What matters isn't who came first. What matters is that no one has the right to expel a human from a land they're living in. That is the core of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

I am pro Palestine, but have no issue with the increase of Jewish migrations in the 19th century. The problem is not Jewish migration. It is the fact that Israel expelled Palestinians from their homes, murdered them, suffocated them, and made their lives miserable.

And this is the same thing that was done to the native people of the modern day Americas.

[–] ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Didn't Arabs and Palestinians just flat out refuse to coexist with a Jewish state from the start? The international community proposed a solution and they refused to accept it.

Certainly if they chose to fight, and lost, then they have to face the consequences which might include losing their land.

That's hardy unprecedented, the very city I live in was largely founded by seizing lands from the British during the American war of independence, because they lost...

I would say while yes it's "wrong" to kick someone off their land, both parties have to at least be reasonable and willing to compromise when you have a complex ethnic and religious issue. Otherwise conflict is inevitable.

None of which is to excuse any war crimes committed by either side. I just think it's more nuanced than "israel bad apartheid state".

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Didn't Arabs and Palestinians just flat out refuse to coexist with a Jewish state from the start?

"coexist with a Jewish state" is a bit of a contradictory statement. Arabs coexisted with Jews fine prior to the Zionist project. A Jewish state is by definition a state exclusive to Jews. That's the opposite of coexistnece by definition, and yes that is exactly why Arabs (Muslims and Christians alike) refused it.

Certainly if they chose to fight,

Resist*. they chose to resist occupation, expulsion from their homes, massacre and genocide.

fight, and lost, then they have to face the consequences which might include losing their land.

Ahh, so if someone fights you for your land, destroys your home and genocides your people, then they've earned it?? Well I should not be surprised that someone who lives in a nation founded on genocide thinks this is okay.

yes it's "wrong" to kick someone off their land, both parties have to at least be reasonable and willing to compromise

"hey man, I know I just took over your home and burned your family alive in front of your eyes. But you gotta be reasonable here and be willing to compromise!"

What more of a compromise do you need beyond coexistence? That's all Palestinians have asked for, and Israel continues to deny them basic rights, no matter how peaceful they are.

And I end with: Israel bad apartheid state. It is truly that simple.

[+] Basuliic@lemm.ee -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But there are Arabs even in military right now so you are wrong, learn first then judge.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wrong about what exactly? What does having Arabs in the military prove (or disprove)?

[–] Basuliic@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jewish state is by definition a state exclusive to Jews. That's the opposite of coexistnece by definition, and yes that is exactly why Arabs (Muslims and Christians alike) refused it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How does the presence of Arabs in Israel's war machine disprove that? You didn't answer this question.

There were Jews who fought in the Nazis ranks. Based on your ridiculous logic, the Nazis are inclusive of the Jews (obviously incorrect because your logic is flawed).

There were black people fighting in the US armies as well, even during Jim Crow era.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)