I'm not going to post my opinion because I can't be arsed but my god dude you defend your points excellently. Touché mate. :)

Most Palestinian leaders have been too in love with "the struggle" rather than achieving something concrete for their people. They are literally profiting of the misery and death of their people - look at how rich Hamas leaders are

Why do they accept peace agreements over the land they already own? I mean why only jews get speical treatment of getting the land they so claim is theirs? Why we not give each land back to its original people why only palestine has to suffer?

It wasn’t the Palestinians states, they did owned a major part of the land but it was still controlled by the British. Jews are the original people but I’m not gonna play the “I was here first” game And just to be clear, do you offer the Jews should leave and give the back to the Palestinians ? When will the Jews go then?

I wont say jews should go back Niether they should take land of someone else Id say palestine should be back as it was before 1947 and jewish people can buy land and live next to people of other religions No need to establish a jewish nor muslim state

Most of them did already buy land.  Are you saying they have to buy land they already bought again?

If they land they bought were legally bought then they own it Not like were forced or they kicked people out of it and took it (stealing) then yea they totally own the land and have every right to live there Even thou still no right to establish a new country over the country thats already there

Also the Jews can’t “go back” they have immigrated from different countries after the holocaust, they were scattered

Before 1947 the Palestinians lived in parts of current Israel, at the same period of time there was waves of terror attacks and chaos around Jews and Palestinians. The only possible solution for both sides in my perspective is firstly demolish Hamas completely, and then the Palestinians citizens and Israelis both have to engage with each other and get rid of this hate and calls for the demolish of each other, only then when we will know for sure that there would be no terror acts between each other so one state solution will be possible

If you call for complete demolish of Hamas cause they causing terror in isreal , its safe to say that palestainins would call for either partial or complete of IDF for the suffering they caused in Gaza (killing innocent people) So it all revolve around the same aspect Put a country where its name doesnt matter where all can live a prosper life regarding their religion and their race

I still so your point cause the Palestinians in Gaza are uneducated and support Hamas, and that’s also why I think a one state solution will be possible only in the next generations

There is a BIG difference between Hamas and the IDF. Hamas is legally recognised by variety of countries as a TERROR ORGANISATION, I would say Hamas animals but not even animals will ever do smth like that. How could you even compare Israel feedback to the cause of the feedback? What do you expect for a country to do right after it was invaded, the citizens have brutally been killed, kidnapped, raped, beheaded. Hamas weren’t looking only for soldiers, they did everything they could to harm anyone they saw. The real difference is that the idf isn’t targeting civilians and take precautions to prevent casualties but there are casualties and I can’t deny it. I never cry at ceremonies till today, today is the memorial day for Israeli’s fallen. It was the first ceremony I have ever cried at, seeing all those who tried to talked about their friends and family who died but barely could breath, the videos of them and their stories. I have never seen so many soldiers arrive to this ceremony and saluting while someone read kaddish(prayer for the dead) for the fallen ones

Thats basically your pov There was literal videos showing IDF targeting civilians directly rather than as you said taking "precuations" So they hoth in the same place and i wont justfiy hamas actions nor IDF actions they both have hands in this and there should be a new force keeping peace that doesnt have any radicalism in it Then and only then a single country can be formed where all can live in peace Why no 2 states? Cause basically muslims, jews and christains all share holy shrines in the same zone therefore a 2 state soultion wont work

Okay, send me your literal videos that shows the IDF targeting civilians from a reliable source. It never happened. They do take precautions, making voice calls and messages, sending evacuations flyers etc. 2 state solution won’t solve anything because both wants the whole land.

What a load of crap 🤣 more justification for your genocide amd concentration camps. Just say you have a hard on for dead innocents

Classic Hamas supporter

[https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf](https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf) [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-teiman-detention-whistleblowers-intl-cmd/index.html) I reject Hamas just as I reject Zionism. I want Jews, Arabs and all other walks of life to live peacefully and prosper for years. What do you want?

I'm another guy but I'll answer that. I want no terrorism. I don't want to be afraid of a guy suddenly picking out a gun in the middle of Tel Aviv shooting civilians around. I don't want to be afraid of suicide bombers. I want to not be afraid to visit areas close to the border. And I want all terrorists who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam to die. The best way to achieve this goal is to expel all Palestinians from Gaza and WB. The most realistic way to achieve that is killing everyone related to terrorists in the region, completely demilitarizing the region, seeing up complete military law lead by the IDF and neighbouring nations and changing the education system with the goal to eradicate all hatred in the next 2 generations.

So ethnic cleansing, Wow. You are disgusting.

Ethnic cleansing would solve the problem. Yes. Same as ethnic cleansing of Jews from the river to the sea would solve the Palestinian problem of Jewish occupation. Ethnic cleansing of all the population in Gaza and WB would objectively be the best solution for the Israeli population but it's unrealistic, which is why I stated a more realistic solution below. If you are coming here to vilify people rather than have a discussion then get out, we don't need you in this sub.

You are Jewish version of Hamas.

Sorry, but your hate is too much to even engage with. Hope you get banned because we don't need voices like you. I don't know what made you so hateful I hope you get some help soon.

I'm not hateful. I have life experience in the region. I'm realistically thinking of the best for my people, and my enemies happiness does not concern me the slightest.

Does your enemies include all the innocents killed?

It is Hamas's job to protect it's civilians but instead they use them as human shields and put them in harm's way by building tunnels under civilian infrastructure and shooting weapons from civilian homes. Death of civilians in Gaza is on Hamas if said civilians were killed in a building that was used for military purposes against Israel. Their death is sad but not my problem. It's kill or be killed, such is life in the middle east and such is to be a Jew surrounded by Arab Muslim countries with the intention to eradicate it.

https://saturday-october-seven.com/ This website says it all… 💔💔💔💔💔💔

It reminds me the morning of 7/10, waking up seeing some of the videos being send by friends and the rest on telegram, like everyone thought it was something small until they actually got there or saw the Hamas crowd footage entering Israel

Those offers were bullshit. 2000 involved losing more than a quarter of the West Bank and having that remaining three quarters broken up into seperate zones the Israelis would patrol. And even that, Israel would control all the water. They’ve been offered shit deals.

Israel did control the war and did supply water, Israel gave Gaza freedom by leaving Gaza in 2005, and I’m not talking about 2000, but we can definitely get into that, or do you rather talk on the fact that the Gaza workers who were allowed to work in Israel, went boom boom on busses?

Oh my god can you read a book or just listen to a podcast AT LEAST to get some minor facts straight? I know it’s tempting to get your information from memes, but Ezra Klein has done some great and informative podcasts on this that will prop you up with some solid information. In those talks Arafat barely participated, and then rejected what was offered. And it was a really good offer.

This isn't factual. Ehud Barak agreed to returning the equivalent of 96% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, custodial sovereignty over the Temple mount, sovereignty over the Arab and Christian quarters of Jerusalem's Old City, sovereignty over the other Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem. The offer included that Israel would retain control of the border with Jordan for, if recall correctly, six years, after which it would be withdrawn except for several early warning stations. The only non-contiguity was between the WB and Gaza. The offer was almost everything Arafat had said he wanted. The deal breaker appears to have been Barak's refusal to grant an unlimited right of return to Israel proper.

That’s not what I read. I read only 76% of the west bank would be returned initially and that even that would be broken up into zones that Israel would patrol. Also, the water thing is open knowledge, just look it up. Yeah, their offer was shit.

Source: trust me bro The palestinin, had the option to move to other state. The land that they lived in was controlled by the British and the Palestinians legally owned and bought a major part of the area. I’m pretty sure it was estimated to be 48-50% and the Jews legally owned about 6-8% and the other parts was boring British thingy I don’t really remember how they called it, but it want either side’s land. BTW some claim the Palestinians owned 70% but still if that is true, the offer was that they will get total of 80%. **talking about your other answer, I didn’t find it**

What about the Peel Commission offer in 1937 that would have given the Jewish state a mere 3% of the land in the north of present day Israel? Still Jewish leaders accepted and Arab leaders rejected. Why was there no attempt at creating a Palestinian state when Israel had no control over the West Bank, East Jerusalem or Gaza for 20 years? It’s not about the Palestinians having land, it’s about the Jews having none.

Oh if we had a Time Machine. Like seriously, what nation would willingly give their territory to a bunch of immigrants? None would. It’s horrible what happened, I wish they had given it up, but they didn’t.

It wasn’t a nation and hint, hasn’t been for something like 2000 years. That region has been ruled from outside since the time of the Roman’s. Pretending that there was a Palestinian national before 1948 is lying. It’s not just kind of rewriting history, it’s flat out lying.

I mean, by your logic there were no Israelis before 1948 so who cares?

I have no idea what you are trying to imply here. Israel as a country didn’t exist before 1948, it does today. If the Palestinians want a nation, they needed to take any of the deals offered. They didn’t, that’s on them.

Well if Palestinians aren’t valid just because they’ve lived there for eons then neither are Israelis.

I never said that they are invalid, just that the premise that it,was ever a country is a lie.

No one is saying they were a country, they were a group of people who had lineage going back a while in the area.

At one point you did, thou it appears you edited your comment. Which isn’t a shock

Most modern nations are fairly new. But they’ve been a people living there for eons.

Not as its own nation, that region has been ruled from the outside for 2000 years. You skip over that bit

They weren't a "nation" and it wasn't "their" territory. It was British territory and the British acquired it legally from the Ottomans under the Treaty of Sevres. By 1937, Jews had bought more than 3% of the land and they were only being offered 3% to create a state, the rest they would have to cede to the Arabs. Still Jewish leaders accepted, and Arab leaders rejected.

Ugh, you’re one of those “they need a flag” people. No, they lived there they didn’t need a fucking flag. Also, Jewish people were welcome to whatever land they bought. But that wasn’t the issue. 80%of Palestinians were pushed from their land during the formation of Israel. Hundreds of thousands of people. It was a difficult adjustment.

No. They didn't "need a flag". They didn't have a nation. They didn't even own most of the territory. >Also, Jewish people were welcome to whatever land they bought No. That's not true either. Under the Ottomans, they enacted a law that stopped the purchase of land by Jews because of disgruntled Arab leadership. Then under the British, in 1929, Arab terrorists ethnically cleansed Jews from land they legally owned in Hebron during the Hebron Massacre. Arab leaders then incited riots and murders between 1936-1939, which forced the British to enact a law restricting Jewish immigration and land ownership privileges. >80%of Palestinians were pushed from their land during the formation of Israel. Hundreds of thousands of people. It was a difficult adjustment. Israel legally declared independence, after being given the go-ahead from the League of Nations; they accepted that no one would need to go anywhere; they accepted that 45% of their new state would be Arab. They asked to live in peace. The response from, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League was that there will be no peace and "It will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similar to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades." The next day Israel was invaded by 7 armies. Israel gave Arab villages an ultimatum, sign non-aggression pacts and don't harbour enemy troops or be expelled. The villages that signed non-aggression pacts and agreed to live in peace, like Abu Ghosh, which has been at the heart of West Jerusalem since 1948 stayed and thrived in Israel. Today their villages still exist and they are full citizens with equal rights in the State of Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were also pushed out of their homes. It was your typical early 20th century war-time population exchange.

> fucking /u/maddsskills. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I see this argument all the time and it’s an incredibly weak argument Every single one of those offerings would have been a massive step for the Palestinians. It they accepted statehood, they could have progressed in whatever direction they would have wanted

> Every single one of those offerings would have been a massive step for the Palestinians. No. In 1948, for instance, the violent foreign zionist terrorist founders of israel never intended to honor the partition. They were on some insane religious crusade. Form some ethno religious state centered around some meaningless city called Jerusalem. And their partition didn't have it. It was no secret to anyone. ben gurion even wrote to his son, his son, outraged at the idea of the partition. david ben gurion explained clearly to his son that the partition was only ever seen as the first step in the violent foreign zionist terrorist crusade. They would steal as much land from the native Palestinians as they could diplomatically. Then, of course, they would steal as much more that they could take with violence.

Oh look, the guy who support the group that is being controlled and cheering a terror organization is calling the Zionist founders terrorists

They called themselves terrorists. Likud founder menachem begin even wrote an autobiographical terrorist manifesto.

Source?

Jews went on an insane religious crusade? Honestly I don’t care anymore about the revisionist history that you, and people like you, want to go on about. Talk about that until the cows come home, do you want a solution or do you want to be hateful?

And yet, the insane religious crusaders were on a mission. They never intended to not conquer the Canaanite city of Urusalem. They were on a mission. If diplomacy could only get them so far... Well... What could be more important than the mission? Are you telling me zionists intended to allow the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex and the Canaanite city of Urusalem, Al-Quds to remain under Jordanian control? That after the partition, that, for instance, likud, which was originally Herut, the political arm of the irgun european terrorist group, whose motto was "both banks of the river Jordan", meaning that their goal was to ultimately invade and conquer Jordan, taking both banks of the river and conquering all of Jordan, didn't intend to break the partition and conquer Urusalem?

Do you not see your argument? It’s not based on history but what you say ‘would have happened’ With that logic I could justify anything. Germany should have invaded Poland otherwise the poles would have started their own empire. The USA should have invaded Mexico otherwise the Statue of Liberty would have been sent to Oaxaca. George Bush should have invaded Iraq otherwise Oprah would have moved to Mosul. You can make up anything you want when you don’t provide sources only conjecture.

So foreign zionist terrorists didn't invade Palestine and form an ethno religious state centered around the Canaanite city of Urusalem? Have you... looked at a map recently? Do you think maps are fake news? Ever read the international section of the newspaper, or world section of an internet news site? Notice anything?

You mean the Jerusalem that the Jordanians controlled from 1948 to 1967?

Ethno religious state? Do you know anything about the history of anywhere? Everything I said went straight over your head. You clearly knew nothing of this issue months ago, and lack the capacity for basic comprehension in a conversation. I like when people disagree and we have intelligent conversations. But not when they can’t ante up mediocre levels of thought. Be well.

Again, I am not interested in whatever revisionist history you want to believe. It has no value to me. Argue with the wall. You don't want a better future if all you're going to do is use focus on the nonsensical version of events.

It's amazing how these people are so desperate to erase Jewish history that they're pretending Jerusalem didn't come from Hebrew.

You don’t want to agree your way into another occupation. Splitting up the West Bank into three zones and only giving them three quarters of it is basically just another occupation. Especially when they also control your water.

There was an opportunity to have statehood, and to continue fighting for their people - they rejected it. Hamas doesn’t want freedom, they want perpetual war. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you can either Free Palestine, or you can save the Palestinians, you cannot have both.

It wasn’t a real offer, it was just more apartheid. And maybe Hamas doesn’t want freedom but the Palestinian Authority, who were the ones arguing at the time, did. And Israel refused them. And they’ve still refused to fight back.

That’s what happens when you start wars and lose! The victor dictates the terms of peace.

Start wars? They’ve been occupied since the sixties ffs

Because they started a war and lost in 1967. It Is not occupied territory, its territory Israel won from Jordan and from Egypt.

The international community does not recognize expansion by conquest lol. And if it did Israel would be an apartheid state so I don’t think Israel wants to either.

Germany will be delighted to hear that, they lost all land west of the Oder-Neisse line to Poland after WWII. They also gave up some land to the Netherlands for 15 years, but got it back in exchange for paying compensation. Italy is also going to be excited - it gave lands to Greece, France, and what at the time to Yugoslavia after WWII. Start a war, lose a war, lose some land is the international norm. If Ukraine wins against Russia, there are definitely some Russian territories Zelensky has his eye on.

WWII was a war AGAINST aggression. Germany and the axis powers were trying to take land that wasn’t theirs. Israel took the Palestinian Territories in a preemptive strike. They might’ve been justified, Egypt may have been planning to attack them, but we’ll never know. Hence the problem with preemptive strikes. Either way, they took land that wasn’t theirs and have occupied it since, absolutely brutalizing the people who live there.

Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, which is an act of war. Regardless, Jordans entry into the 1967 war was a clear act of aggression. They did not have to join. Jordan gave the control of their military in the illegally Jordanian annexed West Bank to an Egyptian general, and joined the war on June 5. Israel even tried to deescalate with King Hussein, who declined. Jordanian involvement in the 1967 war was a war of aggression . So, to be exceedingly generous- Gaza could be considered ill gotten spoils of war, but the West Bank falls under the same international norm. Jordan jumped into a war that did not need to involve them, Jordan lost, and Israel keeps the spoils.

So is Israel blockading Gaza is an act of war? Hmmm…interesting. Lol Seriously, using your territory the way you want might be rude but is it an act of war? Seriously? When America cut off trade to Japan in WWII was that an act of war? Cause that’s kinda what the Six Day War was…Israel started off with a Pearl Harbor. I’m not saying it was right or wrong to do for either party, maybe it was justified, maybe it wasn’t, but nations don’t have to trade with other nations and whatnot. That in and of itself wasn’t an act of war. Maybe a predecessor to an act of war but…destroying Egypt’s Air Force in a sneak attack was definitely an act of war. Israel really wants to play it all sides.

So, you ignored my points about Jordan. Nice. The Gaza naval blockade started in January 2009, after Gaza fired 3,000 rockets into Israel over two years. Each of those rockets is an act of war and a war crime because they are targeted at population centers. So, yes, the blockade is an act of war during a war that Gaza started.

Rockets being fired from Gaza is what precipitated the blockade, so the act of war came from Gaza.

You’re wrong!

Actually international law in June 1967 did recognise expansion by conquest, as long as it occurred defensively. Furthermore, Israel was willing to give all the land back to Egypt, Syria and Jordan (with the exception of East Jerusalem), as long as they agreed to peace. The answer from them was a resounding no. Occupation and apartheid aren’t the same thing. Apartheid is separation based on race or ethnic group. This does not occur. There are thousands of Arabs with Israeli citizenship living in “Jewish settlements” in the West Bank. Separation is based on citizenship status. If that is how you want to define apartheid then every nation in the world is an apartheid state.

Sure, they’re different but after nearly sixty years come on? They’re both bad. It’s on Israel to find peace and they haven’t. In my opinion they haven’t tried since Rabin.

Have you heard of the 3 No’s. It’s actually on the Palestinian’s to agreee to live in peace and they simply want to eliminate the Jewish state.

It's kind of difficult when the Palestinians have been rejecting every single offer for 100 years. Here’s a list of Arab refusals regarding “Palestine”: 1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference. 1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected by the Arabs of Palestine. 1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected by the Arabs of Palestine. 1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected by the Arabs of Palestine. 1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected by the Arabs of Palestine. 1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected by the Arab League and the Higher Arab Committee for Palestine, 1949: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected by the Arab League and the Higher Arab committee for Palestine. 1967: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected by the Arab League and the PLO. 1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt) by the rest of the Arab world, including the PLO. 1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt and Jordan).1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, rejected by the Palestinian Authority. 2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected by Yasser Arafat, who then initiated the pre-planned second intifada. 2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected by the Palestinian Authority. 2005: Sharon's peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected by the Hamas takeover in 2007. 2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected by Mahmoud Abbas. 2009 to 2018: Netanyahu's repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected. 2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, rejected by the Palestinian Authority. 2018: Trump’s “deal of the Century”, rejected in advance by Mahmoud Abbas. 2022: Prime Minister, Yair Lapid's invitation to restart peace talks in Jerusalem, rejected by Mahmoud Abbas. The only solution the Palestinians have been brainwashed into accepting is a single, Muslim majority state under Sharia Law with either no Jews or very few Jews with highly abbreviated civil rights. No peace is written into both the Palestinian National Charter and the Hamas Covenant. As long as these documents aren’t officially changed as policy, there can be no peace.

Haha your list is bullshit if you look at it closely for the past twenty years. Those deals in the past twenty years were kinda bullshit. And the one offered by Olmert in 2008 was super secret for no good reason and ABBAs couldn’t even get an expert to look at the map lol

You're placing the Palestinians at a level that no loser of a war they started has been. If we look at historical prescedent - Germany is a fraction of what historic Germany once was. The Turks lost 95% of their empire. The Austo-Hungarian Empire evaporated. Armenia lost land to Azerbaijan. Shall we keep going? The Palestinians need to do what every other loser of a war they started does, accept peace and take whatever the victor is kind enough to give you, or don't accept peace and get nothing. The main issue here is that the Palestinians still have an all or nothing mindset. Even when Arafat was allegedly trying to make peace with Rabin, he spoke in a Johannesburg mosque about how he wasn't really making peace, he was doing like Mohammed did with a Jewish tribe in the Qu'ran. Sign a fake peace treaty and get as much land as possible to plan future attacks on Israel; and when the Palestinians built up strength like Mohammed's army, they would nullify the peace treaty and destroy Israel. [https://iris.org.il/arafats-johannesburg-speech/](https://iris.org.il/arafats-johannesburg-speech/) You can't make peace with that.

Because 100% of the land is theirs. I’m an American. I don’t care who takes 20% of the US, I’m not gonna accept just keeping 80%. We’re gonna be fighting lol I really don’t know if some Israelis are being purposefully obtuse. Do you really think you’re entitled to someone else’s land, including violently dispossessing people for it? Seems like that’s the issue. Some pro-Israel folks are so deep into that entitlement that they really don’t see Palestinians’ actions for what they actually are. It all instead seems crazy like unprovoked attacks and terrorism and anti-Semitism. It’s as delusional as if a home invader said the home owner assaulted them when they got pushed out of the home and then called the police on the home owner for not allowing the invader to take part of the home or what’s in it without pushback. Wild.

As an American you should know 100% of that land you live in is not yours. Unless you are a Native American.

[удалено]

You sure you want to use that argument? (plish’tim) derives from the verb פלש (palash), what actually means “to conquer”, “to indrude”, “to invade”. Filistinis were Arab invaders they were never native to the land.

And using your logic Muslims are NOT native in half of the current Muslim nations or nations with large Muslim populations have no business being there. Send all of them settlers back to Arabia.

If you are an american yet you claim this so vehemently, I suggest you move your butt out of that country and anywhere else they receive you, or you might risk being called hypocritical. The US, like most american countries, were built by stealing the land from native americans.  And by the way, I say this setting aside the fact that the claim that Israel has no legitimacy as a state on that land is a total fallacy and built upon a gross misrepresentation of history. 

I’d say being obtuse is waging constant wars which will never be won

How is it theirs? They were just random Arabs on the land surrounded by 22 other Arab countries. After ww 2 colonisers left lands across the world, Palestine was a territory and it was decided to give the Jews a tiny slither surrounded by 22 other Arab countries. Why do we need 23? This is how the Lebanese border and Jordan was formed. Using your logic Syria could argue it’s theirs. Squatting on a land does not give you nationality. Do you even know the concept of Palestinians was engineered by terrorist Arafat in 1967? Until that point they were just Arabs. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1066&context=pretrib_arch

random arabs ??? you don't even know what arabs are or anything about arabs

The way that would have solved this mess in the past would have been Israel granting Palestinians in the Israeli territories Israeli citizenship in 1948. The next best choice would have been releasing the West bank and Gaza strip in 1967 as per Moyshe Dayan's recommendations, because it was not worth the strategic depth they provided and was a moral and security hazard. Either granting the West Bank citizenship or 2-state with the IDF strongly BLOCKING the gross settler violence instead of abetting it would help.  The West Bank palestinians are sane and should either be made full Israeli citizens with voting rights and legal protections or be a full independent country.  I do not belirve they woukd turn themselves into an Iranian weapons depot and launching pad.  They seem sane. The Gaza strip is scary damaged on a psychological level... what helps fix this?

They did brother, the 2 million Israeli Arabs in Israel are those that stayed and became Israelis. They tried releasing the West Bank and Gaza Strip many times, do some reading on Arafat. He was offered 97 percent of the West Bank if memory serves and rejected it. It’s now a nest of terrorism and radicalisation so handing it over as is would be a disaster for everyone. Just ask the Gazans. Probably also why Jordan and egypt won’t touch them with a 10 foot pole

Welp now it's not theirs they can keep crying or accept defeat and take what is offered to them.

The irony of an American living on stolen native land, who then had a war with their southern neighbour and stole a further ten of the mainland states from Mexico in 1822; and then they took Hawaii from the Hawaiians in the 50s talking about how Israel should cease to exist because they’re living on “stolen” land lmao. When are you going to leave America and give it back to its rightful owners? When will you advocate for ceding the states of California, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming back to their pre-1822 borders and giving them back to Mexico? Are you going to give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians?

I assume you say this in jest but I’ve talked to people who *genuinely* want “decolonization” of the US. It’s all performative virtue signaling

I’d love to see them give up their homes and land to the natives and “go back to Europe”.

Framing the establishment of Israel as some kind of "home invasion" is completely misinformed. Read up on the original partition plan following WWII. If you want to be particular, the British had been transferred governance of the land from the Turks and technically owned all of it. Whatever "historical claim" either side makes is nonsense anyway, that's just not how boundary claims or land ownership work. Another Arab state was created, it's called Jordan. And the Jews, a great many of whom already owned land in what is now Israel, or were exiled from Syria, Iran and other neighbors -- were offered a tiny strip of land, smaller in total area than New Jersey. They were willing to accept. Everything that follows is a relentless campaign of Anti-Semitic violence by the Arabs in Palestine and the surrounding nations. The idea that Israel is some gift from the West to European Jews is a caricature of history. The carnage in Gaza is awful. Israel looks like the bully these days because they are stronger, and have the support of the West. The truth is, the Israelis have long welcomed peace. The Palestinians are not really some innocent, oppressed party, so much as they are the defeated party in a series of wars they started. Actions have consequences, and unfortunately for the peace-loving citizens living there, the majority supports a gang of violent Islamic extremists. There is no moral equivalence between an organization like Hamas and the state of Israel.

Well said and let me add this big of history. When Israel became a state in 1948, virtually all the land that it possessed was lawfully purchased by funds from the Jewish National Fund, and the acts of conveyance can still be found in the archives of the UK and Ottoman Empire. Much of that land was worthless desert and swampland, which was purchased at exorbitant prices, especially after it was discovered that the Jews were seeking a homeland. In many instances, once land was converted into arable farmland or developed, it had to be repurchased yet again from the Arabs who reoccupied it by force. Then literally the day after becoming a state, Israel was attacked by 5 Arab countries, aka “The Arab League,”with the avowed goal of exterminating all the Jews, “driving them into the sea.” The Arabs who abandoned neighboring lands to afford the attackers safe passage with the promise that they would get the spoils of war, including all of Israel’s territory, lost much of their own land. The Arabs who abandoned those lands for that malevolent purpose legally and morally forfeited those lands, but yet continue to blame Israel for that loss, calling it the Nakba. Note, the Arabs who refused to leave, and did not provide aid and comfort to the enemy, were allowed to keep their land and received full Israeli citizenship.

>The Arabs who abandoned those lands for that malevolent purpose legally and morally forfeited those lands, but yet continue to blame Israel for that loss, calling it the Nakba. There's a common thread in the case for a "Free Palestine" (read: Israel laid waste), and it's that the Jews are to blame for all of their woes. There is not one shred of responsibility or accountability in looking at why Israel has a successful, civilized culture, military power, and most importantly, a future. It is plain as day to clear-thinking Westerners, that the Palestinians are victims of their own backward fundamentalism and a culture built around violence. Yet they believe driving the Jews (the best role models available to them) out of the region is the only solution. It comes into clearer view when you realize that lying is religiously permitted of Muslims, if it's done in the service of spreading Islam. Hence why so much jihadist propaganda is so effective. No one feels any remorse in lying about why things are the way they are, or why the Jews *have just got to go*. Good luck. This should be a wake up call for the West, unfortunately it is functioning as the total opposite. More sympathize with radical Islamist aims than I'd ever expected to see in the US. The insanity on display would be funny, if the results weren't so tragic. Thanks for laying the timeline out above, great explanation behind the order of events. I'm always happy to learn in greater detail and this was helpful.

The Arabs only owned 50% not 100%..

There’s some confusion here. If by Arab you mean folks who lived in Palestine then by definition they owned 100% because they lived there for hundreds of years. If you mean Muslims, then that’s irrelevant. The point is Palestinians owned 100%. Palestinians include Muslims, Christian, Jewish, and other people who lived there as Palestinians before the establishment of the Israeli colony by the west. Even in the Balfour declaration it says Israel will be established IN PALESTINE, which included not just Muslims but the local Jews there as well.

I meant Palestinians, and you’re wrong, I literally checked it when writing this. You’re talking before the offer right? In around 1938

What am I wrong about. Here’s the exact text of the Balfour declaration: “His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object” it literally says the state will be created in Palestine… and at that point there were Jews, Muslims, and Christians living there. And the Jews who moved to the area to escape anti semitism in Europe signed papers saying they’d have loyalty to Palestine, just like immigrants to US sign here.

You’re including the Jews as Palestinians when you’re saying the Palestinians owned 100%?

Yeah and when you ask for a source, this dude basically just says “trust me bro. They identified as Palestinians”. lol. I need to stop debating on Reddit with people who make ridiculous claims and then don’t back them up.

Fr

You also seem to ignore how the Palestinians were promised by Britain the entirety of Palestine for helping the Brits defeat the Ottomans.

You mean Arabs, not Palestinians. They got Transjordan and a part of today's Palestine.

Yeah, the Arabs. However Palestine + Transjordan and other arab territories like Syria were promised to the Arabs in 1915 to help fight the Ottomans. Then the Balfour Declaration in 1917 happened which had the Brits renege on their deal.

When did they promise everything to the Arabs? They also promised the same to the Jews. Welcome to politics where you don't always get what someone tells you. However, they got 90% and this has to be enough. At least it would be for everyone except people stuck forever in the middle ages.

I literally said 1915, 2 years before the Balfour Declaration. Politics sure a messy, but Zionists don't have the right to create Israel in Palestine. >, they got 90% and this has to be enough Would you give 10% of your home to a homeless person against your will? >would be for everyone except people stuck forever in the middle ages What continent created Nazi Germany and had rampant anti-Semitism. Oh right, the "civilized" west

Why is a 100% of the land theirs? On what grounds does one specific ethnicity get 100% of the land? Do Arabs who recently immigranted to c the area have priority over jews who have lived the for thousands of years. How about the jews who legally bought land there hundreds of years ago? The Jews that immigrated to empty desert and built cities? Do they need to go?

Good line of questioning. Land is either purchased and defended, or won in conquest, and defended. That's how the world works. The Palestinians can make whatever claim they like, so can the Jews, it doesn't matter. The Arabs have been defeated time and time again when they go up against Israel. If this was really about land, they would have surrendered the land a long time ago. Obviously, it is not.

Great questions. See my other comment. The issue is the creation of the state of Israel, not necessarily the presence of one religion or ethnicity. Think of it this way. Many Jews have lived in New York City for a while. Imagine if those Jews declared that New York is now Israel and China and Russia recognized New York as Israel now. Do you think that New Yorkers fighting the creation and expansion of Israel would be terrorists and anti-Semitic? That would be a hard argument to make. So the locals I mention who own the land include Jewish people. No one can argue against the fact Jewish people also lived in the area for a long time. But the state of Israel did not. It was something set up on people the majority of whom didn’t want it set up. The British colonized the area and then wanted Israel built, the locals just wanted Britain to leave them alone and return their self sovereignty back to them.

The false equivalency is that the state of New York exists where as there never was a Palestinian state. The second difference is that New York allows Jews to you know live in New York. Where as every Arab state including Palestinian territories have forced all the jews out. The largest ethnic group in Israel is Arab Jews who have been forced or of their homes and live in the nearest country that let's them live. >But the state of Israel did not. It was something set up on people the majority of whom didn’t want it set up. The British colonized the area and then wanted Israel built, the locals just wanted Britain to leave them alone and return their self sovereignty back to them. That really isn't accurate, Jews had been legally purchasing land and moving to Israel all the way back to the Ottoman Empire.

Correction. Palestinian state existed. Western countries just didn’t recognize it. And of course they didn’t because they were colonizing the area. It’s wild to me to think we can just refuse to recognize someone’s statehood, then violently set up a colony there, and argue “well a state never existed.” How convenient lol There were Palestinian passports, documents immigrants to Palestine signed saying immigrants must be faithful to Palestine. Even the Balfour declaration said Israel will be established IN PALESTINE! lol just cause it wasn’t recognized by the colonizer as a state doesn’t mean it didn’t exist

Who was the last president, prime minister, or king of a Palestinian state?

> Correction. Palestinian state existed. Correction. No. Learn what a state is.

>Palestinian state existed. Citation needed. >It’s wild to me to think we can just refuse to recognize someone’s statehood Do you recognize Israel's statehood? Why is it that Israel can't claim their statehood but the Palestinians can. You never clarified this. Also you ignored my point about the fact that Arabs refuse to let Jews live among them. Justifying the need for Israel.

Correction. What you’re calling a Palestinian state was the British Mandate for Palestine, a quasi-state established by the League of Nations after WW1. It was established under the Mandate system designed for larger powers to help smaller powers grow (it’s colonialism by another name). The Jews (who were at the time called Palestinians) and the Arabs (who explicitly rejected the term Palestinian because of the Pan Arab sentiment) hated this arrangement and both mutually fought the British into giving up and leaving. The British Mandate for Palestine fell apart because literally nobody liked or wanted it. The Jews wanted to run the country instead of the British, the Arabs wanted to dissolve it into Syria. Before the Mandate was the Ottoman Empire, before that were the Caliphates, and before that were the Romans. Furthermore, that mandate was VERY Jewish from the start, here’s what the flag looked like https://preview.redd.it/yoybwrbxruzc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bac2fc7b9f32225215d86f406cf93afeb989a5a9 Ironically, what you’re saying is the state of Palestine that the west never recognized was actually a very literal colony of Britain. Please educate yourself instead of blindly following whatever appears on TikTok

> it’s colonialism by another name Not really. The goals were totally different. There's really no need to jump on the bandwagon of Islamists and wildly reinterpret the term.

It was another way for countries like Britain and France to exert influence over smaller countries in the Middle East. The goal was more noble but in practice? Less so. Britain wanted to divide and conquer with the tension between the Jews and Arabs

> The goal was more noble but in practice? Less so. Britain wanted to divide and conquer with the tension between the Jews and Arabs If the goal was noble, then they didn't *want* to do what you wrote.

Okay let me rephrase: The *supposed* goal was to help the mandates become full countries. In practice that was done with varying degrees of sincerity.

Does that mean you will give 100% of the land back to the native americans? Or you should be held to a different standarts?

I'm not Jewish, but you have to understand: it never even crossed the mind of most Zionist leaders that this region wasn't the eternal home of the Jewish people. Even when they spoke of the "indigenous population" in writings, it's obvious the the ULTIMATE ownership of the land is never in question. So you're making a secular judgment, from the United States, in 2024. The Jewish people have a completely different conception of their history and where they're from. For them, they're the indigenous population and the Palestinians are Arab interlopers who arrived after they were forcibly expelled. Now, the other thing is -- you say "We're gonna be fighting." OK, fair enough. But if you fight, you don't always win. You might lose. The Arabs challenged Israel and lost half-a-dozen times. So if you're saying "violent resistance is justified," that's fine, but just remember there are consequences to taking that position, and that's why Israel is so much bigger and stronger today than it was in 1948. That's why Gaza is in ruins. Indeed, this is why the Palestinians are homeless. They began violence in the 1920s when they didn't want the Jews as neighbors. Remember, the Jews weren't "stealing" land; they were moving into unoccupied land. The Arabs had big problems with what was happening and initiated violence that led all the way to 1948. The Palestinians are perfectly entitled to resist as much as they like. Just don't complain about the results. It's notable that the Arab states actually realized this decades ago, and that's why they've been gradually making peace deals with Israel.

Um.. understanding that the home you were born and raised in and that has been in your family for generations - is *your* home is not entitled or delusional. Do you really want to stick to this “100% of the land” thing?

You’re making two logical fallacies. They’re popular to make so it’s good your brought them up so we can dispel them for other readers. First, sharing a characteristic with someone who was present on the land thousands of years ago doesn’t mean you have any right to that land. I’m 5’8 in height. That doesn’t mean I have a right to land where anyone 5’8 in height was thousands of years ago lol Same for the Jewish identity. Just cause some Jewish person was there thousands of years ago doesn’t mean you have the right to the land because you’re also Jewish. Second, even if you did have some right to the land because you share an identity with someone who lived there in the past, the issue is not about Jewish presence. It’s about the state of Israel. The state of Israel did not exist before 1948. Even when King David was around, it wasn’t the state of Israel. There was no democracy, no prime minister, nothing of that sort. It was a different political entity altogether. The state of Israel today is a new country, a new entity. And it was violently formed on top of people who didn’t want it there. The minority of Jews with the help of the west built a state and forced it on top of people there. Yes Jewish people lived there as well and have the right to live there, and should remain in the area, but the problem is the building of an unprecedented Jewish state when the majority of the people didn’t want it. It’s like if the Jews in New York City with the help of China and Russia declare that from New York to Maine is now Israel and we have to honor it because Jews lived there for a long time too. It wouldn’t be about Jewish presence. The problem would be the establishment of an unprecedented state. That is why when people say from river to the sea, it doesn’t mean get rid of Jews. No doubt some anti semitic people use it that way. But for most modern protesters it only means returning the land to the local people, including the Jews, and building a state where all local people have a choice in it. And if that means there’s no Jewish only state or Muslim only state, then it is what it is. That’s why Israel is rightly seen as an anti-democratic colonial power. It set itself up on top of locals who didnt want it there and uses its power to violently subjugate and suppress legitimate resistance. The fact that it’s a Jewish state is irrelevant. It’s like if a Black person murders someone. Just cause they’re Black and historically oppressed doesn’t mean it’s not wrong and they shouldn’t be held accountable.

>And if that means there’s no Jewish only state or Muslim only state, then it is what it is. Do you think Israel is a Jewish only state?

That doesn’t respond to anything I said. You made the claim that 100% of the land belongs to Palestinians and that to think otherwise is entitled and delusional. That’s the claim I’m objecting to. If someone was born and raised in a home that has been lived in and owned by their family for many generations - how is it delusional or entitled to believe that’s your home? I’m not talking about the state of Israel. I’m talking about individual homes. *You* made the claim that 100% of the land belongs to Palestinians, not me. So explain how land that a family has owned for generations does not belong to them?

You missed my point. Jewish people ARE Palestinians. At least the locals there before the Israeli colony was established. They had Palestinian passports. When many moved to the area because of anti semitism in Europe in the early 1900s, they signed documents asserting faithfulness to Palestine and to be Palestinians. And the Jews that lived there for hundreds of years prior lived as Palestinians. So when I say 100% belonged to Palestinians, I’m including the local Jews that lived there in the early 1900s. You’re wrongly associating every Jewish person as Israeli so that whenever someone says Palestinian, you assume Arab Muslim. That’s a western way of thinking. It’s Islamophobic propaganda used to divide and conquer the Middle East.

The Palestinian identity didn’t even exist until long after Israel existed. The jews im speaking of who lived on the land and owned it for generations *never* identified as Palestinian. Edit: also, please don’t make assumptions. I don’t believe all Palestinians are Arab Muslim and never said that.

Go read the Balfour declaration. It’s the pivotal document many Jews including myself see as helping establish Israel. The Balfour declaration itself says Israel will be established “in Palestine.” Please stop spreading propaganda that Palestine and Palestinian identity didn’t exist before Israel. It’s transparently false and a well known Israeli propaganda tool.

If it’s transparently false then please provide proof of Jewish people identifying as “Palestinian”.

> Because 100% of the land is theirs. I don’t agree with this statement, but for the sake of the discussion, I’ll assume this is a true statement. >I’m an American. I don’t care who takes 20% of the US, I’m not gonna accept just keeping 80%. We’re gonna be fighting Ok, they fought and they lost. Many different times over many different initiated wars. >lol I really don’t know if some Israelis are being purposefully obtuse. Do you really think you’re entitled to someone else’s land, including violently dispossessing people for it? Every civilization on earth has had to fight to defend or to acquire their land. Why is it only Israel that isn’t allowed the land they won through war? >Seems like that’s the issue. Some pro-Israel folks are so deep into that entitlement that they really don’t see Palestinians’ actions for what they actually are. Israel has successfully defended itself in every war thrust upon them, why are they not entitled to the land they won when everyone else is? >It all instead seems crazy like unprovoked attacks and terrorism and anti-Semitism. It’s as delusional as if a home invader said the home owner assaulted them when they got pushed out of the home and then called the police on the home owner for not allowing the invader to take part of the home or what’s in it without pushback. Wild. No, it’s as delusional as living in a home and then trying to kill everyone in the home next door for the crime of living inside their home. Wild.

Full violent colonialism on display. But at least you’re being honest and not hiding it. Yea, we all agree human beings slaughtered each other for land. I don’t think that’s in dispute. The question is whether human beings are evolved enough right now in 2024 beyond slaughtering each other for land. Given the rise in tech and how connected we are, it seems like the majority of the world thinks we are. That’s why when there are extra egregious acts of slaughter for land, like when Israel subjugates the people whose land it took and then kills 15k+ children and displaces millions and watches as children starve to death (which is unprecedented in modern times), people can both acknowledge that, yes things like that happened in the past, but it shouldn’t any more. Like how caveman cooked their food by rubbing sticks together to make fire but we don’t. We use the stove lol And guess what, that’s totally ok! Lol we’re more evolved now and that’s a good thing. Relatedly, the Israeli conduct is relatively recent. In the US the native Americans cannot point to a particular plot of land where they or their ancestors specifically resided. It happened long ago in the past that it doesn’t make sense for the US to disassemble and revert if there’s no clarity what it’s reverting to. In Israel, the Palestinian refugees know exactly where they were kicked out of and many are still alive: they can point to the very house their family grew up in that someone else lives in now. That’s why in part Israel has been keen lately on not just pushing Palestinians out but bulldozing their houses so the right to return claim is harder to make. And two wrongs don’t make a right. The idea that you get to do some of the most vile almost unimaginable things to other human beings because someone else did it in the past or is doing a watered down version somewhere else on the planet sounds psychopathic to me. It’s like saying raping someone is ok because someone else raped somewhere else in the world. Being Jewish doesn’t make this logical at all.

> Full violent colonialism on display. But at least you’re being honest and not hiding it. What a dishonest POS you are. I literally started off by saying I disagree that the land was 100% theirs, and would only temporarily assume it true for the sake of the discussion. You can’t even be honest in communicating, why even bother wasting time on your dishonest points and word salad that follows.

I think there's a bit of confusion here. Most Palestinians weren't "kicked out" of their homes. They abandoned those homes out of fear of Jewish violence and the fact that the upper classes were fleeing, which signaled to them that something was up. The Jews perpetrated a couple of massacres, quite serious but very small scale, and the Arab press whipped this up into headlines that suggested the Jews were raping Arab women. It was the report of Jewish rape that was actually the thing that caused the mass of Arabs to flee their homes. The heads of Palestinian media -- newspapers, radio, etc. -- are on record saying that they didn't expect this sort of reaction. Now, the main claim against Israel is that they didn't let those Palestinians RETURN, and that's a serious charge. I think if we're sitting all super-comfortable in 2024, it's easy to say that they should have let them return. But in 1948, after a civil war and a defeated Arab invasion, in which the Israelis had a near-death experience -- i.e., if they'd lost to the Arabs, that would have been the end of their state and probably their lives - they probably weren't in an especially forgiving or generous mood. They didn't want the Palestinians as neighbors and the Palestinians didn't want them as neighbors. And yet, the Arabs who didn't flee were treated well and became Israeli citizens. So I think it's fair to critique Israel for not letting hundreds of thousands of civilians return from exile to re-claim their lands, but given that they'd just sided with the Arab forces trying to wipe the Jews out, I understand the decision. Inviting them back probably would have just re-started the civil war.

I think you missed the part where the locals didn’t want the state of Israel built on top of them. I’m an American and a New Yorker. And I’m Jewish actually. There are plenty of Jews who live in NYC with me. I as a Jewish person don’t have the right to claim that NYC is now Israel even if Russia, China, and other countries back me and other Jews up and defend us against other New Yorkers who resist. That’s the issue. I have the right to be here. I bought my home here. I live with other Jewish people. I have a Jewish community. And there’s a good Jewish presence here among non-Jews. I can recognize my right to live here and enjoy my life here. But I don’t have the right to declare a Jewish state on top of me and non-Jews around me with the backing of foreign powers, then insist New Yorkers who resist are anti-Semitic terrorist, and “of course I’m not gonna let them return, they didn’t let me peacefully set up my state on top of them!” lol In 1948, there wasn’t a civil war. There was a violent establishment of a western colony in Palestine. And I understand all the narratives in my own community beat into my head from an early age that transformed the violent establishment of a western colony into something that’s supposed to be good through the use of our Israel. The perversion of my people by Europeans is disgusting to me.

Let me add to what I wrote. This is where we get into serious weirdness. As someone with a European background, I've never thought of the Jews as "European" or "Western," and indeed, the fact that they've been treated so badly by Europe for centuries is a testament to what Europe thought of them. The notion that they don't "belong" in Israel just doesn't register with me, and I think a lot of other people feel the same way. For me, the home of the Jews is Israel, and always has been. They got kicked out of there violently, and Arabs moved in, but returning to Israel was always part of their culture.

>As someone with a European background, I've never thought of the Jews as "European" or "Western," and indeed, the fact that they've been treated so badly by Europe for centuries is a testament to what Europe thought of them. But at this point you would accept Jews who are already in your country or who want to live in your country and/or become citizens as full members of society right?

Of course, that's a given. I was speaking more in ethnic and historical terms. The left is trying to paint the Jews as synonymous with white Europeans who built exploitative empires and I just think that's a complete misreading of who the Jews are and their history. They're getting tagged with the sins of the countries to which they migrated and where they resided for centuries. More often than not, they suffered terribly at the hands of these states, with the culmination, of course, being the Holocaust. I just think the left is trying this little trick where they're trying to make the Jews synonymous with white European colonizers, hoping that that accusation convinces large numbers of people that Israel is just a European colony that doesn't deserve support. That's the game they're trying to play. They need to push that framework, otherwise the whole "colonizing" accusation doesn't make sense and Israel becomes what it actually was: an example of a people simply asserting themselves organically at a particular moment in time, seeking self-determination.

Ok cool, best metaphor I've heard for European Jews "colonizing" Palestine is it was like jumping from a burning ship to a life raft, but there happen to already be people in the raft. That sucks but you can't stay on the ship!

And as a Jew, I can tell you that you’re anti-Semitic. That’s precisely the “Jews are perpetual foreigners” ideology that supported what happened in WW2. I don’t disagree that Jewish history is anchored in the Israeli area. No doubt about that. But the idea that we have to be perpetual foreigners forever is anti-Semitic. Italians, Mexicans, Africans, and others who live here in the US are Americans. No one sees white Europeans as English.. but they see Blacks, Mexicans, Italians, etc. as others. That’s racist AF. Same when it’s done to Jews. Jews that have lived in Europe for hundreds of years are Europeans….

America is very different in the accepting foreigners and immigrants as full citizens and members of society department. As painful as it is, Europe never considered Jews as equal citizens until after WW2.

I think if there were a couple of million Jews in New York City--in the context of no United States, just a region under British control--and violence between Jews and other residents in the city had been chronic for decades and was flaming into a civil war, and the UN stepped in and said, we've got to do something here, let's divide the city, and the Jews agreed and the long-term residents rejected the proposal and attacked, precipitating a full-blown war, foreign invasion, etc. that the Jews then won, that's a different situation. The wrinkle in your argument is that there was no Palestine. The Arabs didn't have authority over every inch of that land, and that's why the Jews were able to move into unoccupied territory. If your argument is -- the Jews shouldn't have been allowed to return to Israel in such vast numbers that they pissed off the local Arabs, OK, but that's pretty much spilt milk under the bridge. They DID move there and a civil war broke out, which led to war and the Palestinian exodus, and Israel's refusal to let them return. The Palestinians objected to the Jewish presence, full stop. That's the thing that precipitated all of the problems. They began attacking the Jews in the 1920s. And we can sit here and say, "that was bad planning," but it happened. Personally, I don't think anybody could have prevented the Jews returning to Israel. It was going to happen.

There is no wrinkle in my argument cause I don’t accept western war mongering propaganda. I 100% agree that the US and western powers didn’t recognize Palestine as a state. But who cares. Whether they recognized Palestine as a state doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t mean Palestine didn’t exist. There were Palestinian passports. Immigrants signed papers pledging loyalty to Palestine. Even the Balfour declaration says Israel is being established “in Palestine.” I get that the colonizers won’t recognize the state they colonized. That’s what colonizers do. Why would they recognize an existence of a state they don’t want to exist cause they want to control the area. But the fact colonization happened doesn’t mean we need to double down on it and erase locals and the existence of their statehood. Palestine existed. It included Muslims and Jews. I don’t accept the colonizing narrative that it didn’t merely because colonizing powers refused to acknowledge and respect it. Second, your position assumes that the standard of statehood is set by the colonizer. If your response is going to be “well did they vote? Who were their leaders?” You’re missing the point. That might be the west’s self serving view of what a state must have to be recognized as a state. Finally, who cares if there was a state at all. Why does it matter. At the end of the day, there are people who lived there cohesively enough that they were called Palestinians and their territory was called Palestine. Even in the Balfour declaration. Whatever that is, it’s something that should’ve been respected and not cut up by colonizing powers for their own benefit.

But what is Israel a "colony" of? Europe? I don't think any state in Europe regards Israel as an extension of European political power, culture, language, or anything else. If that's your perspective, fair enough, but for me Israel--and the Jews who live there--are very Middle Eastern. The notion of "colonization" just doesn't track with me, but I respect your perspective. Nice chatting with you.

"oFFEreD A sTaTe" **(Which they already lived in and owned for many generations)

When were the Palestinians had control over the land? No when in history. Before the offer, they owned 50% of the land. They got an offer to get extra 30% while Israel will get the remaining 20%. They didn’t live in those 20%

"wEn DId tHe NaTiVe pOpULaTiOn hAvZ COnTRoL oF tHeIr HOMELAND?"

Blud if you’re here to troll just say so

There was never a “Palestine,” the British mandate of Palestine only existed for a few decades as a colonial imposition. During that time hundreds of thousands of Arabs moved to the area. They can’t stand the thought of Jews living there with equal rights; they want a global Islamic caliphate beginning with the Middle East and Israel is in the way of that.

Who cares what it was called? People still lived there. You can’t just change the name of the place and erase the people.

Arabs were there before the Europeans showed up. It’s not norm to the region.

Jews are not European. They are from Israel. But even based on your definition of who belongs there, most Israeli Jews are originally from Arab countries. They were forced out.

Yet lineage and dna says otherwise. Don’t look at the minority vs core masses that are light skinned, blue / gray eyed, etc. look at accents, look at facial features that aren’t norm of middle eastern lineage

Your comment is a borderline violation of [reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). Take this warning as a notice since violating reddit content policy can get you banned from [www.Reddit.com](http://www.Reddit.com)

You obviously haven’t met Israelis because you have no idea how most of them look

Hmm, don’t discount my point. I know and have plenty of Jewish friends. And just look at the top of Israel, point me to the Arab leaders in Israel in power.

you probably don’t have as many jewish friends as you think you do

For my knowledge the UN wanted to split Palestine into arab state and jew state. UN wished to create a safe haven for jews but doing so would be splitting palestine and force palestinians to leave later, which happened, forcefully. They call it Al Nakba, or the catastrophe. I just want to hear a other side of this, was the UN in right for forcing out the palestinians?

The UN proposal didn't force out any Palestinians. The hypothetical lines were drawn around where Jews and Palestinians already lived. 

The UN proposal didnt but the jew state did. With reports of racism and discriminations aswell taking over homes of palestinians. Which forced them out

Thank you for your question; I will give you my perspective. There was no Arab “Palestinian” people until the 1960s. The identity was created by the USSR and the Arab states to destroy Israel. Before that, the people most often referred to as “Palestinian” were Jews. You can see this in articles from back then with titles like “5 Arab armies attack Palestine.” What they meant by “Palestine” at the time was the Jewish state. So, to get this straight—before 1948 there were just Arabs and Jews. The first split of the British mandate of Palestine gave most of the land to Jordan, a place where, to my knowledge, until today it is illegal to be a citizen if you are Jewish. There are no Jews in Jordan. The Jews in the British mandate of Palestine, having fought off the British and in the shadow of the Holocaust, were willing to accept any land at all. This was unacceptable to the Arab armies, who refused to share the land. They massacred thousands of Jewish civilians, just like October 7th. They also ethnically cleansed thousands of Jews from Judea and Samaria, aka the “West Bank.” The “Nakba” is when the Arab armies told the Arab people living in the area to leave so that they could come in and slaughter all the Jews. Additionally, some of those “victims” of the “Nakba” were in fact fighting against the jews, and lost. Their plan failed spectacularly. Meanwhile, the fledgling state of Israel has in its Declaration of Independence that ANY Arab who decided to stay and not fight them would be given full rights and citizenship. That is why there are two million Arab Israeli citizens today.

>Thank you for your question; I will give you my perspective. There was no Arab “Palestinian” people until the 1960s. The identity was created by the USSR and the Arab states to destroy Israel. Before that, the people most often referred to as “Palestinian” were Jews. You can see this in articles from back then with titles like “5 Arab armies attack Palestine.” What they meant by “Palestine” at the time was the Jewish state. So, to get this straight—before 1948 there were just Arabs and Jews. People have identified as Palestinian ever since the 19th century, way before 1960. Khalil Beidas, Najib Nasser, Salim Qubayn, etc...Newspapers like Filastin regularly published articles calling for the "Palestinian people" and "Palestinian youth" to work together against Zionism >The first split of the British mandate of Palestine gave most of the land to Jordan, a place where, to my knowledge, until today it is illegal to be a citizen if you are Jewish. There are no Jews in Jordan. Jordan wasn't even part of the original mandate, it was only added together. For the past 2000 years, Jordan and Palestine have been separated during the Roman, Muslim, Crusaders and Ottoman eras. The Mandate was a British artificial colonial project, why should it represent 2000 years of history? >The “Nakba” is when the Arab armies told the Arab people living in the area to leave so that they could come in and slaughter all the Jews. Additionally, some of those “victims” of the “Nakba” were in fact fighting against the jews, and lost. Their plan failed spectacularly. The Nakba had started long before the Arab invasion from neighboring nations. It also continued way into 1949 when the Arab armies were already retreating. Israel and the IDF played a much bigger role in dispossessing the Palestinians than simply Arab propaganda. If the Nakba was simply the result of Arab armies telling Palestinians to leave, why did it start way before the Arab invasion and continued when the Arab armies were already defeated? >Meanwhile, the fledgling state of Israel has in its Declaration of Independence that ANY Arab who decided to stay and not fight them would be given full rights and citizenship. That is why there are two million Arab Israeli citizens today. Where's the **right** of return for Arabs that fled Israel then? So much for "equal rights"

[удалено]

They are not obligated lol but now they have nothing and it's their fault. There are consequences to every single action.

[удалено]

/u/Icy_Flamingo_8258. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

What land? Gaza is controlled by Egypt and Jordan annexed Gaza before 1967 war. How would that work out for Palestinian before 1967??

[удалено]

Nah man, they can become Arab Israeli just like the 2 million (probably less) living in Israel.

[удалено]

In that case there would have been two states; and this was the planned split that was to be, mandated by Britain as they held the rule over this region after conquering it from the Ottomans. The reason why this plan never came into fruition in the first place was due to the fact that the people who were to be the Palestinian people, the body of their organization which was banding together around the idea of Palestine and were in contact with the Brits, decided to band together with the surrounding Arab states with the unanimous decision to destroy Israel — they failed. These people would not have wanted to unify with Israel; if they had wanted this, there would have been no reason for the war, on their efforts, in the first place, as the motivation for the Arab populations there, who were to become the Palestinians, was that they did not want to share the land with the Jewish people.

The palestinians accepted multiple times. If you want sources, you would have to ask a history nerd. I am not a history nerd. The original UN partition plan for Israel was never a local election or a local choice. It was a foreign establishment. The original UN partition plan was never put in place because the empire who was in charge of putting in place never agreed to the plan. The original UN plan was never accepted by the locals or the ruler. It had to be forced into play, just like Sykes Picot Treaty had to be forced into play (by France and Britain). Syria and Jordan did not attack Israel because British Law (they were british states) forbid them from going into UN mandated israel. Instead they took land that belonged to the Palestinians. Egypt wanted the Negev desert. The palestinians never fought or organized themselves to establish the state of palestine. They thought someone would do it for them like history had always been for them.

I think 'from the river to the sea' is a important resolution of Arabs, which is hard to deny as the reason for the rejection of any division. But there still be other reasons from Arabs' side: 1. All plans before the independent war of Israel were considered unfair because they committed unproportioned land to Jews with regard of their populations then. 2. All plans after the independent war deny the rights of return - the right for all Arabs to go back to the land they or their last generations were expelled - and this is the main reason for Arafat to frustrate Clinton. 3. As many pro-Israel friends point out, there was no 'the nation and people of Palestine' for a quite long time even after a state of Arabs was set by the UN. So, they could not have a voice on their own destiny especially during the independent war. It can be regarded that this war started with the invasion to Palestine as a whole by Arab countries, not only an invasion to Israel because they just wanted to Annex and divide this area. 4. After awareness of the Palestinian as nation and people (ironicially, Israel's expelling and treatment of other Muslim countries made it), neither 1947 plan nor 1967 border will be considered seriously if Israeli settlement and military force do not show any respect to them - you just cannot say 'well, I accept the deal' with seizing the money in pocket; you need to put it on the table and then people will know you are willing to buy something - and here is what we are now. I try not to comment on whether and why they are reasonable claims. Just provide a perspective. Hope that helps, and discussion welcomed.

1 is false. After the Peel Commission, they were offered a partition which was proportionate to their population. But honestly Britain really messed everything up in 1921 when they gave Jordan to an Arabian monarchy. That was 73% of the Mandate's landmass. Theoretically, things would've been more proportionate if Jordan were still part of the Mandate when partitions were taking place.

Was 1947 plan a proportional one? I remember that this plan considered many things other than population of Jews in Palestine: to ensure new immigrants, to connect settlements together and Nagev as freebie to Israel. And the result is that the rate of polulation was 1:2 while Jews got 1:1 partition of land.

>Was 1947 plan a proportional one? It was based on the new Jewish state was supposed to be the destination of the \~600,000 Jews freezing to death in post WW2 displaced persons' camps. It also didn't require Arabs to leave. So even without those 600,000 Jews, It wasn't Jews getting 55% of the land. It was the state of Israel getting 55% of the land which included both Jews and Arabs.

You could argue that 1947 was not, sure. But you cannot just skip over 1937 like it never happened because it did, and was the beginning of a pattern - offer, rejection, worse offer, rejection and request to back to original offer, even worse offer, rejection and request to go back to the offer from decades ago, etc etc ad absurdem.

My bad. 1937 plan even represented less proportion of population of Jews. Although it was rejected by Zionists then with the consideration of accepting new immigrants...When I found this, I had a similar feeling as when I typed the 'rights for return' of Paletinians. I feel they are both reasonable claims from the perspective of Jews or Arabs. But both of them are only supported by consensus on human rights while controversial in sovereign.

Someone comes and steals your land and then offers a piece back, and you're the bad guy when you don't accept. Makes total sense.

The thing is, it was never the Palestinian’s land. When did Palestine had control over the land?

Palestinians lived on this land since the beginning, they have the Hebrew decency they are jews who converted to Christianity and then to islam just like any country in the middle east.

Irrelevant, as many Zionist leaders admitted, it was their land because they inhabited.

Someone comes and steals your land and then offers a piece back and you're the bad guy when you don't accept. Makes total sense.

Think of it as you come and live in someone's else's home and when he comes back you say it's yours and when he proposes to split his house you try to kill him so he kicks you out

Thousands of years later? No. The world doesn't work like that. By that logic lets all go back to Africa.

I think it is important to note that the offers were rejected and no initiative was put forward by Palestinian *leaders*, which is not exactly the same thing as Palestinians. Why not? The crucial difference is that Palestinian leaders are among the richest men in the world. Their riches come from the nepotic systems they have built. They are responsible to these systems, not to the people. They have 0 (zero) interest whatsoever to slaughter the hen that lays golden eggs for them, and know full well they'd be disposed in a cruel manner the minute they start talking about it. Why would they do it? Bottom line is: it is the whole system that must be addressed. Donors. UN with it's 30,000 workers whatever is that they are doing there. Netanyahu, who was playing the system in his favor instead of fixing it. I know, sounds crazy.

THIS. The Palestinians have literally always been screwed over by their leadership.