“returning the lands” is literally denying Israel’s right to existance
I’d rather not take sides on this clusterfuck of an issue but I do want to point out that if your ancestors leave your homeland for hundreds of years and then you return, your claim to the land in a self-righteous ethnostate is a little questionable.
And then if you can hold that land against multiple invading countries at the same time and defeat them in six days, your claim is really fucking strong.
So that land is just Israel until they can’t hold it.
Well, morally questionable, that is. But yeah, anyone can be really strong when funded by a major world superpower.
No country (ethnostate especially) has a right to exist. The people have rights to live unmolested lives to the fullest (just like the Palestinians), but states have no rights.
Are we referring to the right to exist in ancestral lands where largely, the only claim to such lands are a millennias old religious text? The current occupants of said land have actual, clear historical precedence rooted in fact to occupy said land.
Also, as others have pointed out, I think it’s pretty clear that Israel could exist anywhere. The concept of a nation is largely driven by the shared collective of human experiences, culture, norms, and beliefs of the people that inhabit said Nation, not geographical boundaries.
Jews have always lived in that area (called Transjordan) and one of the reasons the British empire created the ethnostate of Israel was to stop another mass exodus of Jews happening. This time in a land where they have lived for thousands of years. Their claim is not different from the one of Palestinians.
There is plenty of archeologial and genetic proof that Jews are native to the area. It’s not simply a claim because of religion.
Palestine on the other hand was not happy with the decision from the beginning and didn’t want to accept sharing the land with a group that was a (not well liked) minority.
Now we know that probably Israel also wasn’t happy with the sharing, though they pretended to be (or perhaps they were, who knows). Because they proceeded to take land from Palestine.
There has never been a “Palestine”
The only country that ever tried to create Palestine was Israel.
Palestine can be anywhere. It doesn’t have to be on top of the Byzantine Empire territory. The land clearly belongs to Italy.
Where would you recommend they go?
The reason it is where it is now is because they were trying to find somewhere to go when fleeing the Holocaust, and literally everywhere said, “no, eff off” until GB was like, “here, go live in this colony that we have that’s kinda your ancestral homeland or whatever.”
No, they (both sides) need to respect the other sides historical right to the land and need accept that they might need to live beside each other if they want to live on that piece of land.
From wikipedia article on a city of Acre:
Today there are roughly 48,000 people who live in Acre. Among Israeli cities, Acre has a relatively high proportion of non-Jewish residents, with 32% of the population being Arab.
Now, how many Jewish residents there are in Gaza strip (after 2005 unilateral disengagement)? Which side seems to respect the other side historical right to live in peace?
Yea im not so sure about that when it has been Israel who has been taking more and more land.
I BET YOU JUST WANT EVERYONE TO STOP KILLING EACH OTHER.
YOU MUST WANT ISRAEL/PALESTINE/NO-ONE TO WIN YOU OUT OF TOUCH WESTERNER.
