 1% to the Jews
>the League of Nations mandate, that further cemented the above decision into a concrete trust, with the explicit aim to re-establish the Jewish home for the Jewish people within the mandate's territory
>the UN Charter article 80 further confirms the above two documents/decrees to be the integral part of intl law, so the only meaningful and valid documents in relation to the conflict are those
There was never any state called palestine in history, it was a name given to the geographical area by the romans, and it was only ever used as that, before the 60's. During the 60', Arafat trained and helped by the KGB came up with the idea to formulate a palestinian peoplehood and palestinian nationhood, both of these are fabrications and disinformation. There wasn't any palestinian before the 60', during which time Jordan was controlling the WB and Egypt was controlling Gaza. No one ever talked about this, or their supposed desire to create a state for themselves. Ofc, this is because they didn't exist as such, they were just arabs, equal to any other arab with the Levant. Once it became politically useful to create this propaganda against Israel, who recaptured her rightful soil during the 67' war, they came up with this farce.
Benjamin Collins
same shit that happens in every other country, i never understood the 'that happens in *country* question'.
Robert Hall
also why arent you in /isr/
William Robinson
>also why arent you in /isr/
Has he left? Used to be pretty active a while ago
Blake Nguyen
Those "palestinians" were rightfully living there as turks and international law is not an excuse to steal other peoples land.
Zachary Ortiz
>defending Israeli occupation
hoooly fucking shit, please tell me you're Jewish
Dominic Morris
>as turks
You mean as ottomans?
Jose Phillips
no he just wasnt in today's and yesterday's ones
William Cooper
100% right, Palestinians are just bedouins who came from Saudi Arabia a and try to claim the land as their own, Israel won fair and square, Palestinian shitskins should pack their stuff and leave
Gavin Stewart
>Those "palestinians" were rightfully living there as turks
is this the famous American education?
Nathaniel Evans
>international law
"International law" is a shaky concept. Same as recognition of statehood. It's super silly and always hypocritical to some degree.
I'm not saying such law does not have any power, rather, any definition of a "law" encompassing all sovereign states is a very unrealistic concept. Countries do ignore UN daily, yet no one reprimand them.
Besides, such international law, which ignored the opinions of the natives, betrays UN's principle of self determination.
Kevin Cooper
you're fucking Lebanese dude
Caleb Thompson
What do you guys think about the Saudis vs palis?
Some saudi TV show said bad stuff about palis and then they started flinging shit at each other on social media
Aaron Scott
>also why arent you in /isr/
i'm lurking
Foa, they had never been turks, they were ottoman subjects at best. Soa, not "all of them" were living there, since a great % of them migrated to that land around the same time when jews started to migrate. Some of them were "native" (moved there more than 100 years ago at least), but most of them were not, just as there were jews living there since the time of the 2nd temple.
Land stealing is non-existent, at least not on the jews part. If anything, there arabs are preventing the jews from exercising their intl legal right to extend sovereignty over their rightful soil. If anything, the jordanians stole their land after the war of 48', confiscating and brutalising jewish property. Needless to say, the jews would well within their rights to ignore all jordanian and expired ottoman land deeds, but they're kind enough to not do that. So, if anything, the jews are way kinder with those arabs than they should be.
no, im not jewish
not just bedouins, literally anywhere else, just like the jews: there are berbers from morocco, and bosniaks from albania, yet no one seems to "know" or care about this, even though it is a well knows fact that there are black and white palestinians, but no one bothers to think about how is this possible. Well, the sad fact is that people expect jews to not go anywhere, not even to their g-d and law given land, yet the arabs/muslim/palis get a free pass even tho they migrated and moved there around the same time.
Connor Cooper
>"International law" is a shaky concept. Same as recognition of statehood. It's super silly and always hypocritical to some degree.
Intl law is a thing, even if it's flawed and incomplete. There is also a difference between legal facts (decrees), and legal practices. In Israel's case, if the world wouldn't be Jew-hating, it would be obvious: Israel has both the physical proof and right for the land, and acquisition of those lands were also in alignment with intl legal practice. It is ironic, that the world is literally lying with a str8 face about this topic all day long.
>Besides, such international law, which ignored the opinions of the natives, betrays UN's principle of self determination.
The principle of self-det is incomplete. What is "people"? What is "self-determination"? You see, both of these are very wild categories. Also, there is a cynical difference between stating that "I appreciate a group of people's right to self-determination" and between allowing it. Does Basques have it? Catalans? Irish or Welsh? How is it measured? Spain literally imprisoned people who dared acting upon an independence vote, yet this is the EU who wants to bark at Israel for doing smtgh way more legal and justified?
Jonathan Adams
>What is "people"? What is "self-determination"? You see, both of these are very wild categories.
That's why, everyone will never agree.
>Israel has both the physical proof and right for the land
So did the Palestinians.
Henry Sanders
Give us a reason why Palestinians shouldn't be considered a people.
Oliver Ward
because they are not, they ruined every country they've been in, do you know that Egypt built a wall around gaza much before Israel did?
They also started the civil war here and tried to do it again
Robert Jones
>They also started the civil war here and tried to do it again
True
Bentley Campbell
>So did the Palestinians.
False. Foa, the palis don't have any intl legal document stating that they, as a people, have a legal prerogative to reconstitute any form of homeland over the claimed territories. The jews otoh do have. It needs to be confirmed that no other document, UN resolution, or anything such is relevant from an intl legal perspective. What matters, are the San Remo and LoN mandate decrees, and both of those on the Jews's side, explicitly.
As for intl legal practice. Although it would have been true, that the palis (even before they came up with the paliness) could have accepted partition, and they could have attained sovereignty back then in 47' or before, and this could have given them rights from an intl legal practice standpoint, they famously did NOT do that. They, along with the arab league refused any and all partition and peace proposal that had been offered to the by Jews, LoN, Brits, UN, US, EU, everyone. Technically speaking, Israel attained legal practical right to those areas as well, that had been previously offered to the arabs. Why? Well, this intl legal practice is called uti possidetis iuris, meaning, that a "new sovereign state will automatically inherit the entire territory that is between the administrative boundaries of the previous entity it been formed on". Meaning, that the entire mandate territory had been attained by Israel, legally, not physically, since the war launched against them prevented that. Any such territories not controlled by Israel after 48' are terra nullius, legally speaking, and this has been implicitly recognized as such by the intl community, since the occupation and annexation of WB by Jordan was considered illegal by all but 2 countries. The reason is, those territories were never meant to be Jordan's, or anyone else's, but Israel's (Jews).
Evan Perez
>Give us a reason why Palestinians shouldn't be considered a people.
I'll try to be as concise as possible. Let me get this str8: for all I care, they, them, any one of them can consider themselves to be anything they want to. That said, to consider them "people" is not up to me, but ideally up to historians. And if we're at history, it's awfully obvious that they came up with the idea in the 60's, and it's also awfully clear that before the rebirth of Israel they never had any firm nationalistic ideas, nor any in-group thinking. Pan-Arabism and proto-nationalistic motifs can be found, yes, but the historical fact is, that they never felt, or wanted to be separate from the ummah, actually, no Arab wanted that. Most of those "modern", now increasingly failing states are the result of outside influence and rushed border-making. So, again, for all I care, one can identify as anything, but, this should not prejudge the mediation and finalization of a conflict. Them being a people from the 60' doesn't magically confirm them sovereign rights over territories. I suppose it is needless to explain why that is? Gypsies living in Hungary cannot just decide to from a new nation with the counties they live, etc... So even if we do consider them "people" by any arbitrary definition of this concept, it does not change history, it does not nullify intl legal decrees, it does not change borders, it doesn't really do anything really, only in the minds of the biased and naive. So, the whole question, is a red herring.